Talk:Canada

Using lesser coat of arms or shield

Canada
Flag Lesser coat of arms

If we can not show File:Coat of arms of Canada.svg because of copyright we could use the lesser coat of arms that is used on letters patents as shown on the right, as it does not have the same copyright restrictions as the greater coat of arms. Using a country's lesser coat of arms in the infobox has precedent: the page Russian Empire used the lesser coat of arms from 2010 until 2025. Because the greater coat of arms is not available, why don't we use the lesser coat of arms instead of showing nothing. Alternatively, we could just use the shield in the coat of arms, which is in the public domain. Many other articles of countries/provinces/cities on Wikipedia use a heraldic shield in the infobox. Cyrobyte (talk) 21:59, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

I don't see how this would improve the article or serve to educate our readers in any way, it's just a decoration. Thanks for the thought but this isn't going to happen. The coat of arms camp is going to win eventually, we all know that, but we're not there just yet. Thanks, MediaKyle (talk) 22:07, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

Why do you think that it would not improve the article and that it is just a decoration? Almost every other Wikipedia article on countries, provinces, cities, etc. show a coat of arms, emblem, seal, or other such symbol, as they are important symbols of the country. Why do you think the article for Canada should omit the lesser coat of arms or shield if the greater coat of arms is not available? Do you think that all other articles on countries should also omit the coat of arms or does the article for Canada have a unique reason to omit it? Also, the Wikipedia community already would support adding File:Coat of arms of Canada.svg to the infobox of this article if copyright allowed for it, just like virtually every other country article on Wikipedia. What do you mean "we're not there just yet"? Cyrobyte (talk) 22:23, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

This has been litigated and relitigated, you're late to the party. Please see the archive index and do some reading. MediaKyle (talk) 22:26, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

None of them discussed using the lesser coat of arms. Why do you think that we should not use the lesser coat of arms? Cyrobyte (talk) 22:31, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

To me, it's just a decoration. Our article on the coat of arms doesn't even tell you what the "lesser coat of arms" is. I'm also just being realistic -- we can't come to consensus to include the regular coat of arms, so we certainly aren't going to use this one. If you did some more reading you'd find that not everyone agrees with the copyright concerns, and in fact, nearly every other language Wikipedia uses it... We're just special. MediaKyle (talk) 22:34, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

We didn't come to a consensus to use the "fake" version of the coat of arms because it differed from the official rendition, so it is viewed as incorrect. This version of the lesser coat of arms is not a "fake" alternative version and it is used on letters patents. Why do you view any coat of arms as "just a decoration" on the article for Canada, while virtually every other Wikipedia article on countries uses a coat of arms or other such symbol in the infobox? Do you think every Wikipedia article about a country should omit the coat of arms? Cyrobyte (talk) 22:43, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

Can we just stop with the endless coat of arms discussions for Canada? Anyway the coat of arms represents the sovereign and the government, not the country. This article is about the country not the government. Something representing the sovereign or governmental power doesn't represent the country. Canterbury Tail talk 22:46, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

So do you think that every Wikipedia article about a country should omit the coat of arms? Cyrobyte (talk) 22:53, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

Nice Straw man fallacy. A) coat of arms rules and usage are different in every country and B) we're talking about this article, not other articles. I express no opinion on other articles as this is the Canada article and not the place or relevance.

The fact is most of the discussions on this article talk page for the last several years has been about the coat of arms, to no conclusion. It's time to either get an outside opinion, or drop it. Canterbury Tail talk 01:13, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

Canada does not have an official "lesser coat of arms" in the way countries like Sweden or historically the United Kingdom and Russian Empire did. . Canada has a single, full Coat of Arms of Canada that is copyrighted.Moxy🍁 23:05, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

Moxy, the coat of arms is not copyrighted. If you are so insistent that File:Royal Coat of arms of Canada.svg is a copyright violation, then I don't know why you haven't nominated it for deletion on Commons. I simply don't understand why you're so adamant that all renditions of the coat of arms of Canada are copyrighted by the Canadian government, even if this were the case (it is not), this would not be so under American law and thus it could be hosted directly on enwiki per policy. If you really wish to repeat this claim of false basis and stick your head in the sand and ignore the universally held position on both enwiki and Commons, as well as in the Foundation itself (considering that Canadian prohibited marks are a non-copyright restriction), then you have every right to do so and I cannot stop you. It just doesn't seem constructive to me Respectfully dissenting, Coleisforeditor (talk) 14:14, 23 October 2026 (UTC)

Has been delete 2 times in 20 years basic info at Coat of arms of Canada#Copyright Moxy🍁 14:28, 23 October 2026 (UTC)

Having read the section, I believe it is, in lack of more polite language, complete bullshit. The first source is referring to prohibited marks, for the quoted section links to https://www.canada.ca/en/canadian-heritage/services/commercial-use-symbols-canada.html, which links to https://www.canada.ca/en/government/system/government-communications/federal-identity-requirements/legal-protection-official-symbols-government-canada.html for an explanation of the legal protection. This quotes 3 trademark numbers to prove this, 0972257 (for the colour rendition), 0972258 (for the b&w rendition), and 0907729 (for the b&w outline rendition). All three list the legal basis for their registration in the Canadian trademark database, which is as "Prohibited Mark; Arms, Crest or Flag", under Paragraph 9(1)(e) and (i) of the Canadian Trademark Act. So this is referring to a non-copyright restriction, being prohibited marks, and thus it is not a reason to block the hosting of these on Wikimedia servers. Afterwards, an old archived site of the Canadian Crown is cited, which makes no assertion that the arms are copyrighted. It correctly describes Crown Copyright afterwards, with the caveat that the arms themselves are not covered by Crown Copyright and the source (another old archived website of the Canadian government) does not assert this. Even if it did, as a non-independent primary source with no other citations to back it up, it is not good enough for such a claim. Then, it cites the Trademarks Act, which at no point makes any assertion that these items are copyrighted and instead describes them as prohibited marks which cannot be adopted "in connection with a business, as a trademark or otherwise". This is a non-copyright restriction and thus isn't relevant. Then, it cites the entire Canadian Copyright Act, which at no point even says the word "arms". Then, it cites a link-rotted article which I believe used to host https://www.canada.ca/en/government/system/government-communications/federal-identity-requirements/legal-protection-official-symbols-government-canada.html which I address above, and then it directly cites https://www.canada.ca/en/government/system/government-communications/federal-identity-requirements/legal-protection-official-symbols-government-canada.html again. Then it cites that link rotted article again, then https://www.canada.ca/en/government/system/government-communications/federal-identity-requirements/legal-protection-official-symbols-government-canada.html again, then it cites the Trademarks Act again. At no point does this section prove in any way that the arms are copyrighted and I think I will begin a discussion once I've finished here to either completely remove it or I will hugely rewrite it to reflect what the sources actually say.

Also, I can find no evidence that Sodacan's rendition was ever deleted from enwiki or Commons, and it was only first uploaded in September 2022. Respectfully dissenting, Coleisforeditor (talk) 15:29, 23 October 2026 (UTC)

• O'Grady, Sarah (2022-06-27). "Claim Canada: Restrictions on Commercial Use of Canadian Symbols". CPST.

Moxy🍁 15:41, 23 October 2026 (UTC)

This source makes no mention of copyright and correctly describes it as an "official" or "prohibited symbol" per the Trademarks Act.

Official Prohibited Symbols of the Government of Canada

Symbols such as the Coat of Arms of Canada, the CANADA and Flag Design mark, and the Government of Canada Signature are normally reserved for use by the Government of Canada, and their commercial use is prohibited in most instances, except to acknowledge financial support from the Government of Canada.

There are also numerous prohibited word and design marks for which the Government of Canada has sought protection under Section 9 of the Act (for example, the coats of arms of the various branches of the military). Accordingly, due care should be taken in adopting any design or trademark which could suggest a connection to the Government of Canada.

Respectfully dissenting, Coleisforeditor (talk) 15:45, 23 October 2026 (UTC)

Your free to try to convince the community at that File:Coat of arms of Canada.svg is not copyrighted. It is odd that the "Arms of His Majesty The King in Right of Canada" cant be used on "The Kings" page. Moxy🍁 16:01, 23 October 2026 (UTC)

I never said File:Coat of arms of Canada.svg is not copyrighted, I said File:Royal Coat of arms of Canada.svg isn't copyrighted and there is no copyright restriction on it (besides attribution and share-alike per the free licence it was released under) Respectfully dissenting, Coleisforeditor (talk) 16:03, 23 October 2026 (UTC)

This is the underlying problem...the conflict between copyright and usage. Commons and Wikipedia are conflicted on this. "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". So the overall debates...is the plagiarism overt or not? and does something similar to but off the mark in many respects like official colors etc warrant inclusion here? I think we've moved forward a little bit with having a nice copy of the arms in the symbols section. Moxy🍁 16:48, 23 October 2026 (UTC)

Both enwiki and commons agree perfectly, there is no contradiction between their positions. WP:SOSUMI and COM:SOSUMI are perfectly compatible and share the same meaning, WP:SOSUMI even links to COM:SOSUMI. If you create a depiction of the coat of arms of Canada, the copyright is not automatically owned by the Canadian Government, and an article on the Canadian Government's website about the use of prohibited marks by businesses does not change this. As I have already explained to you, the sentence 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 is not a law nor does it refer to copyright, it is a description of the legal enforcement of prohibited marks. Works that share the exact same protection under Canadian law include:

• the arms, crest or flag adopted and used at any time by Canada or by any province or municipal corporation in Canada; (ie the flag or arms of Canada and any Canadian province or municipality)
• the emblem of the Red Cross on a white ground, the emblem of the Red Crescent on a white ground, and the the Red Lion and Sun (the flags/emblems of the Red Cross)
• any territorial or civic flag or any national, territorial or civic arms, crest or emblem, of a country of the Union, any national flag of a country of the Union, or any armorial bearing, flag or other emblem, or the name or any abbreviation of the name, of an international intergovernmental organization, so long as these are on a list communicated under article 6ter of the Convention (in effect this means any flag or arms of a Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property signatory or any of their subdivisions, which makes up 181 countries and uncountable numbers of subdivisions, and also any intergovernmental org which a Paris Convention member unilaterally signed them up to)
• any scandalous, obscene or immoral word or device
• the portrait or signature of any individual who is living or has died within the preceding thirty years (ie any visual depiction of anyone alive or who died in the last 30 years)
• the words “United Nations” or the official seal or emblem of the United Nations
• any badge, crest, emblem or mark adopted or used by any of Her Majesty’s Forces, of any university, or adopted and used by any public authority in Canada
• any armorial bearings granted, recorded or approved for use by the monarch, or
• the name “Royal Canadian Mounted Police” or “R.C.M.P.” or any other combination of letters relating to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, or any pictorial representation of a uniformed member thereof.

All of these share the exact same legal protection in the trademark act as above. If you are asserting these are all by default copyrighted by the government of Canada under Canadian copyright law, then we have a very very large epidemic of copyright violations on our hands. Respectfully dissenting, Coleisforeditor (talk) 01:16, 24 October 2026 (UTC)

Allow me to suggest that we're getting nowhere with this and we should bring the matter of the legality of File:Royal Coat of arms of Canada.svg to WP:DRN; it seems to me that it is blatantly and obviously compliant with Commons guidelines, Wikimedia policy, the law, and the customary precedent on enwiki, but it is clear we need to establish a separate consensus on the matter, as a reading of the May 2025 RfC leads me to believe the weak consensus on not including it hinges on the assumption that it is by default copyrighted by the Canadian government. Respectfully dissenting, Coleisforeditor (talk) 13:16, 24 October 2026 (UTC)

@Moxy: I have opened a request on DRN; please see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Canada if you want to contribute your own summary. Respectfully dissenting, Coleisforeditor (talk) 21:07, 25 October 2026 (UTC)

This has been discussed so many times... Everything that can be said about the copyright status of the arms has already been said. Just wait until 2027, start another RfC, and maybe you'll manage to shoehorn your fancy image in there. Until then, you're just wasting time. MediaKyle (talk) 22:22, 25 October 2026 (UTC)

Residential schools

obviously I'm disputing the change about residential school information. I think best we link all our multiple Canadian articles on the topic.... Including the graves article as well as our genocide article.... Find it very odd there was delinking of our Canadian articles on this topic. Moxy🍁 22:22, 2 September 2026 (UTC)

You said that my edit had "too much detail", but you want to talk about gravesites but not provide a general one-sentence overview of residential schools? Cyrobyte (talk) 22:36, 2 September 2026 (UTC)

I would support adding a sentence about possible gravesites after the sentence that I wrote, but you said that what I wrote is already too much detail. Would you support that? Cyrobyte (talk) 22:38, 2 September 2026 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I wrote a sentence summarizing residential schools in Canada and how they are considered to be part of cultural genocide of Indigenous people, while removing a sentence under contemporary history about how mass graves may have been discovered at residential schools. I think that residential schools deserve a one-sentence overview, instead of a sentence about mass graves without any context about residential schools more generally. User:Moxy reverted my edit, saying that it is "is simply too much detail: and that "this is already mentioned twice in the article", but what I wrote and what was there are both one sentence and what I wrote only adds 15 words and is a more general overview. Also residential schools are not "already mentioned twice in the article", so I am not sure what that refers to. Cyrobyte (talk) 22:30, 2 September 2026 (UTC)

Sorry as I was writing this Moxy's comment was posted. Cyrobyte (talk) 22:33, 2 September 2026 (UTC)

Your saying less overall about the topic as a whole..... You're just giving a quick overview of a time frame and in the process giving our readers less information about modern day controversies and for some odd reason unlinking the Canadian related articles. Land displacement, genocide etc is all in the article spread out as a whole... and in some cases mentioned twice. This FA article is very scrutinized for being accurate and leading to Canadian related articles that Canadians have made to supplement this page and others. Moxy🍁 22:39, 2 September 2026 (UTC)

You said that my edit "is simply too much detail" and now you are saying that it does not include enough detail. Which one is it? Would you support adding a sentence about gravesites after the sentence I wrote? Cyrobyte (talk) 22:44, 2 September 2026 (UTC)

historically it would now be in the wrong section and just be more wordy for the same information. We simply can't present every topic like a lead sentence we need to say much more in sentences in this giant overview article. Why are you unlinking the Canadian articles? Moxy🍁 22:45, 2 September 2026 (UTC)

So you would support adding a sentence about possible gravesites after the sentence I wrote in a different section? That would include a link to the gravesite article. Cyrobyte (talk) 22:48, 2 September 2026 (UTC)

NO ..... Make up a proposal and see what others think make sure you at least link the Canadian articles. Moxy🍁 22:49, 2 September 2026 (UTC)

Why would you not support it? Cyrobyte (talk) 22:52, 2 September 2026 (UTC)

As outlined above Moxy🍁 22:53, 2 September 2026 (UTC)

Because it has too much detail or because it has too little detail? You are being self-contradictory by arguing that it has both of these problems. Cyrobyte (talk) 22:56, 2 September 2026 (UTC)

Your say more about residential schools... as in giving them a time frame.. but completely omit the modern-day controversy about the graves (that we explain has been highlighted in recent times). So you're saying more about one thing and completely removing information about something else so ....yes.....you're saying more but giving our readers less information and in the process linking our readers to generic articles over the Canadian ones. In my general view it was simply a bad edit that was done in good faith.Moxy🍁 23:00, 2 September 2026 (UTC)

I asked you if you would "support adding a sentence about possible gravesites after the sentence I wrote in a different section?", which does not have problem about not talking about gravesites. What is your problem with the compromise that I proposed? Cyrobyte (talk) 23:03, 2 September 2026 (UTC)

As outlined above simply too wordy for the same information. You're compromised proposal is to keep the same sentence in and add another one.... That's not a compromise in any way. Moxy🍁 23:05, 2 September 2026 (UTC)

It is a compromise because you lamented that my edit did not link to or talk about gravesites, and I am proposing to add a very similar sentence to what was there before that does have the information and the links that you want. Also what do you mean it is the "same information"? What I wrote provides a general summary of residential schools, and what you want to keep is a sentence about gravesites at residential schools without any context about residential schools. Now I am proposing that we add my sentence in addition to the existing information about gravesites. It does not make sense to talk about residential schools in a sentence about mass graves while having no context to what residential schools were. Cyrobyte (talk) 23:12, 2 September 2026 (UTC)

This is how FA overview articles are written ....we don't explain every term that we link..we let links explain if our readers are interested in said topic. Just as we say "Somalia, resulting in an incident that has been described as "the darkest era in the history of the Canadian military"."..... We don't explain what the Somalia affair is here, nor do we explain the Oka crisis..... Sometimes we may have some qualifiers so people understand the context but there's no need to explain here who funded them, who operated them, how long they existed etc. Moxy🍁 23:20, 2 September 2026 (UTC)

Why should the article not mention residential schools in general, even with one sentence that briefly talks about them and that they are considered to be part of cultural genocide of Indigenous people and, at the same time, exclusively, mention that there are potentially mass graves there and that that highlights the cultural genocide. Residential schools are an important topic to the history of Canada, so I believe that there should be 1-2 sentence that give an overview of them, instead of 1 sentence about mass graves that has no context. This article does not mention the context of the Somalia affair and Oka crisis as they did not occur in Canada, so only the Canadian response to them is relevant, but residential schools are very relevant to Canadian history. Cyrobyte (talk) 23:29, 2 September 2026 (UTC)

Will let others reply at this point. On a side note....perhaps you should click on okra crisis before replying. Moxy🍁 23:34, 2 September 2026 (UTC)

Sorry, I went to the article and I misread the article and thought you were referring to when it talks about peacekeeping in Somalia.

Anyway, I do not think that there is any point continuing this discussion, given that, among other reasons, you have openly said that you have no respect for me and that I am a liar. I will start an RfC about whether to keep the previous version, use the version that I edited, or to use the sentence I wrote in addition to a sentence similar to the one that is currently in the article about gravesites. Cyrobyte (talk) 23:42, 2 September 2026 (UTC)

Sounds wonderful make sure you link the Canadian related articles in your proposal please. Moxy🍁 23:45, 2 September 2026 (UTC)

I would support including both sentences as such:

The Canadian governement also funded Indian residential schools administered by Christian churches in the 19th and 20th centuries, which have been considered to be part of a cultural genocide against Indigenous people due to forced assimilation. In 2021, possible gravesites of Indigenous children were found near former Canadian residential schools, highlighting the cultural genocide against Indigenous peoples.

What do other people think of this?

Also, I do not understand why User:Katzrockso said that this "water[s] down the cultural genocide by attributing the claim", as the claim is not attributed to anyone, and I do not understand why they believe I am "promoting a FRINGE POV". I am not attempting to promote any biased point of view and I don't appreciate that I am being assumed to be acting in bad faith.

Cyrobyte (talk) 21:43, 6 September 2026 (UTC)

To be up front: I have not read the whole back and forth above. Just commenting on the proposed language directly above.

I agree with Cyrobyte that we need something more than just the mass graves issue—important to mention it but just mentioning that falls into a recency trap.

So with respect to the text above, I like it... links to several related articles and puts the mass graves issue into context, plus give some context to the Canadian government's historical relationship with Indigenous people.

Small tweak in italics:

The Canadian governement also funded Indian residential schools administered by Christian churches in the 19th and 20th centuries, which have been considered to be part of a cultural genocide against Indigenous people due to the institutions' use of forced assimilation. In 2021, possible gravesites of Indigenous children were found near former Canadian residential schools, highlighting the cultural genocide against Indigenous peoples.

More complete/clearer. —Joeyconnick (talk) 22:16, 6 September 2026 (UTC)

The first mention or genocide could drop the cultural part...... as in Canada it's generally considered a genocide all around.... With the residential school specifically being referred to as cultural genocide but overall the term genocide is now being used. And if we go for something like this I'll get real sources.Moxy🍁 23:43, 6 September 2026 (UTC)

Joeyconnick pls review... Moxy🍁 14:48, 7 September 2026 (UTC)

I think we should give Cyrobyte a chance to reply. I've fixed the technical and MOS:EGG issues in your recent edits, Moxy, but I haven't had a chance to review what you added/changed re: residential schools but haven't reviewed the content-related changes as yet. How about we give it a few days so others can weigh in? —Joeyconnick (talk) 01:34, 8 September 2026 (UTC)

We can move on ....all good. Moxy🍁 15:12, 8 September 2026 (UTC)

I am ok with this version. I am happy we were able to come to a compromise. Cyrobyte (talk) 02:04, 9 September 2026 (UTC)

References

RfC: Residential schools

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.

---

How should residential schools be mentioned in this article?

• A: the status quo, with one sentence reading "In 2021, possible gravesites of Indigenous children were found near former Canadian residential schools, highlighting the cultural genocide against Indigenous peoples."
• B: this version, with a different sentence reading "The Canadian governement also funded Indian residential schools administered by Christian churches in the 19th and 20th centuries, which have been considered to be part of a cultural genocide against Indigenous people due to forced assimilation." instead of the other sentence.
• C: A version that would incorporate both the new and old sentence, including all links to other articles.

Cyrobyte (talk) 00:05, 3 September 2026 (UTC)

• I support B or C becauase I believe that residential schools are an important enough subject in Canadian history to have 1-2 sentences explaining them, instead of 1 sentence talking about potential gravesites without context about what residential schools were. Cyrobyte (talk) 00:07, 3 September 2026 (UTC)
• Obviously I support A status quo as outlined above #Residential schools based on the rationale of WP:DETAIL. On a side note nominator should have read over WP:RFCBEFORE (a few hours?).Moxy🍁 00:13, 3 September 2026 (UTC)

  I know that you have openly said that you have no respect for me and that I am a liar, but I did read it over and, in addition, when I told you that I would make an RfC you said that that "sounds wonderful". Cyrobyte (talk) 00:19, 3 September 2026 (UTC)

  I was hoping this time you actually read up on the topic....O well let's see what others have to say ...but now you know. Moxy🍁 00:21, 3 September 2026 (UTC)

  Nice ad hominem and personal attack Cyrobyte (talk) 00:24, 3 September 2026 (UTC)

  I don't appreciate you engaging in ad hominem personal attacks and passive aggression. Cyrobyte (talk) 00:25, 3 September 2026 (UTC)

• I think it is not an either/or situation. Neither are completely right. A or something similar belongs where it is now, but mention it set off the orange shirt phenomenon.. B or something like it belongs in the Indigenous peoples section, explaining the genocide/assimiliation mentions. Alaney2k (talk) 01:24, 3 September 2026 (UTC)

A or a modified C that doesn't water down the cultural genocide by attributing the claim and promoting a FRINGE POV. Katzrockso (talk) 01:37, 3 September 2026 (UTC)

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.

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 15 September 2026

Unprotect this page so I can allow to edit. ~2026-49249-56 (talk) 17:09, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

 Not done: requests for decreases to the page protection level should be directed to the protecting administrator, or to Wikipedia:Requests for page protection if the protecting administrator is not active or has declined the request. Day Creature (talk) 17:43, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

Population estimate

Just a minor correction: the new population estimate in the infobox is for 2026 Q3 (July 1, 2026), not 2026 Q2. By the way, Statistics Canada now uses the specific reference date rather than the quarter designation. ZeusMinerva25 (talk) 00:05, 26 September 2026 (UTC)

No it's Q2. Can't have a Q3 estimate as Q3 isn't over yet. If its from July its based on the data for the end of Q2. Canterbury Tail talk 00:44, 26 September 2026 (UTC)

The estimate dates are as of January 1, April 1, July 1, and October 1. Before the recent estimate, the estimates were reported as Q1, Q2, Q3, and Q4, so the April 1 estimate was reported as Q2. See the page as reported last week: https://web.archive.org/web/20260920030743/https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/t1/tbl1/en/tv.action?pid=1710000901 ~2026-51681-51 (talk) 00:50, 26 September 2026 (UTC)

Indeed. Therefore, the July 1, 2026 estimate is Q3. ZeusMinerva25 (talk) 01:30, 26 September 2026 (UTC)

three coasts and into three oceans

article reads: Canada[a] is a country in North America. Its ten provinces and three territories extend from the Atlantic Ocean to the Pacific Ocean and northward into the Arctic Ocean.

it should say either Canada[a] is a country in North America. Its ten provinces and three territories extend from the Atlantic Ocean to the Pacific Ocean and northward to the Arctic Ocean. or Canada[a] is a country in North America. Its ten provinces and three territories extend to the Atlantic Ocean, the Pacific Ocean and the Arctic Ocean, and into each of these oceans.

yes the old "from ocean to ocean" is a meme but still Canada has three oceans and islands in each of the three oceans.

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 28 September 2026

Add the missing information: The coat of arms.

Use this coat of arms image:

File:Coat of arms of Canada.svg ~2026-52334-18 (talk) 13:04, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

 Not done: Not a free image. CMD (talk) 15:14, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

Why can't we use the coat of arms in the infobox?

Forgive me for restarting this conversation, but I don't know why we can't use the image if it's hosted on Wikipedia anyway. I've seen some copyrighted images used across Wikipedia, but usually at a lower resolution or only once in an article. So, why can't we make the same exception for this article? UltraCobson (talk) 20:39, 17 October 2026 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2013_July_19#File:Coat_of_arms_of_Canada.svg. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:07, 18 October 2026 (UTC)

Canada spoken Wikipedia audio file is AI generated text-to-speech

Project Spoken Wikipedia participant here. The Spoken Wikipedia audio tag for Canada (which is in the article somewhere, usually near the end) points to an AI-generated text-to-speech file. These are disallowed from Project Spoken Wikipedia. I don't have extended protected to be able to edit it (I should go figure out how to do that). Could someone else who does have extended protected please remove the {{Spoken Wikipedia}} tag that is in here. Thank you. See also Presumptive_removal_of_AI-generated_content morrisjm (talk) 00:10, 31 October 2026 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and removed it from the article. —Joeyconnick (talk) 17:13, 1 November 2026 (UTC)