DZ
DefZone.Net

Kien thuc cong nghe & giai tri

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

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 18 September 2025

[edit]

Either add the coat of arms to the infobox or add a link to the article for the coat of arms of Canada to the infobox. All other articles for all other countries on the English Wikipedia have their coat of arms for their respective infoboxes on their respective pages. Stunts1990 (talk) 01:56, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done. The official rendering of the coat of arms can only be used in Coat of arms of Canada under WP:NFCC policy, please see Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2025 March 2#File:Coat of arms of Canada.svg. NotJamestack (talk) 12:52, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

About the coat of arms

[edit]

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)[reply]

Can we add this to the top:

[edit]
Not to be confused with Kannada.

Just as the opposite (Kannada includes {{confused}} pointing to Canada) exists? Faster than Thunder (talk | contributions) Tamil speakers: Contribute here 19:22, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Done –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 19:25, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Just seeing this now I didn't realize it was a discussion.... I remove this because long ago we discussed it and put it in Canada (disambiguation)....along with every other possibility that's come up (added to the top) over the years to avoid hatnote spam. This format related to accessibility is based on two concepts... WP:HATNOTERULES = "Ideally, limit hatnotes to just one at the top of the page or section" and WP:RELATED "Disambiguation hatnotes are intended to link to separate topics that could be referred to by the same title, of the article or any of its redirects." Moxy🍁 23:17, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder whether we should start a discussion about whether to include:
Not to be confused with Kannada.
at the top of the article. Faster than Thunder (talk | contributions) Tamil speakers: Contribute here 03:32, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Think it should be excluded, per Moxy. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:37, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
100% agree it should be excluded. —Joeyconnick (talk) 16:47, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking of the coat of arms

[edit]

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[b]

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

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

This issue will not be resolved by philosophical arguments here. Neither is it solved by offering a "reasonable facsimile". In order to use a copyright image we need permission from the copyright owner. In this case that is the Canadian government. Until we have that, no amount of sophistry is going to change the situation. Mediatech492 (talk) 10:42, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia has a non-free content policy, take a look at it. Candidyeoman55 (talk) 11:22, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It is conventional to provide a link when you request someone look at off-article wikipedia content. Mediatech492 (talk) 09:12, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Non-free content; Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria. Candidyeoman55 (talk) 09:23, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
To quote the [[Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria]] : "Non-free content must be a work which has been published or publicly displayed outside Wikipedia by (or with permission from) the copyright holder". Mediatech492 (talk) 07:37, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In the Qatar case, the coat of arms is copyrighted, and the copyrighted version only appears in 2 articles: the article "Qatar" (in the info box), and the specific page "Coat of arms of Qatar". Elsewhere, a free version is used.
This is also the approach with copyrighted flags.
The non-use of the coat of arms of Canada here misleads people into thinking the country doesn't have one. Candidyeoman55 (talk) 08:39, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Mediatech492, I think you've misunderstood the quote I'm afraid. That's just defining non-free work. That quotation doesn't mean that permission must be sought for Wikipedia - it means that the work must have been displayed *outside* Wikipedia with the permission of the copyright holder. So for example, displayed on a building or a published document. Dgp4004 (talk) 10:54, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What I meant is that the approach I described is the approach of English Wikipedia. English Wikipedia only follows US copyright law. Non-free content cannot be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons. Candidyeoman55 (talk) 10:58, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Candidyeoman55, I would appreciate it if you would give this a rest. I think most of us are tired of this discussion. Try another RfC in six months to a year. Cheers, MediaKyle (talk) 13:04, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I recommend removing the infobox, unlike Politics of Israel, Politics of New Zealand, etc. Absolutiva 04:02, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Why? Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 04:28, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It is not needed for fewer politics-related articles. But well-known examples like Politics of Australia does not have an infobox without given consensus. Absolutiva 05:01, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Never remove the country infobox in articles about countries. It will be reverted. It has data unrelated to the coat of arms.
The fact that other countries do it differently is irrelevant. We could just as easily argue that those countries should have infoboxes for their politics articles because Canada does. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 14:31, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And it would be better to have this discussion on the Talk page for the article: Talk:Politics of Canada. Why raise it here? Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 14:44, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Because its off-topic article, my mistake. Absolutiva 12:12, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If it was for me, we would use the official coat of arms twice: At the article Canada (this one), and the article Coat of arms of Canada. Elsewhere, the free version would be used. Candidyeoman55 (talk) 09:48, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It would be consistent with how Wikipedia treats copyrighted flags and copyrighted coats of arms or emblems. Cases like Calgary, Edmonton, Seattle, Fort Worth, Cocos (Keeling) Islands, and others that didn't come to mind here. Candidyeoman55 (talk) 09:51, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, we know what your position is. It has not gained traction here, and the consensus does not accept your position. One of the principles of consensus is that editors should accept that their position has not gained consensus, not keep raising the issue. As MediaKyle said, please give it a rest. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 14:35, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Agreed. I'd love a moritorium on discussing this topic unless something new can be added. It's happened on other pages such as Ireland, Republic of Ireland and others. The last couple of years the coat of arms has just dominated the talk pages and conclusions seems to have been reached to exclude it. We need to either completely drop it, or have a final RFC that follows process that includes a discussion moritorium after the results one way or another. Canterbury Tail talk 15:30, 23 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I also support a moratorium on further discussions about the coat of arms for now. I think we should have another RfC in about a year, and hopefully next time it won't get so out of hand and can actually be closed. MediaKyle (talk) 15:34, 23 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I kinda expected someone would've proposed a moratorium someday. This doesn't seem to be changing much. Probably a good idea. kxeon  talk 21:25, 24 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 17 December 2025

[edit]
  • 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)[reply]

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)[reply]


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

  1. ^ Copyright Act, 1985, c. C-42, s. 12
  2. ^ "Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988: Section 171", legislation.gov.uk, The National Archives, 1988 c. 48 (s. 171), retrieved 3 August 2024