This article is written in Canadian English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, centre, travelled, realize, analyze) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Canada articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CanadaWikipedia:WikiProject CanadaTemplate:WikiProject CanadaCanada-related
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Countries, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of countries on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CountriesWikipedia:WikiProject CountriesTemplate:WikiProject Countriescountry
This article is within the scope of WikiProject North America, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of North America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.North AmericaWikipedia:WikiProject North AmericaTemplate:WikiProject North AmericaNorth America
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles that are spoken on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Spoken WikipediaWikipedia:WikiProject Spoken WikipediaTemplate:WikiProject Spoken WikipediaSpoken Wikipedia
This article has been viewed enough times to make it onto the all-time Top 100 list. It has had 106 million views since December 2007.
This article has been viewed enough times in a single year to make it into the Top 50 Report annual list. This happened in 2008, 2009, and 2010.
Please read before contributing The Canada article is already too long (oversized) and should serve only as an introduction for topics on Canada in general. To keep this overview article concise, please consider adding information instead to one of the many "main" articles about individual topics that link from this article, e.g. History of Canada, Culture of Canada, Canadian football etc. See Index of Canada-related articles for a complete listing of topics. Why? see Wikipedia:Article size.
Just my two cents: Trivia or not, it feels more symmetrical and nods to a rare geopolitical development between developed nations that previously only had one land border and now have two.
It feels more "complete" to expand the sentence from the lead like so:
I don't see it as too deeply irrelevant that it can't be slipped in to kinda balance out the sentence by noting its complementary geopolitical extreme. Cloudwalk9 (talk) 04:14, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
How is it irrelevant trivia when talking about the land borders of Canada? Canada does share a land border with Denmark now and hence should be included. TomTom7474 (talk) 20:55, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
According to Borders of Canada it shares one with France. However, the point is that mentioning the land border with Denmark requires that all borders, land or maritime, will require mentioning. CambridgeBayWeather (solidly non-human), Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva23:02, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No it does not. Canada only shares a maritime border with France (Saint Pierre and Miquelon). Saint Pierre and Miquelon is only controlled by France and hence no land border, only a maritime border. By contrast, Canada and Denmark shares a land border through Hans Islands as both control the island. Both countries also have a maritime border (Hans Island and Greenland). As a result, Denmark fits the criteria for both so it should be mentioned… TomTom7474 (talk) 00:54, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You're missing the point. It doesn't matter if the land border exists or not. If you mention the land border on Hans Island then you need to mention all the borders, including the maritime borders with Greenland (Denmark), France, the United States, and Russia. If the maritime boarders are too trivial to mention then so is the land border on Hans Island. Those maritime borders are far more important than a minor bit of land on an uninhabited island. CambridgeBayWeather (solidly non-human), Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva01:21, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah the maritime borders should also be mentioned. On other wiki pages for countries, maritime borders are mentioned so both land and maritime borders for Canada should also be mentioned. TomTom7474 (talk) 15:38, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I stand corrected. The proper update was done by Remsense. Modify the common name params. It seemed that the iso3166code param was the most straight-forward change. There was some intent there not clear in the docs., IMO. Anyway, it's useful when implementing address storage in databases. I've used the ISO codes myself when supporting such a database, and looked them up here on Wikipedia. Alaney2k (talk) 17:15, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. (it was needed for consistency of countries infoboxes)
It seems facially unacceptable to me to use non-free media so we can have the "official rendering" of Canada's coat of arms. File:Royal Coat of arms of Canada.svg is exactly as correct a representation of the arms, and aesthetic preference or anachronistic sense of "official correctness" in a medium where it does not belong is not adequate reasoning for use of non-free media. Its use in any article other than Coat of arms of Canada is explicitly a violation of even its stated free use rationale.Remsense ‥ 论23:06, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Moxy no number of previous discussions give you permission to violate the explicit parameters of the stated rationale of a piece of non-free use media. Remsense ‥ 论23:26, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Local consensus doesn't trump our copyright policy. Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose.Remsense ‥ 论23:30, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure I trust your judgment in our copyright rules as the same argument has come up many times before..... will default to the past two decades of discussions about how a user generator version simply isn't the official representation of a major symbol of the country. Moxy🍁23:46, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Arms are not a modern corporate logo. A blazon describes arms, and any rendering accurately adhering to the blazon is a correct representation of those arms. Remsense ‥ 论23:50, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure how many times we have to say the same thing..... there is an official version used to represent the country. You should not be misleading our readers by presenting a fake version that is user generated. We simply have no need for original research in this case because there's an official version. Moxy🍁23:54, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
copyright.... The real question here is are user generated versions too close to the copyrighted version that they should be up for deletion? .... As for being fundamentally wrong I disagree... you're not really an expert on anything here... Nor am I.... thus will trust other people's judgment.Moxy🍁23:59, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My recollection of those past conversations is that they ended up like this one, with a consensus to exclude the coat of arms form the infobox, due to the official one being under copyright and other representations being unsatisfying to editors. However clearly at some point those discussions were ignored and the coat of arms added. isaacl (talk) 00:01, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
User:Trackratte has this right in my view...."The point being that an Encyclopedia endeavours to portray knowledge and facts, not creative self-made images or caricatures." We are here to educate our readers not mislead them. Previous deletion discussion seems to have it right.Moxy🍁00:08, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the deletion request and that conversation was to remove from the article.... but we had a long discussion in 2018 or 19 and it was restored. I can't find where it is.... I thought it was here or at the wiki project page but not sure I've asked for assistance in locating it. Moxy🍁00:17, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In any case, its use on pages other than Coat of arms of Canada is clearly outside the fair-use justification given on the file description page. You can say these points have been discussed, I see that, but that doesn't mean they're presently addressed. Remsense ‥ 论01:02, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think we'll ever be able to get a rendition version of the coat of arms here.... so like it was in 2008 or 09 for a while I would opt to have no coat of arms.... last thing we should do is mislead our readers with false visual information. This is literally why we have these exceptions in place. Moxy🍁02:39, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That the information is false has not been justified. This point—i.e. what a coat of arms fundamentally is or is not—is what the entire disagreement hinges on (we are both perfectly reasonable people who know how copyright works), and it's not worth discussing anything else until we can figure that out. Remsense ‥ 论02:42, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I will state my position plainly. A coat of arms is completely defined, both semantically and legally, by its blazon, which is given in full on the Coat of arms of Canada page. Therefore, any emblazonment (particular rendering) that accurately follows the blazon is equally correct. No shade of or for the fleur-de-lis is more or less correct, because the blazon merely specifies the fleurs-de-lis to be or.
This is analogous to flags, and many other symbols codified textually and law, and in fact conceptually precedes and informs modern codification of flags. Many flags are more specific, but many are not.
The sense that a particular emblazonment is "true information" while all others are "false" is—and please actually engage with the point this time since I've repeated myself several times now—a total anachronism you are imposing on a medium where it does not belong. Arms are not corporate logos. Remsense ‥ 论03:05, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What I'm seeing is copyright infringement all over..... and images that aren't official.
State logo (specific symbol approved and used to represent a country) vs Heraldically correct but wrong logo (image which is not the specific symbol used and approved by a country)
I don't know anything about trademark or copyright law in Canada, but I would like to respond to this comment:
"Arms are not a modern corporate logo."
I don't know if that's accurate in Canada, because the Trademark Act has this provision:
Prohibited marks
9 (1) No person shall adopt in connection with a business, as a trademark or otherwise, any mark consisting of, or so nearly resembling as to be likely to be mistaken for,
(a) the Royal Arms, Crest or Standard;
That looks like the Royal Arms cannot be a modern corporate logo? Like I said, I don't know trademark law, but the fact that this provision is in the Trademarks Act must have some meaning. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 03:12, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The problem as I see it.... is that a user generated version either doesn't look anything like the official version.... or its so close to the official version thus should be deleted. The copyright says "Any image so closely resembling this logo as to be likely to be confused with it would constitute a copyright and/or trademark infringement under Canadian law. As such, any free-use image would either be so significantly different as to be unsuitable to represent the Canada, or would be so nearly resembling this image as to be a copyright and/or trademark violation under Canadian law". Not sure where people believe you can just make one and it's okay in a case where there's a copyrighted version. Moxy🍁03:19, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 10 March 2025
Pls review Canada#Etymology..... Basically the term Dominion was the title that is no longer used since the formation of the Commonwealth.... and later dropped from legal documents about Canada. Moxy🍁17:13, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 19 March 2025
its a odd omission, I don't think it's because of crown copyright because other articles still have it, nor because it's officially the coat of arms of the king because that's also true of the arms of the united kingdom(they're officially of the king, not the country de jure) so I'm puzzled. LeTommyWiseau2000 (talk) 18:43, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Simonm223 that's not what my question is, it's about it's omission on the infobox, unless that's a recent website policy change that seems puzzling to me, if it is tho it's fine, I just want to know. LeTommyWiseau2000 (talk) 18:48, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Simonm223 that's not what my question is, it's about it's omission on the infobox, unless that's a recent website policy change that seems puzzling to me, if it is tho it's fine, I just want to know. LeTommyWiseau2000 (talk) 18:52, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I can't speak to that - I'm entirely neutral to the presence of the Coat of Arms in the infobox but others might have stronger opinions. Simonm223 (talk) 19:00, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have added a coat of arms created by a user (uploaded as own work). Looking at the previous discussion, I conclude that the copyright restrictions only apply to the file that was originally nominated for deletion (uploaded as government work). It was concluded to keep the file solely for the wiki page of the coat of arms. In a removal from all other pages, it was also removed here. The file I have added is own work, and therefore not copyrighted. The file also resembles the one that was nominated for deletion to an extent that is acceptable. (I have added Royal_Coat_of_arms_of_Canada.svg, the file that is restricted is Coat_of_arms_of_Canada.svg). Alexander vee (talk) 21:47, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I repeat my question, though: doesn't that make it inconsistent? I think it's preferable to simply defer the topic to the dedicated article. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:59, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Most definitely not. The file I uploaded is on many pages already (as shown by its commons page). If anything, the page for the coat of arms should be updated to the copyright free version. Most countries coats of arms are already in Wikipedia illustration style, and this shouldn’t be an exception. The coat of arms is a clear identifier of Canada and should without a doubt be included on this page (especially if the only counter-argument is consistency with a singular other page(when many other files are much more inconsistent and these even look quite similar)). All countries with a coat of arms have one on their wiki article, and Canada shouldn’t be an exception. I kindly urge you to undo your revert. Alexander vee (talk) 01:15, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Encyclopedic and Symbolic Significance: The Coat of Arms of Canada is not a trivial image – it is the official heraldic emblem of the state and a core national symbol, on par with the flag. The arms signify Canada’s national sovereignty and authority, being used by the federal government as the country’s formal emblem. In fact, the Department of Canadian Heritage itself lists the Coat of Arms as an “official symbol of Canada,” underscoring that it represents the country as a whole (not merely the monarchy). This emblem appears on “federal government possessions like buildings, official seals, money, passports, proclamations and publications,” as well as on military badges and court insignia. Such pervasive use – from coinage (the Arms of Canada are featured on the 50-cent piece) to the crests of the Supreme Court demonstrates that the coat of arms is fundamentally important to Canada’s identity. Including it in the main Canada article provides readers with a verifiable and immediate visual representation of one of the country’s most important national symbols, in line with Wikipedia’s emphasis on covering significant aspects of a topic. (All of these facts are well-documented by reliable sources, satisfying Wikipedia’s verifiability requirement for content.)
Not Redundant – Complements the Main Article: While the Coat of Arms of Canada has its own detailed article, displaying it in the main Canada article is not redundant but rather complementary. Wikipedia’s content is organized by a summary style; the main article is expected to summarize and visually present key national symbols for the reader’s convenience. We already include the Canadian flag (which also has its own article) at the top of Canada’s page, because it’s a primary national symbol – the coat of arms deserves parallel treatment. It is standard practice on Wikipedia to show a country’s main emblems in the infobox of the country’s article, even if those emblems have separate pages. This gives readers a quick, informative snapshot of the nation’s identity. The dedicated Coat of Arms article can delve into heraldic minutiae; the Canada article would simply show the arms to identify the state symbol, much like it shows the flag to identify the national flag. This is valuable encyclopedically – a reader of the Canada article should not be forced to click on a separate page just to see what the national arms look like. Including the image in Canada’s infobox improves the article’s completeness and accessibility without overwhelming it. It’s also worth noting that the Canada article already mentions the arms in its content (e.g. in the “Symbols” section and in discussions of currency), so an image of the arms directly illustrates existing text, rather than introducing something entirely new.
Layout and Visual Balance: Concerns about layout or clutter are understandable, but in practice the infobox template is designed to accommodate both a flag and a coat of arms side by side or one above the other without causing visual overload. Many featured and high-quality country articles manage this balance effectively. For example, the United Kingdom’s infobox displays both the Union Flag and the Royal Coat of Arms together, with a clear caption distinguishing their uses. Likewise, Germany’s infobox shows its flag and federal coat of arms in tandem, and Australia’s infobox does the same. In these articles, the presence of the coat of arms does not clutter the page or disrupt readability – rather, it enriches the presentation by providing a fuller visual representation of the state. The Canada article’s infobox has ample space for the coat of arms next to the flag, maintaining a neat layout and visual harmony (the two symbols typically appear at a comparable size, keeping the design symmetrical). Wikipedia’s manual of style for images encourages using images that add informational value to the reader; the coat of arms meets this criterion, and when placed in the infobox it will not interfere with text flow or cause any MOS:IMAGE issues (since infobox images don’t “sandwich” text). In short, a properly sized Canadian arms image will enhance the infobox’s informative value while keeping the page design clean and balanced – just as seen on other country pages
Consistency with Other Country Articles (Precedent): Including the coat of arms in Canada’s page would align with established editorial consistency on Wikipedia. Nearly all other sovereign state (and non-sovereign jurisdictions!) articles include their national coats of arms or emblems in their infoboxes. As noted, the UK article features the Royal Arms (both versions for different jurisdictions) prominently; the Germany article shows the Bundesadler (coat of arms) right beneath the flag; and Australia’s article likewise displays its coat of arms next to the flag. We can point to many other examples (Spain, France’s emblem, Italy, etc.), demonstrating a de facto Wikipedia standard: readers expect to see a country’s principal symbols – flag and coat of arms – at the top of the article. Omitting Canada’s arms makes the Canada page an outlier and arguably less informative than its peers. Editorial consistency is an important consideration per Wikipedia guidelines, as it helps avoid confusing the reader. If a reader notices most country pages have their coat of arms shown, the absence of Canada’s arms could even be misleading (suggesting Canada has none or that it’s unimportant, which is not the case). To maintain neutral coverage and completeness, Canada’s article should receive the same treatment as those of the United Kingdom, Germany, Australia, and many others that include national arms for a comprehensive representation. Consistency here also supports NPOV: we’re giving due weight to Canada’s official symbols just as we do for other nations.
Addressing Copyright (Crown Copyright) Concerns: The most significant concern raised is the legal status of the Canadian coat of arms image, which falls under Crown copyright. It’s true that the Coat of Arms of Canada, being a government-created emblem, is protected by Crown copyright (in fact, Canadian law has effectively made this protection perpetual, beyond the normal 50-year term). By law, the arms cannot be reproduced without authorization, and there is no public domain version of the current arms – however, this is exactly the kind of scenario Wikipedia’s non-free content policy is designed to handle. Wikipedia’s guidelines (WP:NFCC – Non-Free Content Criteria) acknowledge that some important images have no free equivalent, and they can be used under strict conditions. One of those conditions is No Free Equivalent (NFCC#1): “Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose.”. In this case, no free image can truly substitute for the official arms – any “homemade” depiction from a blazon would either violate the same copyright or be an inaccurate rendering. As one editor aptly noted in a prior discussion, “user-generated national symbols based on blazons in place of official logos [are] simply not what we are looking for… we are looking for accuracy.” In other words, the only image that serves the encyclopedic purpose of identifying Canada’s coat of arms is the official coat of arms itself. This satisfies NFCC#1: a freely licensed equivalent of the Canadian arms does not exist (and cannot legally be created without essentially copying the protected design).
Moreover, Wikipedia routinely allows important non-free symbols in infoboxes when they are necessary for identification or critical understanding – for instance, company logos or album covers, and indeed other countries’ coats of arms under similar copyright. The Royal Arms of the UK (also under Crown copyright) are still displayed on Wikipedia, presumably under fair use rationales similar to what we propose for Canada. Policy precedent supports this: WP:NONFREE and WP:LOGO guidelines permit the use of a copyrighted emblem to identify the entity it represents, as long as it’s used minimally and in context. Here, the coat of arms would be used in one article (the Canada article) for the central purpose of identification and illustration of a discussed national symbol. The use is minimal (just one small image in an infobox) and directly relevant to the article’s content (the arms are discussed as a national symbol in the text). This satisfies the NFCC#8 (contextual significance) criterion – the image isn’t for decoration; it adds information by showing readers exactly what the Canadian arms look like, reinforcing the article’s sourced content about the arms.
Additionally, NFCC#3 (minimal usage) can be respected. Currently, the arms image is used in the Coat of Arms of Canada article (which is obviously necessary). Using it one additional time in the Canada article is a justified exception because the contexts are different: one article is specifically about the emblem itself, and the other is about the country as a whole. Each article would have its own fair-use rationale explaining why the image is needed there. (Wikipedia’s non-free content policy allows separate uses of the same image if each use meets the criteria independently) The encyclopedic value gained in the Canada article – giving readers immediate recognition of the nation’s official emblem – outweighs the very limited increase in non-free use. This point has been recognized by editors: there was consensus emerging that “as a legal symbol to represent Canada, it should be used in the Canada page” even if it’s also used in the monarchy article or elsewhere. Many country articles successfully navigate this same issue by including their arms with a fair-use claim. Canada should be no different.
Rebuttal to Crown Copyright Preventing Use: To directly counter the argument “Crown copyright forbids us from using the coat of arms” – Wikipedia, as an encyclopedia, operates under U.S. fair use doctrine. We do not need the Canadian Crown’s permission to include the arms in an encyclopedic context; we need to meet Wikipedia’s policies for non-free content, which we can. Crown copyright means the image can’t be freely licensed on Commons, but it can be used on English Wikipedia under a fair use exemption. As long as we adhere to WP:NFCC (which, as outlined above, we do), Crown copyright is not an insurmountable barrier. The image would be hosted locally on English Wikipedia with a proper fair-use rationale stating it is the official Coat of Arms of Canada, used to illustrate the concept of Canada’s national emblem in the infobox of the Canada article, and that no free alternative exists. This is a textbook case for allowable fair use: the purpose is identification of a subject (a well-established fair use purpose in encyclopedias and scholarly works) and there is no commercial usage or misuse that would compete with the Crown’s rights. In fact, preventing the use of the arms image on these grounds would be contrary to Wikipedia’s mission to illustrate notable topics – it would leave Canada as one of the few country pages without its coat of arms, entirely due to a legal technicality that Wikipedia policy already accounts for.
It’s worth noting that attempts to avoid non-free use by using suboptimal alternatives have been considered and found unsatisfactory. Some suggested using an old version of the arms (e.g. the 1957 design) or the Great Seal of Canada (which is public domain) in place of the current arms. However, experienced editors at WikiProject Canada firmly opposed this, arguing that the Great Seal, for instance, “is not a recognizable symbol of Canada in any way” and would only confuse readers. The purpose of showing the coat of arms is to display something people associate with Canada’s state identity; substituting a little-known seal defeats that purpose. Even using the outdated 1957 arms raises issues: the general public knows the current arms (with the Order of Canada motto added in 1994), and displaying an obsolete version could be misleading or less useful. Wikipedia’s aim is to be accurate and informative – thus the actual current coat of arms is the appropriate image to use, and fair use allows us to use it. As one editor noted in that debate, recognition matters: “it needs to be recognizable… I’d prefer a copyrighted one under fair use [over a lesser-known free symbol], just so we don’t have to worry about any copyright drama.” In summary, Crown copyright alone does not prohibit inclusion; it just means we must use the non-free content policy, which provides a clear framework to do so legitimately.
Alignment with Wikipedia Guidelines: Including the coat of arms in the Canada article accords with several Wikipedia content guidelines and principles:
Verifiability (WP:V): The significance and official status of the coat of arms are verifiable through reliable sources (government documents, official websites, published references). We are not adding anything dubious or unsourced – only a well-documented national symbol. This ensures we stay within Wikipedia’s requirement that content be sourced and factual.
Neutral Point of View (WP:NPOV): Representing Canada’s coat of arms alongside its flag is a neutral, factual choice – it gives due weight to a key symbol of the state. Wikipedia should represent subjects in proportion to their prominence in real life; given how prominent the arms are in Canadian governmental and historical context, omitting it might underrepresent an aspect of Canada’s identity. Including it avoids systemic bias (i.e. treating Canada differently from other countries on a non-policy basis).
Completeness and Balance: Wikipedia articles should give a balanced overview of their topic. For a country, that means covering geography, history, culture, and yes, national symbols. The visual balance of the article is actually improved by including the arms (as argued above), and the encyclopedic balance is improved by not neglecting one of Canada’s two primary national emblems. The Manual of Style advises that infoboxes summarize key facts – featuring the coat of arms meets this guidance by summarizing “national symbols” at a glance. Additionally, MOS:IMAGE encourages using relevant images to enrich the text; the coat of arms directly ties into content about Canadian symbolism, making it a relevant and informative image, not merely decorative.
Consistency (MOS:CONFORM): Following common practices across similar articles is generally recommended unless there’s a strong reason not to. Here, consistency with other country pages (as shown with UK, Germany, Australia, etc.) is desirable. It provides a uniform reader experience. Wikipedia’s readers shouldn’t have to wonder why Canada’s page is missing an element that appears on most other country pages – consistency aids user understanding and navigation.
Therefore the case for including the Coat of Arms of Canada in the Canada article is compelling. The coat of arms is a centrally important national symbol with deep encyclopedic relevance. Its inclusion enriches the article by giving readers immediate visual insight into Canadian state symbolism and heritage. All counterarguments can be addressed: it is not redundant but necessary for a complete summary; it will not disrupt layout or readability; and while Crown copyright applies, Wikipedia’s policies provide a path to include the image legitimately under fair use. Precedent from numerous other country articles and Wikipedia’s own guidelines on content support this inclusion. For these reasons, we should add the Canadian coat of arms to the infobox of the Canada article, with an appropriate non-free use rationale. This change would enhance the article’s quality, consistency, and educational value for readers, which is our ultimate goal as an encyclopedia AtlanteanAstorian (talk) 22:19, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
1000% wrong..... last thing we should do is mislead our readers about an official symbol of the country. Our purpose on Wikipedia is to educate our readers about factual information not about renditions or make-believe user generated images. That said if there was an RFC I'm sure enough random editors more concerned about perception then actual education would choose to put it in the article May be heraldically correct, but still not the Arms of CanadaMoxy🍁01:58, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Under the literature section, Alice Munro is listed as one of the most significant living authors of short fiction. She died in 2024. Hisbigshow (talk) 21:50, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
level-3 vital article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
.png)
.svg)
.svg)
Not done We have no WP:RS indicating the Governor General has actually appointed Mark Carney. Chetsford (talk) 00:34, 10 March 2025 (UTC)
