Talk:Canada

Archives
2003–2005 1 2 3 4 5 6 2006 7 8 9 10 2007 11 12 13 14 15 2008 16 17 18 2009 19 2010 20 2011 21 2012 22 2013 23 2015–present 24 25 26 27 Discussion of Canada's official name Canada's name Official Name 1 Future TFA paragraph Main Page

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 15 September 2024

Add the term of Dominion of Canada which is still the official name of the country. (See the Constitutional Act of 1867 for references). Maillymarcantoine653 (talk) 16:53, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Not done. See talk page archives for extensive discussion on this topic and the consensus is it not any longer considered by anyone other than old documentation to be the official name of the country. Canterbury Tail talk 18:50, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Canadian Encyclopedia says it is still current. – Illegitimate Barrister (talk • contribs), 16:58, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Name and title are two very different things..... as explained in the section about this. And at the Canadian encyclopedia that says "Canada stopped using the title "Dominion of Canada" in the 1950s and 1980s. The term was officially replaced by "Canada" in the Canada Act of 1982." Moxy🍁 16:51, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree. It should be added because the official name was never deleted. Thaos08 (talk) 16:37, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

Integrated or cooperate?

The current clause "Canada's economic integration with the United States has increased significantly since the Second World War." I think reads better as "Canada's economic cooperation with the United States has increased significantly since the Second World War." How is Canada integrated? I as a born American cannot simply waddle to Canada without a passport. If I step across the border at a non-port of entry I would be fined. Canada is a separate legal and tax system. As-in I have to declare certain things at the Canadian border. How is Canada integrated into the United States? US Virgin Islands or Puerto Rico are "integrated" into the United States as I can hop on any plane going there and don't need any passport as a U.S. citizen. I don't lose my right to vote. I don't even have to declare a bank account in USVI or PR but I would have to if I have one in Canada. Now as it stands- Trump says there's an offer (of sorts) for Canada to become the 51st state of the United States.(ref 1, ref 2) If that were agreed to I would think that was when 'integration' has begun (subject to the terms agreed to). But for the topic of tariffs removal Trump says as soon as he gets in he's slapping huge tariffs on Canada and Mexico. But there's no plans for the borders or even on-boarding of Canada's government into the United States jurisdiction. Persons born in Canada still must apply to move to the USA unless they have a U.S. parent. I think Canada just cooperates you're not integrated with here. Not like other parts of USA are actually "integrated" and there's no signs more measures are being implemented to make this easier. CaribDigita (talk) 06:18, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

That sentence is specifically talking about "economic integration". For example auto parts made in Ontario going to Tennessee for assembly, or Alberta beef cattle going to Omaha for disassembly, then trucked to Montreal. Indefatigable (talk) 18:47, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

A lot of things are shipped to/from many places under globalization. I can open/disassemble many products in my house and find components "Made in X" I'm sure. I bet same goes for you if you look. CaribDigita (talk) 04:06, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

North American integration..... Integration is simply the term used..... electricity system in Canada and US is also very integrated as is our oil and fuel. Moxy🍁 04:18, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Agree that sources call the two economies integrated. That's the correct term to use. —Joeyconnick (talk) 05:57, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

The statement is about the degree of economic integration. While you could say that globalization has increased the integration of national economies, you could also say that the Canadian and U.S. economies are more integrated than say France and Australia. We may find out just how integrated the two economies are after Trump takes office. TFD (talk) 08:05, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

re-wrote lead (to follow body) at Canada–United States relations.......perhaps more clear? Moxy🍁 20:37, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

So Trump (now as a President) is proposing to integrate Canada into the USA. I stand corrected. Making Canada the "51st state" would be ultimate integration. CaribDigita (talk) 08:03, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

Infobox content: Royal anthem

Using Australia as a model. Perhaps we should make the 'royal anthem' in the infobox, a footnote. GoodDay (talk) 21:26, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

I would agree with this.... however. It's been a point of contention for some time. In my view those who find it relevant will notice it those who find it irrelevant will simply ignore it. ..... Thus is causing no real harm,/ that said it's not something we discussed in the article.... so perhaps just a link? Moxy🍁 21:29, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Land borders

Can you also put that Canada shares a land border with Denmark due to Hans Island please? TomTom7474 (talk) 00:47, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Not in the lead, because it's deeply irrelevant trivia. Remsense ‥ 论 00:48, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

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:

"Its border with the United States is the world's longest international land border, and its border with Greenland is the world's third shortest."

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)

Simply not lead Worthy..... zero relevance to the country's traits traditions or history. Moxy🍁 04:30, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

It's trivia that does not belong in the lead. —Joeyconnick (talk) 05:41, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

Related talk they may affect this page in the future

I see someone's making a draft of section to be added here about Donald Trump regarding annexation and 25% tariffs. Perhaps we should get more involved with the same situation at Talk:Greenland#Donald Trump section. Because we know everything that Trump talks about should be its own section in every article. Moxy🍁 01:42, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

ISO_3166-2:CA missing in Infobox

The Link to ISO_3166-2:CA is missing in Infobox (other nations link it). ISO_3166-2:CA en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISO_3166-2:CA

Sadly, I have no idea how to fix this. Aleks-ger (talk) 15:45, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

Why is it needed? Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 15:49, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

That was an easy fix. The Infobox country iso3166code parameter is now set to CA. Alaney2k (talk) 16:49, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

Why did you so, given the previous reply? Remsense ‥ 论 16:58, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

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)

Thanks. (it was needed for consistency of countries infoboxes)

There is a similar issue for: Manitoba where CA-MB is missing (in contrast to Ontario) Aleks-ger (talk) 13:01, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

Coat of arms deletion request

• Coat of arms deletion request

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)

@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)

Two decades of precedence says you're wrong. Moxy🍁 23:28, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

You are fundamentally wrong about what is "fake" as regards arms, sorry. Remsense ‥ 论 23:56, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

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)

Not funny. Don't deliberately confuse the issue. Remsense ‥ 论 00:01, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

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)

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)

Sure; that discussion reached a consensus to remove the use of the image in question from this article. isaacl (talk) 00:12, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Arms of Canada, revised in 1957 (current official symbol of Canada)	Not the Arms of Canada (Arms never used nor approved by Canada)
this image is free use on Commons	May be heraldically correct, but still not the Arms of Canada.
Current National Flag of Canada (current official symbol of Canada)	Not the National Flag of Canada (Flag never used nor approved by Canada)
	Is heraldically correct, but is still not the National Flag of Canada.
Current Flag of the United States	Not the Flag of the U.S. (Flag never used or approved by the United States)
	May be heraldically correct in that it more closely aligns with the blazon of the Arms, regardless it is still not the Flag of the U.S.

Moxy🍁 03:01, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

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)

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)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 10 March 2025

Prime Minister: Mark Carney 2607:FEA8:DDD:6000:FF31:DB20:6B2C:52F9 (talk) 00:27, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

 Not done We have no WP:RS indicating the Governor General has actually appointed Mark Carney. Chetsford (talk) 00:34, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

As soon as they get the word to update this ...we'll do it here. Just waiting for Governor general. Moxy🍁 03:46, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 10 March 2025 (2)

Prime Minister of Canada is currently Mark Carney and not Justin Trudeau 66.159.124.216 (talk) 22:54, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

we are just waiting for confirmation to change it.Moxy🍁 23:02, 10 March 2025 (UTC)