Talk:Coat of arms of Canada/Archive 1

Archive 1

Good Article Pass

This is a well-illustrated, broad article that covers the topic accurately and fully. Well done.--dave-- 20:05, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Mount and Compartment...

In this section, there is mention of a mount and a compartment. To my eyes, it looks like the achievement has never contained either. The supporters seem to be standing on the motto ribbon with the floral emblems placed below that. Can we change this section? Thoughts?--dave-- 14:56, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

It might not be directly mounted in the latest official arms. But it has been, see this image (from a Halifax administrative building). The motto and floral mount are overlaid there. I guess in time the scroll crept between the mount and supporters. I don't know how accurate the wikiarticle Compartment is, but Canada's seem to fit that description. However, you are right, the issue should be addressed in Coat_of_arms_of_Canada#Mount.--69.19.14.38 15:29, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

From my understanding, none of the images in the article include a compartment. In each case, the supporters seem to simply be standing on the motto scroll with floral emblems either above or below the scroll. The 1921 blazon also leaves out any mention of a compartment and only mentions a wreath of the plant badges.--dave-- 21:42, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

GA Re-Review and In-line citations

Members of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles are in the process of doing a re-review of current Good Article listings to ensure compliance with the standards of the Good Article Criteria. (Discussion of the changes and re-review can be found here). A significant change to the GA criteria is the mandatory use of some sort of in-line citation (In accordance to WP:CITE) to be used in order for an article to pass the verification and reference criteria. Currently this article does not include in-line citations. It is recommended that the article's editors take a look at the inclusion of in-line citations as well as how the article stacks up against the rest of the Good Article criteria. GA reviewers will give you at least a week's time from the date of this notice to work on the in-line citations before doing a full re-review and deciding if the article still merits being considered a Good Article or would need to be de-listed. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact us on the Good Article project talk page or you may contact me personally. On behalf of the Good Articles Project, I want to thank you for all the time and effort that you have put into working on this article and improving the overall quality of the Wikipedia project. LuciferMorgan 02:49, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

More references have been added. --Qyd 15:56, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Supporters

As per the claim that the unicorn wearing a chained coronet is "symbolizing the English domination of the French", the actual article provided to support this assertion states: "Because it holds the ancient banner of France and is gorged with a coronet heightened with fleurs-de-lis in the arms of Canada, the unicorn has sometimes been viewed as a symbol of French Canadians, the chain then symbolizing the subjugation of the Francophone minority to the Anglophone majority.. Though this interpretation is obviously erroneous." Thus, I've removed the false statement. --G2bambino 00:32, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Canada-coa.png

Image:Canada-coa.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 04:43, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Legal

So am I correct in thinking that although the coat of arms can't be used for commercial purposes, non-commercial purposes are ok? For example if I were to use it one personal website of which did not generate revenue of any sort, would that be legal? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.129.54.129 (talk) 09:57, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

The Arms of Her Majesty in Right of Canada

I'm pretty sure that this coat of arms is just the coat of arms of Canada, not of the Queen in right of Canada. All the sources just refer to these arms belonging to the country, and none of them, as far as I could see, assign them to the Queen in particular. Unless someone can cite a source that justifies the claim, I'd say it should be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.1.155.33 (talk) 22:02, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

As to the arms being the property of the monarch, http://www.heraldry.ca/misc/hansard.htm indicates the contrary. The minister was asked pointedly "To whom does he believe this Canadian symbol belongs, to the sovereign, to the government, to some Liberal backbencher or to the people of Canada?"

The reply from the minister: "It certainly belongs to the people of Canada, all of us, but particular to those who believe in what is written on the coat of arms: 'To build a better country'."

Without evidence to the contrary, it's fair to edit the reference.70.49.56.179 (talk) 12:23, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I'll put this to rest: The arms are in fact the arms of Canada as nation-state, but as the Sovereign is, technically speaking, the Canadian State, a reference to the monarch is required. Lockesdonkey (talk) 05:12, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

The official title is "Arms and Supporters of Her Majesty The Queen in Right of Canada", as referenced in The Public Register of Arms, Flags and Badges of Canada; volume IV, page 457; under the Canadian Heraldic Authority, which is the governing body for all coats of arms, flags, badges and crests within Canada. The registrations within the Canadian Heraldic Authority are enforceable by law and are maintained under the auspices of the Office of the Secretary to the Governor General (Government of Canada). The reference was added to the article awhile ago. trackratte (talk) 05:08, 05 Feb 2012 (UTC)

GA Sweeps

This article has been reviewed as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force in an effort to ensure all listed Good articles continue to meet the Good article criteria. In reviewing the article, I have found there are some issues that may need to be addressed.

• Major issues (these must be addressed before the review can be passed)
• The lead does not currently introduce the article. Please expand with more information on the use, history and development of the coat of arms.
• All sources should be properly formatted, preferably using the citation instructions given below.
• I have added a tag. Please address it.
• Other issues (these are not essential to passing the review, but should be considered by the editors)
• Although not essential for GA, I urge the contributors to reconsider the positioning of the elements of the coat of arms. They seems a little odd on the left there and might look better on the right. Whatever the desicion, this will not effect the GA nomination.
• Sourcing is petty light. Its probably OK for now, but consider being more liberal with sources.
• The see also section contains articles which don't have a great bearing on the coat of arms itself. Look at trimming it.
• The article itself seems a bit patchy. It might benefot from a major restructuring to better illustrate the seperate features, history and use of the coat of arms. Some of these sections, particulaly the latter could do with expansion.

I will check back in no less than seven days. If progress is being made and issues are being addressed, the article will remain listed as a Good article. Otherwise, it may be delisted (such a decision may be challenged through WP:GAR). If improved after it has been delisted, it may be nominated at WP:GAN. Feel free to drop a message on my talk page if you have any questions, and many thanks for all the hard work that has gone into this article thus far. Regards, Jackyd101 (talk) 08:34, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

It's disappointing that this has to be delisted, because i don't think it was too far off. I'm afraid however that since no work has been undertaken in seven days and no one seems to be watching this article and therefore likely to take up the problems listed above, I have to delist this article from GA.--Jackyd101 (talk) 07:54, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Citations

The internet inline citations used in this article are improperly formatted and this problem will hinder the GA reassessment. Internet citations require at the very least information on the title, publisher and last access date of any webpages used. If the source is a news article then the date of publication and the author are also important. This information is useful because it allows a reader to a) rapidly identify a source's origin b) ascertain the reliability of that source and c) find other copies of the source should the website that hosts it become unavaliable for any reason. It may also in some circumstances aid in determining the existance or status of potential copyright infringments. Finally, it looks much tidier, making the article appear more professional. There are various ways in which this information can be represented in the citation, listed at length at Wikipedia:Citing sources. The simplest way of doing this is in the following format:

<ref>{{cite web|(insert URL)|title=|publisher=|work=|date=|author=|accessdate=}}</ref>

As an example:

• <ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.discovery.org/a/3859|title=Avoiding a Thirty Years War|publisher=www.discovery.org|work=[[The Washington Post]]|date=2006-12-21|author=Richard W. Rahn|accessdate=2008-05-25}}</ref>

which looks like:

• Richard W. Rahn (2006-12-21). "Avoiding a Thirty Years War". The Washington Post. www.discovery.org. Retrieved 2008-05-25.

If any information is unknown then simply omit it, but title, publisher and last access dates are always required. I strongly recommend that all internet inline references in this article be formatted properly before this article passes GA reassessment. If you have any further questions please contact me and as mentioned above, more information on this issue can be found at Wikipedia:Citing sources. Regards

First modern European emblem

I'm a bit confused about this "first modern European emblem raised by Jacques Cartier" claim. The main issue is the meaning of "modern": modern during Cartier's time, or modern now? The source that PrinceOfCanada provided doesn't make any mention of the modernity of the fleur-de-lis. --G2bambino (talk) 14:55, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Must you be so pedantic? Modern as in not mediaeval seems obvious. Prince of Canada ^{t | c} 14:57, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

No, I mustn't, but it helps to make a good encyclopaedia. Anyway, enough personal commentary. The intent of the word was obviously not obvious; it could have meant the first European emblem raised in Canada that remains as a modern emblem of Europe today. I think all that's necessary to avoid any confusion is to say "the first then-modern European emblem," or "the first post-medieval emblem." I kind of prefer the latter. --G2bambino (talk) 15:16, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Change it as you wish. I was only adding the cite. Try to be a little less abrasive, will you? Prince of Canada ^{t | c} 15:20, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I left the cite untouched, and I don't see any abrasiveness, so I've no idea what it is that's upsetting you now. --G2bambino (talk) 15:30, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Images

G2bambino, can you please explain your rationale for stating that centering all the images of the components of the achievement, something I have seen nowhere else on Wikipedia, is somehow superior? I made the images conform to guidelines; I can't imagine what reason you would have to change further. Especially since doing so creates lots and lots of the whitespace you hate so much. Prince of Canada ^{t | c} 17:23, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, you made the images conform to guidelines, but made a mess in doing so. The centring at least keeps things aligned and consistent. If it is terribly objectionable to you, there is another way I can think of to put the section together, but I will have to implement it later as it requires some time. --G2bambino (talk) 17:28, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

A mess? Really? Everything was aligned and consistent. Please state your real reason. Prince of Canada ^{t | c} 17:35, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, per WP:BRD, I would appreciate it if you would undo the reversion that you shouldn't have made, and discuss your changes here. Prince of Canada ^{t | c} 23:19, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I've put the images back to the right side after discussing with several other users. I can't find any sort of guideline that discourages the centering of images, but there's several reasons why we don't do it:

• Whitespace: Because pages are set up to display in one column, centered images make HUGE gaps on either side where there is no text. This makes for awkward layouts and big gaps between sections.
• Layout: While this isn't a paper encyclopedia, it's laid out in such a way that images should "face" the "page" they're illustrating. Thus, images should be either right or left, facing their respective paragraphs. Left doesn't work here, so we're left with right facings.
• Convention: This simply isn't done. The only time I've seen a centered image is for a panorama image, which these are not. They're also always at the end of an article, to avoid the weird formatting issues I mentioned earlier. The fact that this doesn't seem to be mentioned anywhere isn't encouraging either; it's almost as though consensus is to act as though centering doesn't exist so people won't do it.
• Cleanliness: In my opinion, things really look a lot better on the right. That may be personal preference, but in the group of editors I spoke to, it's a pretty widely held personal preference. If a picture runs into another section, we can use {{-}} to fix that. If that makes a huge gap, we can re-order things like I just did. Not a huge deal.

There are probably other reasons I could come up with, but those are the main ones. To put it bluntly, centering really looks dumb, and there seems to be an established consensus to this effect. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 04:37, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Caps

It's the same problem in similar pages, and for good reason, but since we're aiming high here we need to sort out when to capitalise Coat of Arms. Here's the lead (emphasis removed): "The Royal Coat of Arms of Canada (also known as the Coat of Arms of Canada or, formally, the Arms of His/Her Majesty in Right of Canada)". The page title isn't capitalised (except initial and Canada). I'd think that caps were best in official titles, but not elsewhere. This mean changing it to "The Royal coat of arms of Canada (also known as the coat of arms of Canada or, formally, the Arms of His/Her Majesty in Right of Canada)" Not sure about "Royal".

All our pages seem to be at "Royal coat of arms of ..." and then have "Royal Coat of Arms" in the lead. This is true for Canada, the UK and Scotland (are there any more Royal articles?). Almost all links to these pages go with the capitalisation of the title. Currently, the normal phrase "Coat of Arms" in other senses is not capitalised (rightly, IMO). Different uses include (all refering to the specific arms, not generally):

• "Royal Coat of Arms of" in leads, both where official and non-official
• "Royal coat of arms of" in page titles
• "Royal Arms" (UK CoA article and once in Scotland), "Royal arms" (Scotland article) in the middle of a sentence
• "Royal coat of arms" and "Royal Coat of Arms" (both used in both Scotland and UK)

One complication comes because for the mostpart, unlike Canada, they are official titles.

It's a difficult question to answer in my mind anyway. I'm sorry if this has been raised before somewhere, but now seems a good time to settle it. - Jarry1250 ^{[ humourous – discuss ]} 10:56, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I've just gone on a bit of a treasure hunt online. When googling "royal coat of arms of Canada", once one discards all of the Wikipedia mirrors and the obviously-biased sites for Canadian monarchist orgs (and, indeed, a wiki at royalist.ca which has wholesale copies of this article amongst others, with zero attribution), we're left with a whopping two sites that use the term, neither of them authoritative: [1], [2]. This is contrasted with a relatively authoritative site which refers to them solely as the Arms of Canada. Same goes for the usage "Arms of His/Her Majesty in Right of Canada" -- it's all wikipedia mirrors. Nothing reliable. This page uses it, but that is not the website for the Commonwealth, this is, so I'm not sure what's going on there. I had left the pagemove and the 'in right of' bit alone, to avoid drama with another user, but it certainly seems as though there are no sources online supporting this. No results in Google Books for either phrase. → ROUX ₪ 11:48, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

OK, this would mean moving it to "Arms of Canada" which seems to be against usual practice, even if right in this case. I'm really not sure (which is quite unlike me, I have an opinion on everything). It's the caps thing I think we can get sorted, not here, but at WT:HV. I'll think about it. - Jarry1250 ^{[ humourous – discuss ]} 13:55, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I say put it at Arms of Canada (as that seems to be supported by sources) with a redir from the current title (not an unreasonable search term) and from Coat of Arms of Canada. MediaWiki software handles capitalisation issues in searching, I think. → ROUX ₪ 13:58, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it does. Something like it was going to, and doesn't, or something. That would mean "Coat of arms of Canada" as well redirected. Well, I suggest you be bold and do it. We've got to handle the issue about the fact it is in fact the arms of the ruling monarch and not the country better. Lots of countries have complicated issues regarding this, so as long as you make it clear what's what, fine. - Jarry1250 ^{[ humourous – discuss ]} 14:13, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I can't move over redir, so I can't do it. → ROUX ₪ 14:45, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Done. Cough, cough. I'll leave the tidying to you, two people will only mess things up with ecs and everything. - Jarry1250 ^{[ humourous – discuss ]} 14:55, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Ta. Funny thing, no sources for 'Arms of HM in right of Canada', but I finally found a couple of sources for some provincial arms. Funny old world. → ROUX ₪ 15:19, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

In Right of Canada

The monarch of Canada is "Her Majesty in Right of Canada". Therefore her arms are "the arms of Her Majesty in Right of Canada". That's not a title, it's a description. So yes, the phrase exists, but it doesn't need to be in the article. Consider it explained. See Monarchy of Canada. :) with myself. - Jarry1250 ^{[ humourous – discuss ]} 15:56, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

That's a bit WP:SYN really. One can't say "also known as" when almost no sources support that name.. → ROUX ₪ 16:04, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Exactly. You were right in deleting. - Jarry1250 ^{[ humourous – discuss ]} 16:06, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, misread. → ROUX ₪ 16:09, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not happy with the moving of this page, and think there should have been some discussion before it was done. However, I've restored the reference to the Royal Coat of Arms of Canada and Arms of Her Majesty in Right of Canada, as there are sources to support the use of those terms; in fact, the Royal Heraldry Society of Canada states that the second term is the technically accurate one with which to refer to the arms. --Miesianiacal (talk) 18:03, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

The given ref does check out. When searching, I found this: "The first part of the Coat of Arms of the Province of Saskatchewan (formally known as The Arms of Her Majesty in Right of Saskatchewan)" which throws up the possibility that it was called that when they made it, but not now. Interesting. Saying that, the only source currently for the specific usage is an amateur site ("enthusiasts" as they put it) the Royal Heraldry Society of Canada. The pagemove was not controversial in my mind, since Wikipedia uses the most common name, and I was given strong evidence that this was the case. Sorry about the other things. - Jarry1250 ^{[ humourous – discuss ]} 18:21, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Roux actually said that the MPCC site and the bank one were the only two partly reliable but not authoritive sites that used the word "Royal". This was actually considered exactly. Funny that. I'm not sure about "Royal". Normally I'd support such a word, as it accurately describe it is connected to Royalty, but there does seem to be a lack of use. The bigger question is to whom the arms were granted - Canada or Canada's Queen. - Jarry1250 ^{[ humourous – discuss ]} 18:29, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

By that, I mean "Her Majesty in Right of Canada" sounds like they were given to her and then Canada was to use them - in many ways like the UK - but even the source site, and others, says they were given to Canada itself. It just seems a bit contradictory to me. It does say they were granted by the College of Arms, then redesigned by Canada's equivalent later, after the latter was formed - perhaps it changeed at this point? I could imagine the links to the Queen were downgraded once Canada had its own authority. - Jarry1250 ^{[ humourous – discuss ]} 18:34, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

A few things. Arms of the sovereign/the state are not granted, they are assumed and proclaimed, as Canada's in 1921 by George V; Elizabeth's only involvement with the arms was to grant the addition in 1987 of the ribbon of the Order of Canada, and in 1953 to authorise the change from a Tudor crown above the arms to the heraldic representation of St Edward's. Second, there is a single reference to 'in right of Canada' which is not used anywhere else online (from the RHSC, which while I laud their aims has an obvious pro-monarchist bias and thus requires independent confirmation), whereas Arms of Canada is, and most importantly by the government department in charge of maintaining Canada's symbols. The citation from the Military Police Complaints Commission can hardly be called authoritative for a definition of 'formal' usage, as it an annual report from an organisation not exactly noted for its heraldic expertise. Nowhere here (Heritage Canada) is there any mention of anything other than 'The Arms of Canada', though I suppose one could make an argument that we could use 'Ensigns Armorial' as that is the only alternate title contained in the proclamation of 1921. The sole source for 'royal coat of arms of Canada' is an opinion piece from the Bank of Canada, again not an authoritative source on matters heraldic. Re:Saskatchewan, we cannot extrapolate from there to the national arms per WP:SYN. → ROUX ₪ 18:45, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

OK. I didn't know all of that. I wasn't suggesting we extrapolate, I was trying to work out what could have happened, and then trying to find the sources. Other titles seem distinctly patchy in sources. - Jarry1250 ^{[ humourous – discuss ]} 18:52, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Sinceyou've done the online research that I can do, seeing as I don't know anything on this particular subject, I'm not going to add anything more. Indeed, I didn't before the pagemove. - Jarry1250 ^{[ humourous – discuss ]} 18:54, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I was going to clarify here which refs supported which term, but I see you've preempted me by doing so in the article itself. After reviewing WP:REFPUN, I also see I was wrong to think inline tags couldn't be set in mid-sentence; my placing of the refs seemed to cause some confusion. That said, I'm not sure how amateur the RHSC is; apart from the Heraldic Authority, it is the source of Canadian heraldic information, made up of experts in the field, as it is. I'm sure there must be other sources out there that show the use of HM in Right of..., anyway; perhaps in hard-copy. I also believe, per other sources I've used elsewhere in Wikipedia, that the arms are those of the Queen and the country simultaneously, as the sovereign is the personal embodiment of the state. A point that may be worthy of mention here (?). --Miesianiacal (talk) 18:39, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Just to clarify my position: though somewhat dissatisfied with it, I'm not at all contesting the page move. --Miesianiacal (talk) 19:33, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Infobox changes

[Moved from User talk:Miesianiacal]

Hello,

After I had mentioned that the blazoning was the accepted one issued by the English heralds, recognized by the Canadian heraldic Authority and signed by the Crown, you continued to edit the blazon. It seems that you are not familiar with the blazoning of achievements and coats of arms, so I kindly ask that you refrain from editing the wording provided. I assure you, it is an acceptable and correct blazon. Xanderliptak (talk) 01:20, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I was going to contact you about this, mostly because what you inserted in the infobox is a near verbatim copy of the Canadian Heraldic Authority's website, and thus comes very close to being a copyvio. Nonetheless, I thought I'd wait to see if others had anything to say about your changes. I did not alter much of what you put in; some links and breaks can hardly affect the content, so it must be the punctuation corrections I made that you feel have violated some heraldic code. Can you explain how semi-colon breaks and making capitalization consistent renders the wording as incomprehensible? I may not know much about blazons, but it seems odd that or, argent, and the like, are only capitalized randomly. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 01:29, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I am aware that blazoning comes off as crude and unnatural compared to established norms of the English language. Though limited punctuation is used, punctuation at all is more a recent inclusion, and the oldest blazons do without any commas or colons or what else. When describing the arms, I see no better source than the heralds that wrote the description and the document in which it appeared. As for the public domain issue, the blazon was described in a Royal Proclamation in 1921, which, I believe, falls under the right to publish. Xanderliptak (talk) 05:38, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

As am I; I'm not completely unfamiliar with blazons. However, I don't recall seeing such inconsistencies before. Some examples:

• 2nd, 3rd, 4th - all followed by commas. 1st - no comma.
• Or is capitalized three times; un-capitalized four times; all unrelated to punctuation.
• Other random capitalization: On the dexter a lion; on the sinister A unicorn.
• The Canadian Heraldic Authority shows "Royal Crown proper", not "Imperial Crown proper".

Are you saying these are intentional? The "errors" in the CHA's publication of the blazon aren't even consistent with those here.

You also haven't given reason for why you removed the wiki-links, or the breaks between Latin and English translations of the mottos. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 13:32, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I copies and pasted the sections over the edited, rather than go through each line and correct manually. My apologies, I did not now I was removing links. Also, the Imperial Crown was in the 1921 Proclamation, I did not see if that had been updated since; that is my error. As for the punctuation and capitalization oddities, I simply contend that one can not due better than the official blazon. It was written by professional heralds and reviewed several times by several individuals, so I am sure that this was the blazon they intended. It may simply be a product of it's time, as the heralds would have been versed in 19th century blazoning then, which was rather ornate compared to examples prior and more modern. I, myself, do not agree with the commas after the numbered quarters, nor that Or should ever appear lower case. Yet, any blazon may be written several different ways, and so the blazon could be edited to no end by any man that thinks he can write better than the last. It is not that I am arguing that the heralds here did the most suburb and unquestionable blazon, I am simply arguing that since it is the official blazon that it should be left to it's self. Xanderliptak (talk) 01:34, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Okay, but what is the official blazon? As I said above, the unusual punctuation (for proper English, anyway) actually differs between the version here and that shown on the CHA website. Which, if any, is correct? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 02:32, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

How annoying, they are different. I made the assumption that the Canadian Heraldic Authority simply duplicated the original. The infobox should be made to reflect the CHA version, which is the official version recognized by the Government of Canada once issued. There is a copyright by HM in Right of Canada on the blazons, but this is done to give some protection from duplicating a person's coat of arms without permission by commercial interests or other persons believing they have some false or imagined right. Fair use may be enough to suffice the use of the CHA v.ersion. Xanderliptak (talk) 07:21, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Blazons

I was under the impression that the metal "Or" should always be capitalized in a blazon to distinguish it from the word "or". This is the practice in SCA-style heraldry, but is it not the case in real, historical heraldry? I was considering making updates, but wanted to check here first. DrMobius (talk) 09:21, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi DrMobius. That seems like a good idea to me. Go for it. You could take a quick peek at Wikipedia:Blazon too (though it doesn't seem to be a guideline yet). The only thing would be that if a particular blazon is a direct quote, within quotation marks, then we probably should just leave them be.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 09:35, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Brianann. I peeked at Wikipedia:Blazon and it also suggested that all tinctures and charges other than Or be decapitalized. So I did make the change, but thought that the two charges of "Union Flag" and "Imperial Crown" seemed like proper names to me and left those ones alone. As for whether it was a direct quote or not, I'm not sure, since the reference for it no longer seems to exist. DrMobius (talk) 06:49, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

SVG of the arms

Why was the Non-Free SVG we've had on here for years deleted? Now we are forced to use a blury PNG??? Please undelete and bring back the the SVG that we had. Fry1989 ^eh? 17:58, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't know who deleted it or why. But it's the same across a variety of articles across Wikipedia. It was then replaced by an odd, non-free svg from the commons. I've put up the "blury PNG" as of today, as at least it's the official depiction with the proper licencing. Feel free to load the same image but in a higher quality svg if you can spare the time. trackratte (talk) 18:25, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

What is going on here? How many articles with errors are there now? Moxy (talk) 23:16, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure. As the image and its page were deleted, I don't know the full list of articles that had it. Is there a way to bring up an archived version of the old image page? In any event, I tried to re-upload the image from the same source as the original, but it looks like I was a bit overzealous with the 'low-resolution' requirement. I don't understand why people insist on using the non-free user created depiction from the Commons, as quite frankly, why perhaps following the blazon, looks nothing like the official depiction and causes confusion. trackratte (talk) 06:59, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps someone with a bit more expertise in the area could help out with a clear svg or png. I've uploaded a higher resolution image from the actual register. Even though the file appears crystal clear on my computer, it still renders as a blurry image on the Wiki. trackratte (talk) 14:37, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

The user who (mistakenly) deleted the original svg has now undeleted it, and it has been restored to the pertinent articles. trackratte (talk) 19:38, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Added coin image

I have added an example of the arms on a gold coin from 1914. While the coin was produced from 1912-1914 it appears to my untrained eye that it matched the 1868 and I have captioned it as such. There is a 1905 version on the timeline but I think that could not be put on a coin. Anyone more versed on the subject is welcome to edit the caption mercilessly.

Does it mean anything that on the ship the wind is blowing to the right on the coin, but to the left on the svg? Chillum 07:30, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Oh and great job on the article whichever group of editors is doing it. Chillum 07:31, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 6 external links on Arms of Canada. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20091202062236/http://www.forces.gc.ca:80/site/feature-vedette/2008/05/16-eng.asp to http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/feature-vedette/2008/05/16-eng.asp
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080402042016/http://www.heritage.nf.ca:80/facts3.html to http://www.heritage.nf.ca/facts3.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080606145242/http://www.pch.gc.ca:80/PROGS/CPSC-CCSP/atc-ac/nb_e.cfm to http://www.pch.gc.ca/progs/cpsc-ccsp/atc-ac/nb_e.cfm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080702084606/http://www.forces.gc.ca:80/site/About/Insignia/arma_e.asp to http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/about/Insignia/arma_e.asp
• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.publications.gc.ca/site/eng/ccl/aboutCrownCopyright.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:56, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110805003649/http://bankofcanada.ca/en/banknotes/education/pdf/91-b-l(01-08)_booklet_en.pdf to http://www.bankofcanada.ca/en/banknotes/education/pdf/91-b-l(01-08)_booklet_en.pdf

N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Arms of Canada. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.pch.gc.ca/progs/cpsc-ccsp/atc-ac/on_e.cfm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150202042341/http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca:80/eng/acts/t-13/page-3.html to http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/T-13/page-3.html#docCont

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:02, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Arms of Canada. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www2.parl.gc.ca/Sites/LOP/Education/CanSymbols/galleries/parliament/hoc_mace-e.asp
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070817072335/http://thecanadianencyclopedia.com:80/index.cfm?PgNm=TCE&Params=A1ARTA0000001 to http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com/index.cfm?PgNm=TCE&Params=A1ARTA0000001

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:43, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Arms of Canada. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090310004425/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?Language=E&Mode=1&Parl=35&Ses=1&DocId=2332530 to http://www2.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?Language=E&Mode=1&Parl=35&Ses=1&DocId=2332530
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081002085203/http://pm.gc.ca/eng/cabinet.asp to http://pm.gc.ca/eng/cabinet.asp
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110530014527/http://archive.gg.ca/honours/nat-ord/oc/oc-con_e.asp to http://archive.gg.ca/honours/nat-ord/oc/oc-con_e.asp
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com/index.cfm?PgNm=TCE&Params=A1ARTA0000001

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:35, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Arms of Canada. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090308035327/http://www.pptc.gc.ca/pptc/specifications.aspx?lang=eng to http://www.pptc.gc.ca/pptc/specifications.aspx?lang=eng
• Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/6547u6u8q?url=http://www.theglobeandmail.com/subscribe.jsp?art=815507 to https://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20060309.wmotto0309/BNStory/National/home

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:11, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

"Royal" Coat of Arms of Canada

I point you to the following sources which refer to Canada's Coat of Arms as 'Royal': http://www.imagesoft.net/canada/canarms.html Heritage Canada: http://www.pch.gc.ca/PROGS/CPSC-CCSP/sc-cs/df7_e.cfm The Royal Heraldry Society of Canada: http://www.heraldry.ca/misc/hansard.htm Another site linked to the Toronto Branch of the Royal Heraldry Society: http://www.mad-alchemy.com/hsc/opin-2.htm BC gov't site: http://www.bc-2010winterolympics.com/About_Canada.htm The Canadian Royal Heritage Trust: http://www.crht.ca/DiscoverMonarchyFiles/FactsAboutMonarchy.html A Netherlands site on civic heraldry: http://www.ngw.nl/int/can/cannat.htm

The Arms, which contain numerous crowns and a Royal Helmet, were granted by a Royal Procolmation, and can be altered only by permission of Her Majesty the Queen of Canada, as they are the property of the Sovereign. Thus, there is no way the Arms are *not* the Royal Arms of Canada. gbambino

There are numerous (probably more numerous) sources which cite, simply, "Coat of Arms of Canada". This article's very title is one. That a request made by Canada was approved by a monarch does not necessarily imply the title "royal" can or should be used. Otherwise, "royal" would appear in the names of every achievement of government at every level, and apply to everything done which was okayed by or in the name of a Lieutenant Governor, Governor General, monarch, or the monarch's titled family. That practise is not followed, nor would it be practical, even when technically accurate.

The presence of "crowns and a royal helmet" do not of themselves mean a thing is royal. Such emblems are used in commercial goods, logos, patches, etc., but would not fairly be described as royal.

In addition, the sources cited above to justify using "royal" have problems:

1. http://www.imagesoft.net/canada/canarms.html is a broken link. Further, the company is a foreign one (US).

2. http://www.mad-alchemy.com/hsc/opin-2.htm is a broken link.

3. http://www.bc-2010winterolympics.com/About_Canada.htm is a broken link.

4. http://www.crht.ca/DiscoverMonarchyFiles/FactsAboutMonarchy.html redirects to a bookshop. In addition, CRHT (The Canadian Royal Heritage Trust) is connected with the national Monarchy League, seeking to emphasize the "royal" in all aspects of Canadian life. This puts its neutrality in doubt.

5. http://www.ngw.nl/int/can/cannat.htm calls it "The National Arms of Canada" in its title. Beyond the title, it copies text, and the link to that source is broken. Moreover, this page is a foreign site (Netherlands).

If we are to appeal to these sites as justification for "royal arms", evidence argues to the contrary.

As to the arms being the property of the monarch, the above-cited page http://www.heraldry.ca/misc/hansard.htm indicates the contrary. The minister was asked pointedly "To whom does he believe this Canadian symbol belongs, to the sovereign, to the government, to some Liberal backbencher or to the people of Canada?"

The reply from the minister: "It certainly belongs to the people of Canada, all of us, but particular to those who believe in what is written on the coat of arms: 'To build a better country'." 70.49.56.179 (talk) 12:18, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah...a statement in Parliament does not make an iota of difference to who the arms belong to. JWULTRABLIZZARD (talk) 00:19, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

"National" wordmark?

I saw Canada.ca has this wordmark at the bottom:

• https://www.canada.ca/etc/designs/canada/wet-boew/assets/wmms-spl.svg

It's the word Canada with a Maple Leaf Flag at the top, and I also saw it at Air Crash Investigation. Is there any documentation for this? --Great Brightstar (talk) 14:51, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

here. trackratte (talk) 16:57, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

“Enbossed” and “Debossed”

The term “enbossed” refers to the printing technique that makes the subject to be raised above the surface, while “debossed” is the opposite, i.e., making the subject sank below the surface. Any holder of Canadian passport knows the surface is flat and neither above or below the surface. 167.224.100.82 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 06:27, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Sandwich

For the record, the sandwich I was concerned with is occurring with the infobox and other image when displayed on my 1920x1080 screen (100% Windows zoom, default settings on Wiki's new Vector UI...). I've uploaded what I'm seeing (here) Leventio (talk) 19:20, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

I have the exact same screen size, set to the same zoom, and, I think, the same Wiki settings and don't see any sandwiching... I'm not saying you're lying. I just don't understand why you're seeing what I'm not. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 00:43, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

We have so many Canadian pages that now have this problem......I've been thinking about systematically adding a clear after the intro/lead to our main articles from culture to history to music Etc. Moxy- 00:53, 11 February 2023 (UTC)