Talk:Canada/Archive 11

message: I believe the subject of the attempts by the subterranean arctic molemen to form an independent nation should be covered, as well as the efforts by the Canadian government to oppress them while keeping their existence secret from Canadians and the world at large. I'm going to start a rough draft and hopefully have something to post soon. Anyone care to collaborate with me? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Battleloser (talk • contribs) 17:00, 5 January 2007  (UTC)
:Good luck with that. I look forward to reverting reading what you come up with. - Eron Talk 21:30, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sure you'll take care to use verifiable information citing reliable sources. Avt tor 22:07, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Digging up inforamtion on a cover-up of this magnitude would indeed be a coup for the project. In the spirit of collaboration, I'm unilaterally declaring consensus to facilitate a deep analysis of the subject. All Wiki "codes" (WP:NOR, WP:EL, WP:ABCDEFG..., etc.)]] are hereby suspended so that nothing will impede this potentially ground-breaking research. --Ckatzchatspy 22:23, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

text: BJAODN! Carson 22:19, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  subterranean Arctic Molemen 

message: Seems like everyone forgot this, but Canada never became independent. Even though they act mostly as a free country, they were forced to ask the Brits to change their constitution sometime in the 70s. Plus, when moving to Canada, an immigrant must pledge allegiance to the Queen, and there is no such thing as a Canadian passport, just a UK one. Combat52
:Huh? I hope you're not planning on adding that to the article.Bobanny 07:17, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: -looks at her passport- ... ? Disinclination 07:23, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I think you may be a little behind the times. While achieving full constitutional independence did take decades, Canada has been an independent country for quite some time. The passage of the 1982 Constitution Act did require co-operation from Britain, as the act it replaced - the 1867 Constitution Act, also known as the British North America Act - was an act of the British Parliament. (It had to be, really, as Canada didn't exist as an independent political entity until the Act itself was passed.) British approval in 1982 was little more than a formality. You can look it up. As to pledging allegiance to the Queen, you are correct, Canadians do - specifically, to the Queen of Canada. (She's a busy lady, with several other roles.) For passports, I'm currently on my fourth one - so if they don't actually exist, someone at the Passport Office owes me $360. Can I respectfully suggest that you find a Canadian history textbook published some time after the Second World War? - Eron Talk 13:01, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Well I'll be the son of a queen...I must have a fake passport...wonder how I got to travel across the country??? (RiseAgainst01 23:56, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thats what I'm wondering! Disinclination 23:59, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Combat52 my good pal, read this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UK   you'll see that it has nothing about Canada being in the UK present day, and if you look at the map you can see that Canada is not coloured green! WOW!...that Canadian History coarse I'm doin must be United Kingdom History. (RiseAgainst01 00:02, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

text: And that's significant ... why? Nonetheless...what? I'm all for doing away with the monarchy, but really, aside from having Stephen Harper's mug instead of Lizzie's on our coins, would it really make a big difference? If Canada's got some kind of sovereignty deficit, it's to do with the US, not the UK.--Bobanny 09:46, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Being a Commonwealth realm does not make Canada not an independent country, any more than being a member of the United Nations reflects on a country's legal or political sovereignty. Canada and Australia and other Commonwealth realms are not subordinate to or divisions of the United Kingdom under law; the Parliament of the United Kingdom cannot pass a law that is meant to be applicable in Canada or Australia. Please familiarize yourself with the concept of "one person, many crowns"; Queen Elizabeth has separate roles as queen of each Commonwealth realm that recognizes her as its head of state. It may seem like a hard distinction for you to wrap your head around, but she is not Canada's head of state by virtue of Canada being a British colony; she is Canada's head of state by virtue of holding the title "Queen of Canada" as a role separate from and independent of her title as "Queen of the United Kingdom". Bearcat 19:48, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

text: While a sociological argument can certainly be made there, Canada is not a colony of the United States legally. Bearcat 19:48, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Bearcat is correct. "Colony" means that legal authority resides with the mother country. "Commonwealth realm" is merely one type of Commonwealth member, distinguishing it from Commonwealth republics and countries with their own monarchs. By definition the Commonwealth is an association of equal members linked by history and culture, not by modern colonial authority. Avt tor 22:43, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Ok, now we're simply beating a dead horse.  Notice how Combat52 never responded to any replies.  I suspect he obtained the reaction he initially sought and is probably laughing everytime an insulted Canadian comes along to express our independence.  I suggest we let this go now. — Dorvaq (talk) 17:36, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Errr... can we all say Troll, anyone?--Ramdrake 20:34, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It should be noted that the original statement is highly inaccurate and in fact completely opposite to reality. It just so happens that the Queen of Canada also rules the United Kingdom. By my impeccable logic, the United Kingdom is an overseas colony of Canada! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.77.23.254 (talk) 10:41, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Canada is still a UK territory 

message: Just to make sure everything is "on the record", RyanRP's recent changes to the lead have been reverted to the previous version by Spyhunter444. I realize that he's had this happen a lot recently, but it honestly seems that the older version was more concise, while covering the same material. I have left in a shorter version of his text about Commonwealth membership, as it was new information for that section. I've also left an extensive note on his talk page explaining what I felt the problems were with his material. Thoughts? --Ckatzchatspy 07:00, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks.  I fully agree with your reversion and your reasons for it.  I have also simplified the statement about the Commonwealth and Commonwealth Realms in the intro. --thirty-seven 07:18, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I also agree with your reversion, the lead has to be concise. Regards, -- Jeff3000 14:44, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent changes to the lead 

message: lol. somebody needs to change the pictures back. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.158.125.210 (talk • contribs) date
:To what? >_> They're the correct images. Disinclination 22:25, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's been changed back. They were both briefly changed to a picture illustrating the male buttocks, one of the funnier, I mean evil and unforgivable, acts of vandalism I've seen for a while.Bobanny 22:49, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I think you need to clear your browser cache or something. The pictures were vandalized once, hours ago, and have been fixed. - Eron Talk 02:51, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Flag/Coat of Arms 

message: Recently WGee has made a few changes to the intro.  He removed the description of Canada as a "nation", changing it to "country", commenting that Canada is not a "nation" in the sociological (i.e., the correct) sense of the term.  Although of course Canada is a nation in the sense of the everyday usage of the word "nation", I agree that WGee is correct - in the formal definition of the term "nation", Canada nor other similar countries like Australia or the United States are nations.
WGee also added a description of "multinational" to Canada, with the comment Canada consists of several nations---from Quebec, to the Acadians, to the Metis, to the First Nations, etc.  I have reverted this addition.  I don't think Canada is multi-national to a degree that is significant enough to justify mentioning it in the introduction.  For example, if Canada was a multinational empire, like the old Russian Empire, or if the nations were a major factor in organizing or sharing power, like in Belgium, then it would be significant and important to mention in the intro.
That's why I don't think this statement belongs in the intro - but, furthermore, I don't think it is necessarily a true statement.  I don't think you can call a country "multinational" just because of the presence of sub-nations - otherwise even indisputable nation-states like Japan (Ainu) or France (Bretons) could be called "multinational".  I think we should only call a state multinational if it has at least two nations within it of significant sizes.  This is only true if some large subset of English-speaking Canadians form a separate nation.  The idea that this group forms a distinct nation, with a national identity separate from over-arching "Canadianness", would be highly controversial and is, I think, without merit.
And a nit-pick: I don't think we can call Quebec a nation, even if we accept that the Quebecois are a nation. --thirty-seven 01:04, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia is supposed to be neutral, and "nation" is really not a neutral word in Canada. In French it is generally understood more in the sociological sense, and in English it is often understood in the legal (sovereign) sense, and there are plenty of people who deliberately confuse this for political purposes. I agree with thirty-seven that English Canada is not a single sociological "nation"; it's likely several, and there are layers of nation-ness within Canada (such that central Canada, Ontario and Quebec, form a somewhat unified culture that happens to speak two languages, which is not so much the case for the Maritimes and Prairies). All of this is very much a matter of political opinion and as such should the term should be avoided where it might create controversy, ambiguity, or confusion. Avt tor 00:05, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Feel free to change it, but notice that it is different information in the table than what the sentence says, i.e., how often Canada is ranked #1, not what it's current ranking is.  Bobanny 08:49, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Multinational 

message: Can we add Rugby to the list of sports played in Canada?  We're currently ranked 14th in the world?  Each province has it's own union, it's a CIS women's sport and most universities have men's teams.
:It's been considered before, but the reality is that rugby only ranks fourteenth for "attendees" in Canada, and isn't even in the top fifteen sports for "active participation" and "volunteers". (This is based on the Sport Canada/Conference Board of Canada survey used to build the list in "Culture".) It is, however, mentioned in Sport in Canada - perhaps you might try expanding the details there? Hope this helps. --Ckatzchatspy 10:25, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rugby in Canada 

message: Why has this been semi-protected for over two months now? I thought protection was supposed to be temporary. --74.109.173.23 22:26, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Unfortunately, as soon as protection is lifted, the vandalism begins again, and the history page is littered with dozens of reverts of nonsense edits. This is a regular pattern - it's not just one or two vandals, but a steady stream of would-be jokers and juveniles who like to delete the page, delete sections, rewrite the page, and so on. It becomes difficult, if not impossible, to work on improvements if you're constantly having to fend off attacks. --Ckatzchatspy 22:32, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It has been a long time.  I am tempted to unprotect; there's not a lot of support for indefinitely semi-protecting articles just because they're a popular target for juvenile vandalism.  Jkelly 22:37, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Are there any other alternatives? I can understand the aversion to extended protection if it were just a case of specific individuals. However, I've noticed that a number of articles (Canada, the planets, and the Moon are a few that I have on my watchlist) get a steady stream of vandalism. It becomes very frustrating - it's one thing to fix the odd vandal edit here and there, but quite another when the regulars have to revert ten or twenty a day, every day. I would think it drives a lot of regular editors away from working on those articles, not to mention dropping them from watchlists. Even discounting the maintenance aspect of it, though, what about the cost in terms of readers? What does it say to the general public if high-profile pages are constantly changing, and not in a positive, constructive manner? --Ckatzchatspy 22:50, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, there are disadvantages to using a wiki for the project.  The anti-vandal bots are becoming quite good at catching the most obvious cases.  Jkelly 06:15, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I concur with keeping protection. Bots only catch about three-quarters of the vandalism. That still wastes a lot of volunteer time fixing the vandalism, making it harder to identify and correct things like typos, grammar, and factual errors in the substantive edits. Avt tor 19:15, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Don't blame me, I didn't unprotect it. You could ask  to reverse their decision, or go to Wikipedia:Request for page protection if you think it's necessary. Jkelly 18:45, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Seeing as I can't edit this page...can someone please remove all vandalism by Fplax...thanks.  Blipadouzi 17:46, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nevermind...it's already been done...my oopsBlipadouzi 17:56, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  protection 

message: Doesn't Canada have other names? Is it only referred to as "CANADA"? 
Funny thing is "United States of America" as its called has like 5 names: USA, United States, United States of America, "America" (not original), and "The US". They use the name "America" in entertainment-like or "cool" stuff. And they use "United States" or "US" in more serious situations like politics, etc. Oh yeah - the world "America" is not original to the US.
I wonder why the call they're country "United States OF AMERICA" instead of "United States"... haha
US doesn't have a proper name, just uses the words from the English language and calls it self "United States"... and then  adds "of America". —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.102.44.117 (talk • contribs).
:Canada is by far the predominant name of the country.  You can take a look at the Canada's name article for more information. -- Jeff3000 17:53, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Names 

message: I'm confused by these edits   by User:Quizimodo.  This user is going through articles reverting the updating of maps from png to svg.  We generally prefer the latter, as svg files can be edited by anyone (for example, if someone doesn't like the fact that Canada is red in this locator map, all one needs is a text editor to change it, not image software).  User:Quizimodo is linking to a discussion about how best to represent the EU in locator maps, so I'm especially unclear why that "vote" might be relevant to this article.  Jkelly 20:12, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm equally confused by your commentary.  First, who are 'we'?  Second, I believe this is under the scope of Wikipedia:Countries, where standards have been set for the contents of all country  infoboxes, including locator maps.  Just because there is an SVG of something (and I've nothing against them), that doesn't mean there is something wrong with the prior PNG which was in place for some time (and can be edited just as well in MS Paint).  A similar effort to change the Europe/EU locator maps was discussed and voted upon, with preference given to the old maps ... hence my notation of it here.  Recent maps don't have the royal jelly, or haven't been agreed upon.  Thus, an inconsistent horrid hodge-podge results.  And 'nullifying' input on a related vote and boldly editing is no substitute for discussion and agreement beforehand.  Until then ... Quizimodo 20:20, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've seen the new locater maps, and I'm a fan of the old ones; they seem to fit better within the infoboxes.  I agree that svg's are better than png's, but I think there should be a consistency discussion before all the old locater maps are changed to the new ones.  My preference would be new locater maps that follow the old colouring.  Could the person who is creating the new svg files keep the same colouring scheme (green for selected landmass, and white for water)? -- Jeff3000 20:35, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Quizimodo, the consensus was against using EU maps as depicting countries as part of supranational entities not for using old PNG maps. Most of the old style PNG maps have been ported to similar SVG maps (see this). Regards, Asteriontalk 23:02, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks; as discussed, my issue isn't with the the format per se, but with the maps being used: they are inconsistent (since all of the country infoboxes use maps of a consistent style) and, at least in the case of Europe, unsatisfactory or POV.  Such sweeping, and (in this case) perhaps singular, changes need to be adequately discussed beforehand, which the instigator of this discussion failed to do or was ignorant of.  Quizimodo 06:43, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Locator image 

message: In the administrative divisions section Yukon was listed as Yukon Territory. Although Yukon is a territory, it officially changed its name from Yukon Territory to Yukon in 2003. Therefore, in the list I changed it simply to Yukon. Moreover, the official website of the government of Canada and the official website of the government of Yukon also refer to the territory simply as Yukon. Here are the links to my sources.
The Canadian government official website: http://www.canada.gc.ca/othergov/prov_e.html
Yukon government official website: http://www.gov.yk.ca/
Scanadiense 09:31, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Correction 

message: I clicked on this page to Canada-United States relations yesterday, and was surprised to see a daughter article important enough to link from this intro in such mediocre condition. I shaped up the intro a bit, but much work could still be done on the body of it. Maybe editors here want to work there? Marskell 20:26, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I used to be a more prolific contributor to Wikipedia, but have deleted my username and all that...aside from that, I do have one thing to bring up:  Does the US-Canada relations article need to be linked from the first paragraph of the article on Canada?  It probably deserves its own subheading in politics or whatever, but it doesn't seem to fit in the opening one. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 140.184.38.213 (talk) 20:12, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Canada-United States relations 

message: Motto: A Mari Usque Ad Mare
(Latin for "From Sea to Sea")
This is the current translation for the motto, but I believe it to be wrong...
If I am not mistaken the direct translation is From Sea Even Unto Sea. It just irks me a bit that Wikipedia of all places would be wrong about this.
Thanks!
24.224.180.14 22:34, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The official translation is "From sea to sea".  We don't use a direct translation. Carson 22:40, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Or in French, "D'un océan à l'autre". The French refers to oceans rather than seas.--Ramdrake 22:45, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Canadian Motto Translation 

message: 95% of canada's GDP is from the government's immigration scam (from extorting money from immigrants, shelving their applications for 3-4 years, and then refusing applications based on some half-assed pretext or other)... i think this should be included in the economy section of the wiki.
i also think that "immigration scam" should be included as one of the professions in the proffessions list because that's the biggest sector of canada's economy..
they should also change their national anthem to "yo ho ho and a bottle of rum, ahoy me hearties, walk the plank yer scurvy sea dogs" to more accurately reflect the country's character —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hellznrg (talk • contribs) 09:24, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What? RiseAgainst01 22:46, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, seems like that was uncalled for. Canada does not have a "Immigration Scam" and is actually one of the easiest countries to immigrate to. Please do not throw around such accusations and research a bit. Cdscottie 0:58, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  biggest sector of canada's economy 

message: I agree with Soulscanner that having a long history section is not optimal. I don't agree that a flat table of contents with 17 items is easy to read. A well-organized grouping of information does not have more than half a dozen items at any layer of the information hierarchy. I suggest something like the following:
    * 1 History
    ** 1.1 Origin and history of the name
    ** (other History subsections)
    * 2 Government and Law
    ** 2.1 Government
    ** 2.2 Administrative divisions
    ** 2.3 Law
    ** 2.4 Foreign relations and military
    * 3 Life
    ** 3.1 Geography and climate
    ** 3.2 Language
    ** 3.3 Culture
    * 4 Statistics
    ** 4.1 Economy
    ** 4.2 Demographics
    ** 4.3 International rankings
    * 6 Notes and References
    ** 6.1 Footnotes
    ** 6.2 References
    ** 6.3 See also
    ** 6.4 External links
    ** 6.5 More resources
:I disagree.  Having subsections increases the size of the Table of Contents which can be overwhelming.  It also goes against the recommend template of the Country wikiproject which is what all featured articles should strive for. -- Jeff3000 16:59, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Table of Contents 

message: "Canada (pronounced /'kænədə/ in English and /kanada/ in Canadian French)"
While strictly true, I suspect that there is an implication here that all dialects of English pronounce /'kænədə/, which isn't actually true. I suppose it is the case for American, Canadian, Australian and New Zealand English, but for British English, as well as in Ireland and many anglophone African countries, it is /kanada/. Anyone in agreement? Jamyskis Whisper, Contribs  04:51, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. Phoenix2 19:42, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Actually, a pronunciation key is unnecessary: "Canada" is not a difficult name to pronounce, readers do not need to know how Canadians pronounce the word (any more than they would need to know how Australians pronounce "Australia"), and the French pronunciation is irrelevant to this English-language article. -- WGee 06:58, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: While I agree that it should have been taken off, that anything French (or more specifically, French-Canadian) is irrelevant to Canadian articles seems a bit incorrect. French culture is just as much apart of Canada as is English culture.Disinclination 07:25, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But this is the English Wikipedia, and Canadian bilingualism laws do not apply :-) -- WGee 01:41, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pronunciation  

message: I'd like to recommend locking this page. A quick glance at the edit history shows that there's a wave of vandalism right now.
Dali 16:56, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Locking 

message: I've made some large changes to the history (Confederation) section, condensing much and adding some. I hope they're not too radical changes. I suppose the theme that runs through this all is the slow emergence from the shadow of Britain. 
I still think the section on American draft dodgers should go. The shift to the left in Quebec was way larger than anything Draft Dodgers could influence in Toronto and Vancouver, and the main shift in immigration during this era was from Europe to Africa, Asia, the Caribbean and Latin America. American immigration just wasn't that important. The references, while perfectly valid,  would be more relevant in Canada and the Vietnam War.  --Soulscanner 10:48, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I see what you mean. I still think there should be a few sentences on it, but nothing really big. Disinclination 18:40, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

text: It's not a "section", it's one sentence. It's at least that relevant. Avt tor 10:03, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree with Soulscanner here. The draft dodgers immigration to Canada (although significant) can hardly be considered one of the most important events in Canadian history. Furthermore, of the references provided, one is dead, while the other doesn't explain the impact of the draft dodgers, but merely talks about a group who helps them settle in Canada. I think it should be gotten rid of. Nathanalex 03:01, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Big changes to History section 

message: Hello!  Please comment and weigh in on the nomination for deletion of North America (Americas).  Thanks!  Corticopia 00:29, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Though voluminous in text, the nomination and points made therein are rather clear and, even though the article has been updated, remain unchanged.  Wikipedians can decide for themselves.  Corticopia 13:58, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/North_America_%28Americas%29|Nomination for deletion]] of 'North America (Americas)' 

message: Thanks to those who commented on this prior AfD.  Even though an apparent consensus supported the prior AfD in some way (and the article has been deleted), this has reared its ugly head again -- please peruse and weigh in.  Thanks! Corticopia 16:29, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Again ...

message: This number really surprised me. The Factbook has been estimating just over 33m for a while and I thought the country was long past 32m, at least. Where do we get the 32.8m estimate for 2007? And why are estimates coming in higher than the census? Marskell 09:58, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  31.6 million 

message: Can someone please put a photo of Her Majesty The Queen of Canada in the politics section. She is the source of all constitutional power in this relam. 212.183.134.64 14:12, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Her picture would be more relevant on the Politics in Canada article (do we have one?) than this one. However, the Queen has little governmental power in Canada. Her representative in Canada, which does all of her decisions in Canada, has little power as well. All she does is ask the leader of the winning party if he wants to continue the government, etc etc... I'd hardly call her a source. Disinclination 00:59, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Queen of Canada

message: Can anyone substantiate better the country area figures excluding water? Or, conversely, the water area? I have looked at the notes and the source, but the numbers seem, ahem, dubious. And I have not found any better sources - the CIA world factbook (from which the Yahoo table seems to be sourced) does not provide source materials. See the yahoo pages - it lists rankings for Sudan and Russia that seem a bit bizarre (very high for Sudan, low for Russia). Hope I'm not provoking any disputes, I'm honestly just curious.--Gregalton 14:42, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't dispute the Canada figures, just that the ones for some other countries seem strange.--Gregalton 15:11, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Area - seemingly strange figures? 

message: Lexicon has added icons of the flags of the cities and provinces for Ottawa and Toronto.  I believe that there is no useful information added with the inclusion of these icons, and furthermore it adds to the clutter of the infoboxes.  What do other people think? Regards, -- Jeff3000 13:25, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. See Wikipedia:Don't overuse flags.--cj | talk 13:30, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Talk to the editors of most countries, then, who put the coats of arms of the capital cities in infoboxes.  See, for instance, Germany, Spain, Romania, Russia, Poland... Lexicon (talk) 13:34, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's not a compelling reason to use them. I think it's a bad idea to take an infobox which is intended to be consistent and apply to it something which is fundamentally inconsistent. These images (flags or coats of arms) cannot be applied for all countries; for example, Australia, for which city articles cover metropolitan areas that do not have equivalent images.--cj | talk 13:52, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Couldn't work for largest city, but I'd suspect it could work for capital, which is what they're generally used for, since, from my understanding, Canberra is one city. But even if there was a problem, that wouldn't be a reason to abandon the protocol.  One or two countries don't really have a coat of arms, but that doesn't mean we don't include such in our infoboxes. Lexicon (talk) 14:01, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The difference is that they are by and large useful and are included in the infobox proper. There really isn't a good reason to decorate the infobox with these images in this inconsistent manner. On the other hand, there are several valid reasons not to.--cj | talk 14:09, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Most of the arguments in that essay are completely irrelevant to the current use.  Unless you are ready to remove the capitals' coats of arms from all the counties whose articles have them, then consistency with a growing trend is a reason to include the coat of arms here.  Also, while I understand that overuse of decoration is unhelpful, "prettification" of articles is a good thing.  Lexicon (talk) 14:18, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry Lex, I tend to agree with the others.  In country infoboxes, just list the name of the capital and/or the largest city and have them wikilinked to those cities.  In the Canada infobox, I can not really tell what that blob is next to Ottawa anyway.  If a reader wants to know more about Ottawa or Toronto or any other city on any other country infobox, they can click the wikilink to the city article.  The infobox at the city articles have specific parameters to display the flag, logo, COA, and seal for the city.  Also, I would say that displaying of country and province flags in the subdivision fields of the city infobox (like Toronto) is much more acceptable than displaying flags and coat of arms for cities in the country infobox. Although, in the city infoboxes, place the flags after the subdivision names.  This keeps all the names vertically lined up.  —MJCdetroit 16:23, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Basically every country in the Americas and Europe has the coat of arms, I don't see why Canada should be an exception. Lexicon (talk) 17:00, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Canada's coat of arms is displayed.  It is to the right of the "flag" and in between "Canada" and "Motto". It is a very nice coat. —MJCdetroit 17:12, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Er, I obviously meant the coat of arms of the capital city. Lexicon (talk) 18:01, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

text: This discussion should probably take place over at Template talk:Infobox Country instead of Talk:Canada. MJCdetroit 20:38, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Icons in infobox 

message: I know that it is a standard that we use British English for British related articles, and American English for American articles.. and mostly everything else. However, Canada seems to fall into the middle. I know that colour, neighbour, etc are staples of Canadian spelling, but what about  industrialisation (something I noticed from an edit today). Do we use 's' instead of 'z' in these instances? Most articles I read on Canada use the 'z' instead of the 's' but we always add an extra 'u'. Just something to bring up. Disinclination 01:01, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As noted in the intro of the article "Please use Canadian spelling." which includes adding the 'u' in colour and honour.  As for the 'z' (American) versus 's' (British), both are acceptable in Canadian spelling, but I believe the 'z' is more widely used.  Regards, -- Jeff3000 01:31, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks Jeff. Disinclination 18:04, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Which English are we using? 

message: what is the origin of the map close to the history section of Canada,and how is the map is showing a relativly accurate drawing of the landscape of Canada, presumming it is more than a century old,I mean they didn't have satellites back then to see the shape of continents did they?192.30.202.20 21:27, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not entirely sure what you're asking.  Why we have the map? Its purpose is to show a historical map, to "pretty up the article" with an image of a real map from the historical past of the country. Lexicon (talk) 23:26, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Maps of Canada 

message: Hey guys. I don't mean to be out of place here, but someone has deleted the entire "Origin and History of the Name" section (if there was one), and replaced it with " They don't like puppies!! ". Obviously this is out of place, but I don't know what was there, and I don't know too much about reversing things. So if someone more involved could reverse/ replace this, I just think it would clean up the article a bit.
:Thanks for pointing this out; it was caught some time before your comment, and lots of editors are indeed keeping watch over the article for vandalism. Cheers! Tony Fox (arf!) 04:28, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism 

message: I suggest you put the word "Ethnic Canadian" in your description of Canada. 
I know it needs a bit more work to clean it up but it belongs with your item on Canada.
Have a look let me know what you think.
MB —The preceding unsigned comment was added by M.Blum (talk • contribs) 05:16, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ethnic canadian 

message: We are trying to get a WM canada chapter going. We need 10 people to get the ball rolling, in a legal sense. (The concept has been around a while -- we're trying to put rubber on the road though)
If you feel like helping, join the list at http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-ca and drop us a hello, or chime in at meta:Talk:Wikimedia_Canada. Let's get this thing going! v:User:Historybuff 18:04, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikimedia Canada Chapter