This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Biography: Politics and Government This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography This article is supported by the politics and government work group. Canada: Alberta / Northwest Territories / Governments / Politics High‑importance Canada portal WikiProject Canada Canada notice board This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Canada articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CanadaWikipedia:WikiProject CanadaTemplate:WikiProject CanadaCanada-related High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Alberta. This article is supported by WikiProject Canadian Territories. This article is supported by WikiProject Governments of Canada. This article is supported by WikiProject Political parties and politicians in Canada. Finance & Investment Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Finance & Investment, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Finance and Investment on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Finance & InvestmentWikipedia:WikiProject Finance & InvestmentTemplate:WikiProject Finance & InvestmentFinance & Investment Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Economics Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Economics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Economics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EconomicsWikipedia:WikiProject EconomicsTemplate:WikiProject EconomicsEconomics Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. International relations: United Nations Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.International relationsWikipedia:WikiProject International relationsTemplate:WikiProject International relationsInternational relations Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject United Nations. Ireland Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ireland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Ireland on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IrelandWikipedia:WikiProject IrelandTemplate:WikiProject IrelandIreland Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Politics Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. United Kingdom Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject United KingdomUnited Kingdom Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. University of Oxford Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject University of Oxford, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the University of Oxford on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.University of OxfordWikipedia:WikiProject University of OxfordTemplate:WikiProject University of OxfordUniversity of Oxford Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Ice Hockey This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ice Hockey, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of ice hockey on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Ice HockeyWikipedia:WikiProject Ice HockeyTemplate:WikiProject Ice HockeyIce Hockey Associated task forces: /  This article is supported by College Ice Hockey task force.

	Other talk page banners

He didnt remove them, he didnt even have power to do so. This claim is referring to before he 'won' the election and then he didnt remove it, he re-priced it to 0 which he has now brought back under a different name. 24.139.25.214 (talk) 14:59, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This comment was deleted by Zefr under WP:NOTFORUM. It seems to me that the IP is referring directly to the article content, and pointing out a potential issue - therefore not a forum post. I decided to restore it. MediaKyle (talk) 17:21, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

From the top of the page: "This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Mark Carney article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the subject of the article."

A comment here should propose a specific improvement to the article and provide a source for it. The IP editor or MediaKyle can write the proposed improvement with WP:RS for other editors to review. Zefr (talk) 17:58, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if contributors need to choose from several photos again, but I took this photo of M. Carney yesterday during a formal event. The photo is clear, high resolution, and his facial expression seems fine to me, but he has two small blemishes on his nose.

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:2025-11-14_InaugurationREM_Deux-Montagnes_Mark_Carney.jpg Lea-Kim (talk) 19:01, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is a really nice photograph, although I'm not sure if it's so substantially better that it's the obvious choice. I think we can wait a little longer for more options. Thanks. MediaKyle (talk) 20:59, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Here's my current pick to keep the convo going: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Mark_Carney_meeting_with_Donald_Trump_3x4.jpg. ▄︻デȶɦɛ աǟʄʄʟɛ══━一 (talk) 20:10, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm in favor of this image. I still think having a 2020 photograph for someone who became PM in 2025 is pretty outdated and should be changed quickly. We have a good amount of images from 2025 and I don't think there's any reason to be picky/should be forced to settle with the 2020 image. The image that I proposed above, Lea-Kim and P. Waffleton proposed as well are good alternatives. Is it time for another RfC now that we have more options? TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 20:59, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. There should be more movement on this. ▄︻デȶɦɛ աǟʄʄʟɛ══━一 (talk) 21:01, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Do we seriously believe that the image linked by P. Waffleton is a viable option? I'm sorry, but it's just a goofy photo. I don't get the fixation with it. If it's to be changed, the only reasonable alternative is the one from Lea-Kim. There's really no rush... Carney is a popular guy, a really good image will show up soon. Switching it regularly is not ideal. MediaKyle (talk) 21:02, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How is it goofy? It's just a picture of him smiling. ▄︻デȶɦɛ աǟʄʄʟɛ══━一 (talk) 21:04, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's just not a nice photograph of him. I suppose that's subjective to a certain degree, but comparing that photo to the status quo, it's just not on the table. MediaKyle (talk) 21:05, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t think it’s “goofy” and I think it’s a good candidate to say the least. The one proposed by Lea-Kim above I think is the best suited replacement option. I do agree that we need some more movement on this. It’s like if in 2017 when Macron was elected president, if we’d been using a 2012 photo of him for the entirety of his first year as president. It’s pretty outdated and by next year it’ll be 6 years since the photo was taken. TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 13:57, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's been long enough that another discussion is warranted, especially since the last one was more tabled than decided. I suggest we put together an RfC, with several photo options. — Kawnhr (talk) 17:47, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, I think an RfC is unnecessary. Someone should just go ahead and change it to the one from Lea-Kim. PascalHD is right - that photo is equal or greater quality to the status quo, and being only five days old, it's our most recent option. It's already the main image on Wikidata and is used widely elsewhere. It would be nice to get this over with. MediaKyle (talk) 17:50, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Glad we could move on this. ▄︻デȶɦɛ աǟʄʄʟɛ══━一 (talk) 17:54, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough! Happy to also have this sorted. — Kawnhr (talk) 18:59, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I support this change to the photo by Lea-Kim. This is a very good ‘new’ photo that we have got from this year, that isn’t just a low resolution crop from the White House. The 2020 photo is increasingly out of date, but we now have an equally high quality photo that is recent. It’s a nice neutral photo, you can see his eyes and isn’t doing a giant grin. PascalHD (talk) 17:40, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I was looking through the Commons category for photos of Mark Carney before I saw the change here, and I was just about to change to the new photo before I found it had been done 10 days ago! I think that this is now definitely the best photo for Carney, absent an official portrait suddenly becoming commons available DimensionalFusion (talk · she/her) 12:53, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hard agree, the old photo was so bad it's crazy we used it for as long as we did, it looked like he had just gotten out of bed and was tired as hell. The only issue now is undoing the attempts to revert to the old photo on the federal election pages. TheFellaVB (talk) 15:28, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

All right, you told me to come here, TheFellaVB.

Photos of party leaders during elections shouldn't be ones that were taken at a later date. I thought this was understood by everyone, as I've seen it stated by other editors on the election pages as a major point when discussing what photos to use. If you want to debate which photo to use on an election page, this isn't the appropriate space for it. Raise it on the specific election page or a project page. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 15:37, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This has never been a precedent ever. It makes no sense as why we'd impose the restriction to not use photos taken after the date of the election (unless someone was horribly disfigured). TheFellaVB (talk) 15:41, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"This has never been a precedent ever." — I rather doubt that.

You might have at least consulted this recent discussion. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 15:44, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Are we still fighting over photos of Mark Carney? My goodness, just let it be. I thought we were over this. The contents of the article is far more important than whatever picture of Carney is being used. MediaKyle (talk) 15:42, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There's only one person fighting over this, if you read the discussion you'd see everyone else agreed on the new photo, G. Timothy has kept undoing the edits on the 2025 election and isn't happy that was undone by multiple people. TheFellaVB (talk) 15:48, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't notify the proper pages that this discussion was taking place, therefore this discussion didn't automatically apply to other pages. If you want to consider it fighting to revert to an agreed-upon image that nobody at the pages was notified was under discussion, you do you. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 21:28, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The discussions here selecting a photo have only been for the Mark Carney article. Other articles can be updated via WP:BRD and discussed on the talk pages of those articles. Now that we have consensus for the new photo on Mark Carney, let's please try to put the topic to rest here at Talk:Mark Carney. -Consigned (talk) 09:40, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The extremely repetitive attempts to find a “new photo of Carney!” is just a waste of time. The issue is extremely subjective. There will never be a perfect picture.

I think there should be a policy that once there has been a consensus on a photo, the issue should not be raised again for at least six months. I’m done. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 23:58, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad you added a new topic to tell us this! Thanks! TheFellaVB (talk) 15:27, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the ice hockey module from the infobox because his hockey career is barely mentioned in the article and I feel placing it in the infobox is undue weight. It's worth noting that Diana Carney does not have her hockey career in her infobox, and it's probably the same level of relevance. The ice hockey information was added back to the infobox by WildComet. Thoughts? Do we really need that in the infobox? MediaKyle (talk) 13:13, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the tag. I am actually going to go ahead and self revert this. I have reviewed Oxford University Ice Hockey Club, specifically the notable former players section and the trend is to exclude university hockey careers from infoboxes. —WildComet ^talk 01:51, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]