Talk:Pope Leo XIV/RFC: Date format

• Support DMY - Yes, Prevost was an American, but considering the Pope is the Sovereign Leader of Vatican City, which (as I understand it) uses DMY. All things considered, it's a weak support, as I'm not overly concerned either way, so long as we choose a uniform approach. Northern-Virginia-Photographer (talk) 21:35, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
• Support DMY - While I acknowledge the Pope’s American citizenship and the significance of that identity, it’s crucial to recognize that upon election, the Pope assumes a role that transcends national affiliations. The papacy is not an American office—it is a Vatican one, and the Pope functions as the head of the Vatican City State, a sovereign entity with its own protocols, standards, and formatting conventions, including the DMY date format.

:Once elected, the Pope represents the global Catholic Church, not any specific country. Therefore, any biographical or official information related to his role as Pope should adhere to the conventions of the Vatican, where the DMY format is the standard. This aligns with existing Wikipedia precedent (e.g. Pope Francis’ article) and supports consistency, neutrality, and accuracy when representing Vatican-affiliated positions.

:To use the MDY format in this context would impose a national framework onto a supra-national religious office, which would be inconsistent with the global nature of the papacy and with WP:TIES. Ashleyashville (talk) 21:39, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

• Support MDY - I believe WP:DATERET should be controlling in this case, because this is what the article was using before. As there are no strong ties to any date format (the Catholic Church is not tied to any country), we should retain the current one. -- Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 21:41, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
• :"the Catholic Church is not tied to any country"- yes it is, its called the Vatican 2001:8A0:F499:DE00:F526:BC2:7487:666B (talk) 17:58, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
• ::I think what Rockstone means is that there is no "pope of Europe", "pope of Africa", etc. There is just one pope in the world. – Epicgenius (talk) 19:48, 10 May 2025 (UTC)
• Support MDY per WP:DATERET and per him being American. ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 21:45, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
• :This is the correct approach for an American cardinal and for American English Wikipedia. 47.218.45.29 (talk) 01:28, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
• ::@47.218.45.29 "the English Wikipedia has no general preference for a major national variety of the language" MOS:ENGVAR Alfkarl (talk) 07:06, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
• :::Also being an American citizen like he is doesn't mean that that strong interest comes only from the American region. He is a naturalised Peruvian citizen and the monarch of the Holy See. Alfkarl (talk) 07:11, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
• ::::Neither of which are English speaking countries, so they are completely irrelevant for "strong ties" in questions about date formats. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 14:11, 12 May 2025 (UTC)
• ::When was an ‘American English Wikipedia’ created? Docentation (talk) 13:40, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
• :MOS:DATERET is invalid because it can be overruled by a consensus. As this RfC intends to create a consensus, considering DATERET would be using a hypothetical consensus to support making that consensus a reality, which is circular thinking. I will talk to some other non-involved editors, but I think it would be most sensible to exclude the simple argument of DATERET from any consensus.JacobTheRox (talk) 13:42, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
• ::MOS:ENGVAR is the relevant manual of style entry, I would think. MDY is the American date format that should be used on articles written in American English unless some rationale can be found not to. Since the article used MDY before the conclave, that style should be preserved. Horse.staple (talk) 05:26, 10 May 2025 (UTC)
• ::You seem to be arguing here that being able to get a bunch of people together who don't like what the MOS says should - in and of itself - be a good reason not to follow it. That's not how that works. The point of the MOS is that, while exceptions can be made, they should generally only be made if there's a good context-specific reason. If you feel the MOS is wrong, the way to fix that is to change the MOS. Kahastok talk 09:14, 10 May 2025 (UTC)
• Support DMY - WP:DATERET does not prevent this - can be overcome (as stated in it) with consensus. He is pope of the global Catholic Church, including every other English speaking nations' Catholics. His notability/future work is not tied to the US (nor is there any strong national affiliation, considering his work in Peru) - goes beyond his role, so should use the prevailing global standard in the Vatican, Italy, and other English speaking nations of DMY AlbusWulfricDumbledore (talk) 21:53, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
• Support DMY. Prevost's notability as pope i.e. head of a European state and of the global Catholic Church will no doubt supersede his notability as an American priest. Cortador (talk) 22:21, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
• :No offense, but the people pushing the MDY argument are just trying to force his American identity down everyone’s throats, like being American is the most important thing about him. It’s the usual self-centered mindset—acting like the world revolves around America. News flash: it doesn’t. His a pope now his American status is beside the point. Also they are no other real argument to the MDY beside him being American Ashleyashville (talk) 22:26, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
• ::Totally agree. The argument for MDY seems to be driven by a narrow, America-first perspective that ignores the larger context of his role. Yes, he is American, but he is now the Pope. His nationality is secondary to the global significance of his office. The fact that his article is currently in MDY misses the point entirely. His position in the Vatican, not his American background, should define how we present him. There’s no valid reason to insist on MDY, especially when DMY is the norm for papal articles, as seen with Francis. Edl-irishboy (talk) 00:07, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
• ::Agree - ignores the context around him and his work/notability personally going forward, not even especially tied to America, considering his work in Peru AlbusWulfricDumbledore (talk) 10:13, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
• Support DMY - His connection with the US is not strong anymore, especially due to him being a Pope and the US being majority protestant (and also being the pope, he is no longer primarily an american, nor a peruvian, he is a sovreign of the vatican first and foremost). Also look at the example of late Pope Francis and how dates were handled in his article. wojtekpolska^{₁₀₁₃ [talk page]} 22:26, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
• :The US is not majority Protestant. It's 40% Protestant, which is a pularity. However, Catholicism only makes up 19% of the population, so I'm sure your point will still stand. GamerKiller2347 (talk) 00:41, 12 May 2025 (UTC)
• Support DMY – Although some appear to argue in the earlier discussion that the "strong ties" required to overturn MOS:DATERET are not based in an "English-speaking country", English is indeed one of many languages the Vatican uses for official communications. Since it uses DMY consistently in its English-language communications, that tips the balance a bit more heavily toward overturning MOS:DATERET in my mind. Similarly, the logic of MOS:MILFORMAT can be extended here: "in certain topic areas, it is customary to use a date format different from the usual national one." --Tim Parenti (talk) 22:43, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
• : Updated to reflect that the various outlets attached to the Vatican are apparently less consistent with this than it first seems. While I do still feel that the "custom" of using DMY for Vatican- and papacy-related topics on Wikipedia holds some weight, and is perhaps still sufficiently significant, I no longer feel that it is as supported by Vatican English-language usage. --Tim Parenti (talk) 17:39, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
• Support DMY {{summoned by bot}} - Their main reason for notability is as the pope, not as an American priest and therefore we ought to use the dating format of the Vatican and not the US. Arguments otherwise strike me as a call to American exceptionalism. TarnishedPath^talk 22:48, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
• Support DMY as I am of the opinion that the role of Pope is more notable than the fact that he is an American. SportscarFan2004 (talk) 22:58, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
• :So I think we all agree on DMY. we can close this chapter and make the changes Ashleyashville (talk) 23:00, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
• ::There's no time limit and it's not a race, love. The new pope has barely been selected. Let's let the dust settle a bit and allow others to make their arguments. Ymerazu (talk) 23:24, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
• ::As Ymerazu has stated above, this RFC has barely even started. We should wait until comments slow at the very least. TarnishedPath^talk 01:19, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
• Support MDY - It is notable that Pope Leo XIV is American and the page is already in MDY. There is no harm in leaving it as such and the date format may subtly hint the reader about the notability of the selection of a pope born in Chicago. I can see how leaving the date format as it is may seem like Americentrism to some, but to me it is a positive quirk that highlights a significant event. Ymerazu (talk) 23:00, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
• :This isn’t about celebrating his American roots. It’s about presenting information in a way that aligns with established norms and traditions. The claim that MDY is a “positive quirk” overlooks the fact that this inconsistency could confuse readers and detract from the accuracy of the article. There’s no valid reason to keep the format in MDY when DMY would be more appropriate given the international context of his role. Edl-irishboy (talk) 00:11, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
• ::Do not misconstrue my argument as celebrating American roots. Ymerazu (talk) 00:22, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
• :Material about the significance of his origins should be reliably sourced, straightforward, succinct, and easily understood, rather than communicated by ‘subtle hints’ or ‘positive quirks’, especially if the latter contradict policy. Docentation (talk) 13:48, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
• ::My lord, it's not that deep. The man is from America. Leaving it *as it is*, in one of the two very much accepted date formats, is not an affront to Wikipedia editorial policy or neutral POV. Ymerazu (talk) 16:53, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
• Support DMY – MDY might reflect his birthplace, but his role as Pope and sovereign of Vatican City, a European state where DMY is standard, is far more relevant. The papacy is not an American institution and framing it as such misrepresents its true nature. The office is based in the Vatican, a global center of the Catholic Church and that context should dictate the date format. This principle has been applied before. Despite Pope Francis’s South American origins, his article consistently uses DMY. May I draw your attention to [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pope_Francis&oldid=418912028 a 2011 revision history of Pope Francis’ page]… hmm, as you can clearly see his page was in mdy before being Pope and when he served as Pope it was changed to DMY correctly. Why are we having this conversation again? His article was [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pope_Francis&oldid=544181210 changed to DMY the day after] he became pope. Furthermore, using DMY here aligns with the subject’s current role and location, not their place of birth. Choosing DMY isn’t about downplaying background, it’s about accurately representing the office and its context. Edl-irishboy (talk) 00:00, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
• :Pope Francis was from Argentina, a DMY country. Ymerazu (talk) 04:34, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
• ::Argentina uses DMY (see date and time representation by country or [https://www.freeformatter.com/argentina-standards-code-snippets.html?utm_source=chatgpt.com this source] (which isn't that reliable but the fact Argentina uses DMY is consensus on Wikipedia already. JacobTheRox (talk) 08:54, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
• :::Regardless, the insistence on MDY based on an American birthplace completely ignores the relevant context of the papacy. Edl-irishboy (talk) 10:09, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
• Support DMY. This was an article about an American-born bishop when it was first written (and it used DMY dates); now it's an article about the world's pope. We should use the date format that most editors in the world are used to. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:59, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
• :Comment: "Per MOS:DATERET" in support of MDY isn't a valid argument because DATERET says consensus can override the original date format (which, in any event, is DMY). voorts (talk/contributions) 18:26, 11 May 2025 (UTC)
• Support MDY. Meghan, Duchess of Sussex uses MDY, so I believe that Pope Leo XIV should use MDY as well. Both are Americans that are members of European monarchies. GamerKiller2347 (talk) 02:02, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
• :Congratulations on misrepresenting both the Duchess of Sussex’s marriage and the office of Pope, truly amazing. Even if you were accurate, though, being the head of state of a nation that uses DMY (and head of a global organisation that uses DMY) is very different to just being married to someone from a country that uses DMY. Kingsif (talk) 08:28, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
• ::I was trying to establish consistency/precedent, and this is arguably the most similar situation. GamerKiller2347 (talk) 12:19, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
• :::It is not similar in the slightest, and honestly looks like someone disingenuously looking for an American with some vague foreign connection (she actively rejected, natch) whose article follows the format you want. Their situations are only as similar to each other as they are to any person born in the USA who has worked in another country, it’s illogical to either try compare all of them, or to just pick the one you like and call it a model comparison. It isn’t. Kingsif (talk) 13:39, 10 May 2025 (UTC)
• ::::This "vague foreign connection" you are mentioning is significant enough that the name of her page is "Meghan, Duchess of Sussex" rather than "Meghan Markle". It would make some sense to also use DMY like every other member of the British royal family, but every discussion to do this has failed. Obviously, you're not going to ever get a comparison with 100% similarly. However, the one thing that they have in common is that Meghan was the first American to become a member of the British royal family, while Leo was the first American Pope. If we're not going to change Meghan's date format just because she's a member of the British royal family, then it makes the most sense to keep things consistent and not change Leo's date format. GamerKiller2347 (talk) 14:21, 10 May 2025 (UTC)
• :::::Again, you’re looking for reasons to make them sound similar when they aren’t, as backwards reasoning for your preferred style. I’d actually say my description was generous given Meghan was kinda famous in the US, married a famous Brit, briefly moved and worked there, then formally cut ties with the British monarchy and moved back to the US. LBH, the Duchess of Sussex is the head of an organisation, an American production company, and that (vs head of organisation of the global church) would even be a better point of comparison than trying to liken marrying a spare and divorcing his family to an actual head of state. There are far more differences than similarities, even if you want to focus on the latter, they’re too dissimilar to legitimately argue there needs to be consistency between their articles. Boris Johnson was born in the US and is best known for being a European head of government, maybe we compare with his article. Or maybe we let the arguments stand for themselves. Kingsif (talk) 14:48, 10 May 2025 (UTC)
• :This is a poor comparison. Meghan is a long way from being the head of a European state, whereas Leo actually is the head of a European state. TarnishedPath^talk 00:41, 10 May 2025 (UTC)
• Support DMY I would like to restate my view from the original talk page discussion, that in the case of the pope, I use the argument that when you become pope, in a way you're no longer who you were, and are now just "the pope", the one and only pope of the time. You've gone beyond just being an American-born cardinal working in Peru, and are now a head of state in Europe and a leader of an international religion. It is no longer just an American-specific article anymore. There has been a major change that warrants a look into the date format, and DMY would thus be more suitable here. -boldblazer 03:15, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
• Support MDY per previous cases where an American topic overlaps with, but is not wholly subsumed into, an international topic. As he has retained American citizenship and is widely referred to as the "first American pope" (even in international publications), the use of MDY is consistent with MOS:DATETIES. SounderBruce 04:01, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
• :This strikes me as an argument to American Exceptionalism. TarnishedPath^talk 07:57, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
• ::It’s important to recognise that his position as the head of the Catholic Church and the sovereign of the Vatican transcends national considerations. Although he has retained American citizenship and is indeed referred to as the “first American pope,” the role he holds is a global one and his duties are far broader than any national identity he might have had. The use of MDY, while fitting for an American context, does not align with the international standard of DMY used by the Vatican, the Catholic Church and indeed most of the world. As the leader of 1.4 billion Catholics across the world, his influence cannot be viewed through the lens of American exceptionalism. The pope’s transition to the Vatican, with all its international responsibilities, means he is no longer operating within the specific American context where MDY would naturally apply. Edl-irishboy (talk) 10:18, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
• :::100% agree. TarnishedPath^talk 10:36, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
• Support MDY per MOS:DATETIES and MOS:DATERET. DATETIES says: {{tq|Articles on topics with strong ties to a particular English-speaking country ... should generally use the date format most commonly used in that country.}} {{em|English-speaking.}} His ties to the Vatican or other states that have been brought up shouldn't matter here; they're not English-speaking. He is, however, notably the first American pope. TeoTB (talk) 07:24, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
• :The topic is a pope, which has strong ties to the Vatican, which is not English-speaking. Ythlev (talk) 02:15, 10 May 2025 (UTC)
• ::They also have strong ties to the rest of Europe, which has multiple nations which are English-speaking. TarnishedPath^talk 06:19, 10 May 2025 (UTC)
• Support DMY I don't think that the short period of the Pope's childhood in America should outweigh the international interest, his time in Peru, and specifically the Churches standard of DMY. Alfkarl (talk) 06:59, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
• Retain existing MDY per MOS:DATERET, Discussion below. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Celjski Grad (talk • contribs) 8:29, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
• Support DMY The vast majority of the world uses DMY, and so does Italy and the Vatican. Saying that the monarch of the Holy See is more tied to America than to the Vatican since he was born there is ridiculous. An article for a European head of state on an encyclopedia meant for an international audience should use the more common date format, DMY. Alternatively, I'd also be fine with the ISO standard format. Kittybwained (talk) 08:37, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
• Support DMY His role as Pope far supersedes his American birth and using a different date format to all other pope articles would place undue emphasis on his country of birth. Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 08:47, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
• Support DMY Most visitors to the page are no longer looking for Robert Francis Prevost the American man, but for Pope Leo XIV. Consistency with the pages for other Popes should be preferred over retaining the accident of him already having a page before the most significant thing he will ever be known for. This argument was already settled when Francis became pope. Jabertsohn (talk) 09:26, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
• Support DMY for the sake of standardization, as well as per above RodRabelo7 (talk) 10:34, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

• Support DMY - The Pope is an international figure & despite being born in the US, the man has spent most of his life outside it, he doesn't really have strong ties to it compared to his ties to Latin America, Rome & the Catholic church (which contains a lot of other English speaking nations!) which he at least appears to have far stronger ties to. To play devil's to myself, I can see this being changed once he's died & is remembered as "The first American Pope", rather than just "The Pope" VJ (talk) 11:01, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
• :It may be possible that him being called an American Pope is just America-centrists grifting. He has invested enough of his life in Peru to obtain citizenship and didn't even use English in his inaugural speech. If anything, he is only half-American and half-Peruvian. Averagebilly (talk) 13:42, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
• Support DMY - He has spent a large part of his life in DMY countries (Peru and Italy) and is a citizen of a DMY country (Peru), so the mere fact of having been born and raised in, or holding citizenship of, a MDY country (USA) is not decisive. His greatest notability is as pope, which is both a global role (and most of the world uses DMY) and is a Head of State role in respect of a DMY state (Vatican).Gatepainter (talk) 11:20, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
• Support DMY - Pope Leo XIV has a greater connection to DMY localities than MDY. While he was born in the USA and has some connections there, it seems clear that he has a greater connection to Peru and the Vatican, not to mention now having a strong connection the rest of the world (and thereby all the English-speaking DMY countries). Averagebilly (talk) 13:39, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
• Support MDY. While I see some talk about the date format the Vatican uses, it should be noted that the English version of the Vatican's official biography for Leo XIV actually uses MDY [https://www.vaticannews.va/en/pope/news/2025-05/biography-of-robert-francis-prevost-pope-leo-xiv.html]. See also [https://www.vaticannews.va/en/pope/news/2025-05/inaugural-mass-of-pope-leo-xiv-to-be-held-on-may-18.html]. Why not follow suit? ~~ Jessintime (talk) 17:08, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
• :Just to correct that it is not just his biography that includes mdy dates. The Vatican News uses both dmy and mdy as shown here: [https://www.vaticannews.va/en/pope/news/2025-04/pope-francis-dies-on-easter-monday-aged-88.html], [https://www.vaticannews.va/en/pope/news/2025-04/the-funeral-celebration-of-pope-francis-on-saturday.html] uses mdy, while [https://www.vaticannews.va/en/pope/news/2025-04/pope-francis-audience-britain-king-charles-queen-camilla.html], [https://www.vaticannews.va/en/pope/news/2025-04/pope-welcomes-gemelli-hospital-physicians-and-personnel.html] uses dmy. Edl-irishboy (talk) 18:49, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
• Support DMY easier to work with in citations and increasingly standard in Wikipedia, even in American English articles (and I think the article should retain American English. Jahaza (talk) 18:28, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
• Support DMY: I frequently use DMY on American English articles and find that it is increasingly useful in avoiding grammatical difficulties produced by other features of the language. In this case, the prevalence of DMY in the US, Italy, and official Vatican communications seems to overwhelmingly indicate that it is the best option. ~ Pbritti (talk) 19:00, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
• Support DMY. Pope Leo may be American-born, and it may be appropriate to use American English here. However, in my view, Pope Leo is most notable (in the general sense, not the WP:N sense) not because he's American, but because he's the pope of Vatican City, which is not an English-speaking country and uses predominantly DMY dates. Per MOS:DATETIES, {{tq|In articles without strong ties to a particular English-speaking country, the choice of date format is controlled by MOS:DATERET; is unrelated to the topic's ties to particular countries; and is independent of, and unrelated to, the national variety of English used in the article.}} So, in my view, it can be the case that this article uses American English, but Pope Leo's nationality is incidental, at best, to the reason why he's notable right now. – Epicgenius (talk) 20:34, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
• Don't change we don't normally change an article between date formats. If it started out as MDY then it should stay like that. If it started out as DMY then it should go back to that. Secretlondon (talk) 22:24, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
• :And a new pope isn't often elected. Something not occurring regularly is not an argument to never do it. TarnishedPath^talk 22:29, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
• :Pope Francis’ page started as mdy and moved to dmy upon becoming pope. Edl-irishboy (talk) 23:51, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
• ::No, Pope Francis' page started as being incorrecty MDY; Argentina uses DMY and that should have been what was used from the start. It's not quite the same situation. JacobTheRox (talk) 15:22, 10 May 2025 (UTC)
• :::Argentina is not an English-speaking country so which date format is most popular there has no bearing on choosing a date format in an Argentina-related English Wikipedia article. It is JacobTheRox who is incorrect, not whoever started the page for Pope Francis. Jc3s5h (talk) 16:05, 10 May 2025 (UTC)
• Use whatever was in his bio before the conclave. I came here to !vote that without checking what format it was. People get way too hung up on TIES-like considerations. TIES is for ultra-clear cases; the basic rule is RETAIN. --Trovatore (talk) 00:02, 10 May 2025 (UTC)
• :For the record, [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pope_Leo_XIV&action=edit&oldid=1288554627 MDY] was originally used in the article before the conclave. – Epicgenius (talk) 02:16, 10 May 2025 (UTC)
• Support MDY. The English-speaking country with the strongest ties to Leo XIV is the United States. The article is marked as having used MDY dates since May 2021. The Vatican is not really an English-speaking country, and it isn't obvious whether there is any dominant date style (excluding all-numeric styles, which aren't allowed in Wikipedia).
• Support DMY. Per above. Ythlev (talk) 02:17, 10 May 2025 (UTC)
• Support MDY per all the above MDY arguments, especially MOS:DATEVAR and MOS:STYLEVAR. Isaidnoway (talk) 04:17, 10 May 2025 (UTC)
• Support MDY Pope Leo XIV is written in American English, which calls for dates to be formatted in the American format. We should either change the entire article to use British English (and the British English date format, DMY) if there is consensus or keep the MDY format per DATEVAR.
• Support DMY Edi-irishboy brings up a good point I hadn't considered. Every other article about a previous pope uses DMY. Given that, it's clear that his status as the pope transcends his nationality, and so the date format should be the same as the other articles. Horse.staple (talk) 05:21, 10 May 2025 (UTC)
• :Comment It's important to note that changing just the date format without changing any of the other language could introduce new issues of consistency across other pages. For example, Prince Harry, Duke of Sussex is about a British figure and uses British English with a British date format. Meghan, Duchess of Sussex is about an American figure (despite being married to a British Prince), and uses American English with an American date format.
• :There is no reason to change the date format unless we want to change the entire linguistic style. Horse.staple (talk) 06:09, 10 May 2025 (UTC)
• ::Date format is unconnected to ENGVAR, and it must be noted that DMY is the most typical global date format, it is itself not closely related to BritEng. Indeed, the Pope is as Peruvian as he is American, and articles with Peruvian ties should typically use AmEng with DMY. However, the Pope is a global figure and a Catholic figure before he is an American - thanks for noting the Duchess of Sussex is pretty much just American, another reason for therefore being a poor comparison - so whether TIES is relevant at all should be argued for, not taken for granted. Kingsif (talk) 13:44, 10 May 2025 (UTC)
• :The subject is American-born, but it is possible for articles to use both American English and DMY dates (see, for example, most US military-related articles). There is no specific requirement that an article with a {{tl|Use American English}} template use MDY dates. – Epicgenius (talk) 13:39, 10 May 2025 (UTC)
• :Considering that there was never an American pope before, that's an extremely weak argument. Gawaon (talk) 18:32, 10 May 2025 (UTC)
• ::I've been somewhat averse to the complaints of American Exceptionalism but this "{{tq|there was never an American pope before}}" is absolutely an example of it. The debate here is some mix of "is he more Pope, or more American, and how much does the spirit of policy apply" - the suggestion that being "American pope" is a defining enough category it would need its own MOS or interpretation of MOS is overvaluing this new 'first' at best. {{small|At worst, it would be ignorantly generalizing every other Pope into some "rest of the world" non-entity, with the implication that their birth places don't matter just because they're not the USA.}} Kingsif (talk) 21:29, 10 May 2025 (UTC)
• :::What? The issue is simply that, to my knowledge, the only major English-speaking country clearly preferring the MDY format is the US, so it's the one country where DATETIES clearly calling for MDY would come up. Hence the question of how many earlier popes came from this country is of central interest for the argument made. Of course I might have overlooked something and there was an US American pope before? In which case I stand humbly corrected. Gawaon (talk) 22:11, 10 May 2025 (UTC)
• :::::I note that I believe your intention was different - I'm going to try explain a bit more before responding to your view, because you still seem to be emphasising the combo of American-ness and Papacy, which is where I see the problem. The intersection of an American + Pope really doesn't matter for this debate, and may in fact distract {{small|(arguments for MDY that invoke American-ness are probably stronger without mentioning the Pope-ness, and arguments for DMY consistency with other Pope articles don't care about nationality)}}. The only reason to then mention the intersection is if someone wants to call for a brand new interpretation of MOS just for it, which does speak to a perspective of American Exceptionalism - even a subconscious one - where thinking that once something touches US identity it needs special treatment. I don't think it was your intention, but in the reply context, your comment did read to me as all but outright saying something like 'it doesn't matter that we write about all those Popes the same, because this one is special and different because he's from the USA'. As I kinda mentioned, there's ways to argue what your new reply sounds like you actually wanted to - "MOSTIES has not applied before so this is an instance when we may have to at least consider it, rather than just invoke consistency" - without making snappy comments that did give the vibe of 'I disagree because 'Murica'.

  To then earnestly reply to the point I think you were making, I believe Pope Francis' article did (unusually) use MDY before he was elected Pope - the MOS chain of TIES and DATERET would under normal circumstances have called for the MDY to be kept there (Argentina), but instead it was updated with little fanfare to use DMY, with other formatting progressively updated to be structurally consistent with other Pope articles. So in terms of your idea (if I read correctly) that Wikipedia has not encountered the issue of a person with a WP article that has legitimate reason to use/continue using MDY suddenly becoming Pope... well, it has. Not to say consensus can't change, but I'd now say your 'never had to deal with it before' was a weak counter-argument to consistency when we dealt with it before and consistency won. Kingsif (talk) 00:02, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

• ::::::I'm not American and it's been a long time since I was last in the US. I have never been accused of advocating American Exceptionalism before and would not have expected that to happen, but there you go. You may remember, though, that the argument is about MOS:DATETIES (I didn't bother explicitly mentioning that in my original comment, considering it obvious). Which says (emphasis in the original): "Articles on topics with strong ties to a particular English-speaking country ... should generally use the date format most commonly used in that country. For the United States this is MDY (July 4, 1976). For most other English-speaking countries it is DMY (4 July 1976). Articles relating to Canada may use either format..." So the "American Exceptionalism", if you really want to call it that, is built right into the MOS, since the US is the only country for which DATETIES tells you to use MDY. You don't have to take my word for it, I just quoted it. Hence the question of how many of the 266 earlier popes came from this specific country is highly relevant in this case. If there were a few and DATETIES was ignored in those cases, that could be taken as precedent to ignore it again. If there was none, however, the argument for ignoring DATETIES is null and void. (In the case of Pope Francis, DATETIES is simply inapplicable, Argentina not being an English-speaking country.) I rest my case. Gawaon (talk) 06:45, 11 May 2025 (UTC)
• :::::::I encourage you to read my most recent reply again, carefully, because I don't think I have a clearer way of repeating it to try make it clear you that, no, the intersection is irrelevant and harping on about it is advocating for special American treatment beyond the bounds of recognising difference. (The point on Francis was with no TIES, DATERET in theory should've applied but logic prevailed. Sigh.) Kingsif (talk) 22:11, 11 May 2025 (UTC)
• ::::::::DATERET is, however, much weaker, since it explicitly says that it can be overwritten by talk page consensus (as supposedly happened there). That's not the case for DATETIES, though (see CONLEVEL). Gawaon (talk) 17:41, 12 May 2025 (UTC)
• ::::Conversely, it appears there has never been a pope from an English-speaking country that clearly prefers the DMY format. As far as I recall, there has never been a British, Irish, Australian, New Zeelander, or Indian pope. So why is it that all the articles about popes use DMY? Is it some sort of consensus, or did one editor go through years ago and change them all? Jc3s5h (talk) 22:21, 10 May 2025 (UTC)
• :::::I believe there was an English Pope about a thousand years ago. I don't think Wikipedia argued over it at the time ;) Kingsif (talk) 00:02, 11 May 2025 (UTC)
• Retain MDY. If people want to apply a rule that we follow styles preferred by non-English speaking countries, that's a discussion for WT:MOSNUM. The current rule only considers ties to English-speaking countries. If people want to apply a rule that we always use DMY, that's also a discussion for WT:MOSNUM. The current rule treats MDY and DMY equally. In this case, because the article was previously MDY. If we wanted to change to DMY, we would need a good reason specific to this topic as to why it should not follow wP:DATERET, and I don't see one in my brief survey of this discussion so far. Kahastok talk 09:14, 10 May 2025 (UTC)
• I'm going to add to this and say that I reject the argument that articles on all previous popes used DMY as it is insufficient in my view. I note that they do not all use the same variety of English. I would have thought that the significant inconsistency in terms of spelling is far more likely to be jarring to a reader than inconsistency in terms of date format - particularly bearing in mind that all of the relevant date formats exist and are readily understood in all English-speaking countries - and yet this does not appear to have caused any problems up to now. Kahastok talk 18:46, 12 May 2025 (UTC)
• :"I note that they do not all use the same variety of English."
• :That is an incredibly shaky excuse for ignoring what is one of the stronger arguments in support of DMY, that every other papal article uses that format, and through that lens this article becomes the exception instead of the rule.
• :As I have said before, WP:ENGVAR and WP:DATETIES are two separate policies by design. The fact that different articles written in different varieties of English use different date formats is not an argument for or against any one date format—it’s barely an argument at all.
• :I don’t want this to come across as assuming bad faith, but your argument that "inconsistency in spelling can be jarring to a reader" is very America-centric. I assure you our readers are capable of telling the difference between aluminum and aluminium without our intervention. Horse.staple (talk) 19:19, 12 May 2025 (UTC)
• First time I've been accused of being America-centric there. That's an entertainment. I do not claim that there is any formal link between WP:ENGVAR and WP:DATETIES. This does not change the fact that there doesn't seem to be any particular concern about inconsistent spellings. And the fact that there is no such concern rather suggests that the notion that there will be concern about inconsistent date formats is being significantly overblown. Are you suggesting our readers are not capable of recognising that 12 May 2025 and May 12, 2025 are the same date? Kahastok talk 19:39, 12 May 2025 (UTC)
• :Just because our readers can parse the difference in date does not mean the fact that every other papal article uses DMY except for this one does not create an inconsistency.
• :There has been a lot of America-centrism in this discussion, and the claim that the different varieties of English can be narrowed down to "spelling inconsistencies" smacks of it in spirit, if not form. Horse.staple (talk) 04:50, 13 May 2025 (UTC)
• :OK, so your argument is that the difference in dialect is more significant than just an inconsistency in terms of spelling, but still irrelevant compared with the extreme dislocation you think readers will feel when they encounter May 12 instead of 12 May? Even though both forms exist in all dialects of English? I think this is being overblown. I think it's the best argument under policy for DMY, but I don't find it at all persuasive. And when there are no persuasive arguments for change to DMY, that's probably a good clue that we should retain MDY per WP:DATERET. Kahastok talk 06:40, 13 May 2025 (UTC)
• ::To clarify, you are the one who compared linguistic differences and date formatting differences, so I'm a little limited by the parameters you established. That being said, there are obviously differences beyond spelling in the different varieties of English, grammar plays a significant role as well (Elevator vs. lift, indexes vs. indices, etc.). If the difference in varieties of English could accurately be restricted to spelling there would be no spoken difference at all. I think that the discussion of varieties of English is irrelevant to this discussion.
• ::I do not think that our readers will feel any "extreme dislocation" no matter what date format we choose. Regardless, the choice of format carries substantive weight because it has obviously uncovered serious misalignment among editors regarding the applicability of various sections of the MOS that I agree will probably need to be settled within the MOS itself. Nevertheless, there are several principles that would allow us to seek consensus to implement a change to DMY locally without needing to upend the MOS to do so. Your arguments that doing so will create a slippery slope that leads to anarchy because "nothing means anything" are equally nonpersuasive to me. Horse.staple (talk) 07:02, 13 May 2025 (UTC)
• Retain MDY per DATETIES (American) and DATERET. The Vatican is not an English-speaking country (if it's a country at all, which I frankly doubt) so it can't be considered to establish DMY ties. (Personally I prefer DMY, but personal preferences don't matter here.) Gawaon (talk) 10:19, 10 May 2025 (UTC)
• :{{tq|The Vatican is not an English-speaking country (if it's a country at all, which I frankly doubt)}} - you are allowed to fact-check things before commenting. Kingsif (talk) 21:23, 10 May 2025 (UTC)
• Comment He’s the Pope, and for the rest of his life, his role will be defined by the global, Catholic, and European context, not any ties to the US. As Pope, his legacy and influence will transcend his American origins, and his biography should reflect that. The Vatican uses DMY dates, as do most of Europe and the global Catholic community. DMY is the standard for international figures like the Pope. So, continuing with MDY just because it was used when he had stronger American ties doesn’t make sense given his position now. DMY is far more fitting moving forward, and keeping consistency with other papal articles is important. Jumping from all papal articles using DMY to suddenly using MDY doesn’t make sense. It would create inconsistency where there is none. DMY is the logical choice here, both to reflect the international nature of the papacy and to maintain consistency across similar articles. Edl-irishboy (talk) 10:47, 10 May 2025 (UTC)
• :* Support DMY - Yes, He's the Pope, based in Rome and they use DMY as does most everywhere outside the United States.
• :Avi8tor (talk) 13:27, 10 May 2025 (UTC)
• :"Jumping from all papal articles using DMY to suddenly using MDY doesn't make sense."
• :+1 for this because it actually made me change my view. I did just skim all 266 papal articles, and the ones that mention dates beyond {{circa}} "year" do use DMY. Horse.staple (talk) 15:10, 10 May 2025 (UTC)
• Support DMY His new role brings him global significance, and he is now the head of state of a European nation. Walco1 (talk) 14:51, 10 May 2025 (UTC)
• Support DMY This article will be read from readers around the world. Most of them are used to DMY, so it makes it slightly easier for them to read the text. The logical sequence of short durations followed by longer durations also contributes to readability. Joe vom Titan (talk) 05:45, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

:*This is an argument stating that DMY is superior to MDY, which isn't the point of this poll... --Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 04:17, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

• Support DMY - Even though he was born inside the United States and mostly lived in Peru, all other articles of Popes use DMY dates. Besides, he's also the sovereign of Vatican City anyway, which is surrounded by Italy, a country in Southern Europe. Quincy2293 (talk) 22:47, 10 May 2025 (UTC)
• Support DMY per arguments for DMY - WP:COMMONSENSE to be consistent with other articles concerning popes, as this is overwhelmingly his most notable role. U-Mos (talk) 12:01, 11 May 2025 (UTC)
• Support DMY - consistent with other papal bios. GoodDay (talk) 17:25, 11 May 2025 (UTC)
• Support DMY {{sbb}} While the pope comes from a country that uses MDY, he is now head of a multinational religious entity, and the usage common for that personage appears to be DMY. Coretheapple (talk) 17:33, 11 May 2025 (UTC)
• Support DMY per above. SpartanMazda (talk) 05:57, 12 May 2025 (UTC)
• Support DMY due to his connections to Peru/the Vatican. Sahaib (talk) 10:04, 12 May 2025 (UTC)
• Support MDY - the article is about the man as a whole. That man is an American. The US is the only English speaking country that he has ties to. Therefor, there is no reason to change it. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 14:08, 12 May 2025 (UTC)
• Support DMY per his work in Peru and the Vatican and per the common sense expressed by the vast majority above concerning the homogeneity of papal entries. -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 17:30, 12 May 2025 (UTC)
• Support DMY the Vatican uses DMY, as most of the world does. He was born in the United States, but he also holds dual citizenship. And his current role as head of the Vatican clearly goes beyond any single nationality or the customs that come with it. This feels like an attempt to emphasise his American identity unnecessarily. Paprikaiser (talk) 20:33, 12 May 2025 (UTC)
• Support MDY per WP:DATERET and the overall intention behind MOS:RETAIN, which does not directly govern but follows the correct principle. No reader can possibly be confused by the use of MDY dates, and the fact that other papal articles use a different format is conceptually similar to WP:OTHERSTUFF. The only real problem with using MDY dates is that some editors constantly violate the MOS:DATECOMMA rule, although I have no idea whether that's out of ignorance or deliberate disregard (I tend to think it's the former). But that's a relatively minor nuisance in the scheme of things. 1995hoo (talk) 21:03, 12 May 2025 (UTC)
• Support DMY per the arguments commonly given (Vatican/Peru). 2A02:8071:184:4E80:0:0:0:D25A (talk) 23:51, 12 May 2025 (UTC)
• Weak support for DMY. MOS:DATETIES says that "{{xtn|Articles on topics with strong ties to a particular English-speaking country ... should generally use the date format most commonly used in that country.}}". If the phrasing were "should always use" or "should use", rather than "should generally use", there would be an open-and-shut case for using MDY: the Pope has strong ties to the US, and Peru and the Vatican aren't English-speaking countries. But the phrasing allows for leeway, and having a consistent format across related topics (i.e., articles on other popes) seems desirable to me, even if I don't see it codified in policy anywhere yet. Ham II (talk) 11:00, 13 May 2025 (UTC)
• Support DMY for consistency with all other en-wiki articles on Popes. M.O.X (talk) 03:58, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
• Leaning Support for DMY - I don't see why MDY should be used other than Leo being an American. I will partially support DMY should per consistency with every other pope. Freedoxm (talk · contribs) 05:49, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
• Support MDY. There is no basis in policy that "international" topics on Wikipedia require, default to, or otherwise prefer DMY. Nor is it a majority vote among countries. It is a worldwide church; if all places have "ties" then no places have ties. Inter-article consistency is also not a valid reason in a MOS:STYLERET situation. There is no global consistency to begin with. None of the reasons to change rather than retain is an objective improvement to the encyclopedia. It is merely shuffling from one equally acceptable style to another. The date format was stable since 2021. It should be retained. Adumbrativus (talk) 07:30, 16 May 2025 (UTC)
• Support DMY. Despite the outcome of the discusion over MOS:DATETIES, I think that in this case we should WP:IGNORE the guideline in order to achieve consistency with other popes and the catholic church. TomJB1 (talk) 10:28, 16 May 2025 (UTC)
• Support DMY - Prevost is also Peruvian (which use DMY), but most importantly he is now the pope and the Vatican uses DMY as does Italy. Elrondil (talk) 11:03, 17 May 2025 (UTC)
• :Now all you have to do is show that Peru, the Vatican, and Italy are English-speaking countries. Gawaon (talk) 15:52, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

Detailed below are popular arguments that seem to come up a lot.

• Pope Francis' page has the same issue (person from MDY country in DMY role as pope) and DMY was chosen there, so we should keep it as a precedent and use it here.{{small|This has been reviewed and is not accurate information; Argentina uses DMY}}
• :Is this accurate? Pope Francis was born in Argentina which is a DMY country. Ymerazu (talk) 04:42, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
• :Correct. Argentina is DMY (like most countries in the world) 194.249.250.171 (talk) 12:52, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
• ::Right, so this argument of precedent is based on incorrect information. Ymerazu (talk) 16:59, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
• :::Apologies; I'm sure it was somewhere on the talk page discussion before the RfC. I'll strike it now. JacobTheRox (talk) 07:01, 10 May 2025 (UTC)
• ::::I think the spirit is captured in the WP:TIES argument anyway so no big deal. Ymerazu (talk) 09:17, 10 May 2025 (UTC)
• Per WP:TIES, An article on a topic that has strong ties to a particular English-speaking nation should use the English of that nation. The Vatican, Italy, Europe and the Church all use DMY dates and as pope he is tied to that.
• Note however that none of those is an English-speaking country. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trovatore (talk • contribs) 00:44, 10 May 2025 (UTC)
• This is incorrect. There are a number of English speaking nations in Europe as much as American Exceptionalism might lead some to believe that America invented the language. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TarnishedPath (talk • contribs) 10:16, 10 May 2025 (UTC)
• So is it the United Kingdom, Ireland or Malta that you are arguing that he has strong national ties to? Kahastok talk 10:23, 10 May 2025 (UTC)
• The issue is not about specific national ties to the United Kingdom, Ireland, or Malta, but rather the global nature of the papacy and the international context in which the Pope operates. The Pope’s position is not confined to one country. The Vatican’s use of DMY in English-language publications such as Vatican News and their own Holy See official website reflects the broader global reach of the papacy, not any particular English-speaking nation. Edl-irishboy (talk) 20:48, 10 May 2025 (UTC)
• As per the map below showing the concentration of Catholicism to various countries, The pope can be determined to having strongest ties to Western Europe and South America. As stated above there a number of English speaking nations in Europe (particularly Western Europe). TarnishedPath^talk 00:07, 11 May 2025 (UTC)
• WP:DATETIES only applies if he has strong national ties to an English-speaking country. Neither Western Europe nor South America is an English-speaking country. The only case that could conceivably be made is based on his ties to the US, but we don't have to adjudicate that because it doesn't make a difference to the conclusion - it's either MDY as US-based or MDY by default per WP:DATERET. Kahastok talk 08:39, 11 May 2025 (UTC)
• :As stated elsewhere WP:DATERET is redundant as it explicitly specified that change can occur as a result of {{tq|consensus on the article's talk page}}. TarnishedPath^talk 12:09, 12 May 2025 (UTC)
• :It depends on what your definition of an English-speaking country is. The Vatican publishes documents etc. in English, and these use a mix of DMY and MDY dates but lean towards DMY. Vatican News publishes in English and uses DMY. I know that WP:TIES normally applies to English-speaking countries only, but we should make an exception based on the unusual nature of the Vatican in that it is not a usual country by any means. JacobTheRox (talk) 12:39, 10 May 2025 (UTC)
• The article for the head of state of Vatican City should obviously use the date format used in Vatican City (and most of the world). Kittybwained (talk) 08:39, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
• This comment seeks to overturn the consensus that MDY and DMY are on an equal footing (in the absence of strong national ties to an English-speaking country). An example of a choice that doesn't have equal footing is SI vs. customary US or British units of measure, where SI goes first in the absence of strong ties to the US or UK.
  Jc3s5h (talk) 01:38, 10 May 2025 (UTC)
• Jumping from all papal articles using DMY to suddenly using MDY doesn't make sense. All 266 papal articles, and the ones that mention dates beyond c. "year" do use DMY. The other articles for individual popes appear to be in DMY format, checking back to 1600 CE.
• All previous articles on popes seem to just use DMY and I don't see why it should change here just because the new pope is from the United States. Furthermore, the Vatican's [https://www.vatican.va/content/vatican/en.html website] and [https://press.vatican.va/content/salastampa/en/bollettino.html press office] both use DMY dates. Kaythehistorian (talk) 22:25, 10 May 2025 (UTC)
• :This is not entirely true. For example, [https://www.vaticannews.va/en/pope/news/2025-05/inaugural-mass-of-pope-leo-xiv-to-be-held-on-may-18.html this story] that can be navigated to from the Vatican website uses dates such as "May 18", "May 12", and "May 25" but also, on the same page, "09 May 2025, 14:17". Jc3s5h (talk) 23:01, 10 May 2025 (UTC)
• ::I have also touched on this. The Vatican News uses both DMY and MDY. The official Holy See website uses DMY. Here’s my earlier comment regarding this: “Just to correct that it is not just his biography that includes mdy dates. The Vatican News uses both dmy and mdy as shown here: [https://www.vaticannews.va/en/pope/news/2025-04/pope-francis-dies-on-easter-monday-aged-88.html], [https://www.vaticannews.va/en/pope/news/2025-04/the-funeral-celebration-of-pope-francis-on-saturday.html] uses mdy, while [https://www.vaticannews.va/en/pope/news/2025-04/pope-francis-audience-britain-king-charles-queen-camilla.html], [https://www.vaticannews.va/en/pope/news/2025-04/pope-welcomes-gemelli-hospital-physicians-and-personnel.html] uses dmy. Edl-irishboy (talk) 18:49, 9 May 2025 (UTC)” Edl-irishboy (talk) 18:34, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

• He was born in the USA and is fundamentally an American, so MDY dates should be used.
• The article is for Prevost himself, not for the position of Pope. Therefore, he is not tied to the Vatican to any significant extent and should retain his primary connection to the USA.

:::The article is now about him in the context of being Pope Leo XIV, not as a private citizen of the United States. His identity and notability are now defined by his role as the leader of the global Catholic Church. Edl-irishboy (talk) 20:53, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

• As MDY dates have already been the consensus in the past, WP:DATERET would suggest that "the date format chosen in the first major contribution in the early stages of an article (i.e., the first non-stub version) should continue to be used". While consensus could override this consideration in the current RFC, no compelling reason to do so has been presented.
• The article for Meghan, Duchess of Sussex, an American who is associated with the monarchy of another DMY country (United Kingdom), uses MDY dates, so MDY should be used for Pope Leo XIV to establish consistency.

:::It’s important to recognise that the context here is quite different. The papacy has always followed the DMY format for all popes and there is a long standing precedent for this. Changing the date format for Pope Leo XIV to MDY simply to match another article would disrupt this consistency across papal articles. Edl-irishboy (talk) 20:39, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

::::To wit, Leo is and from now always will be more similar to every other Pope - the group of people to whom his life's work will be compared, natch - than he is to any other American. There are so many Americans who have married and worked outside of the US in varying roles of significance, and if we're going to demand consistency among articles, there's no reason for it to be for any individual one of them (as I've noted above, Boris Johnson was born in the USA, if inexplicably highlighting the Duchess of Sussex, why not a former PM, too) instead of the collective of Pope articles. Kingsif (talk) 01:40, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::Boris Johnson was prime minister of an English-speaking country, and the fact that he was an accidental American doesn't reduce his ties to the United Kingdom. Are you claiming that Pope Leo XIV has strong national ties to the United Kingdom? Kahastok talk 08:39, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::Are you being deliberately obtuse or what? Besides the fact it's literally a parenthesis - an aside to my point - obviously I'm not claiming that, in the same way people trying to use the Duchess of Sussex as a comparison aren't either. Kingsif (talk) 22:07, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::No one is suggesting Pope Leo has ties to the United Kingdom, that was clearly not the claim. The reference to Boris Johnson, like that of the Duchess of Sussex, was used to illustrate that birthplace alone shouldn't dictate date format when it's contextually inappropriate. The central argument remains- Pope Leo now belongs to a long-standing line of pontiffs, all of whom are styled using DMY. The Vatican, his office and his global presence are all situated within a context that overwhelmingly uses DMY. This is about maintaining consistency within the group of articles most relevant to his role namely, popes not about forcing consistency based on shared citizenship with unrelated figures. Edl-irishboy (talk) 22:38, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

• Like Jacob, I am neutral, leaning DMY - with my principle thought and the comment I feel needs to be made being that we can use American English and DMY, there is no conflict to doing so and any arguments based on AmEng should be discarded. Or, discredited with extreme prejudice: the article for Pope Francis uses AmEng and DMY, as one precedent. In addition to prioritising the Church over the USA, we can also acknowledge Pope Leo XIV's strong connection to Peru for most of his life (especially notable life), which he himself acknowledged in his inaugural address: like many Latin American countries, AmEng (geographical closeness) and DMY (native format) are typically used for Peruvian-related articles, too. Why am I closer to neutral? DATERET, at least while the article is already heavily-edited and date format not being something that important to 'fix' - though the article does not have internal consistency at the moment, so perhaps this is moot anyway. Kingsif (talk) 21:42, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

:*Clarifying that my point is, it’s close but DMY makes sense, however, I would not be opposed if this RfC was closed as some form of “DATERET, it’s not pertinent to update this right now while the article is so busy, discuss again later”. Kingsif (talk) 08:30, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

• Date format on similar pages: The other articles for individual popes appear to be in DMY format (I checked back to 1600 CE and I assume the trend continues). Related articles such as Pope and List of Popes are in DMY as well. I actually lean toward leaving the article MDY but wanted to add this info to the discussion. Ymerazu (talk) 22:24, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
• :Meghan, Duchess of Sussex, similar to Pope Leo XIV, is an American who is a member of a European monarchy. Her page uses MDY. GamerKiller2347 (talk) 02:08, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
• ::being married to 6th in line to the british throne is not similar to being pope — jonas (talk) 02:21, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
• ::She's not a "member of a European monarchy"...famously. DeCausa (talk) 06:54, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
• ::I don't think being married to Prince Harry (who will almost certainly never become King) is significant enough to override MOS:DATERET, as her page will have originally been MDY anyway. I think it is not difficult to argue, however, that being the Pope and thus the King of the Vatican is a significant enough change. JacobTheRox (talk) 09:06, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
• :::It is significant enough that her page title is her royal title rather than Meghan Markle. GamerKiller2347 (talk) 12:22, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
• ::::This is a result of WP:COMMONNAME. Meghan, Duchess of Sussex is the name that she is commonly known by. An argument could be made on the relevant talk page that reliable sources refer to her pretty exclusively as Meghan Markle, but this is not the right place for that. Horse.staple (talk) 22:34, 11 May 2025 (UTC)
• :::Also, whether or not someone is likely to succeed to the British throne is a WP:CRYSTALBALL argument and is therefore irrelevant. GamerKiller2347 (talk) 14:48, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
• Strong ties to a particular English-speaking country: Whether you think there is a strong tie or not, MOS:DATE is clear. If you think a strong tie exists (e.g. he is American) then MOS says "Articles on topics with strong ties to a particular English-speaking country should generally use the date format most commonly used in that country." If you feel no strong tie exists (e.g. the Pope equally important in all countries or he is based in Europe) then MOS advises: "In articles without strong ties to a particular English-speaking country, the choice of date format is controlled by MOS:DATERET"

:MOS:DATERET states: "If an article has evolved using predominantly one date format, this format should be used throughout the article, unless there are reasons for changing it based on the topic's strong ties to a particular English-speaking country". I did not add the emphasis, this is part of the MOS. As others have pointed out, the position of Pope has no strong ties to any one country, and the Vatican's official language is Latin or Italian. Celjski Grad (talk) 08:28, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

::File:Date_format_by_country_3.svg

::File:Percent_of_Catholics_by_Country–Pew_Research_2011.svg

::I would disagree that the pope has no strong ties to any particular country, because the Pope lives in the Vatican, which is the global home of Catholicism for reasons I surely don't need to write out here. As pope, Leo will be serving Catholics all around the world and the fact he's American isn't actually that relevant to the position. As shown in Figure 1, Italy and the Vatican use DMY, as well as most of Europe and South America (although some of Europe uses YMD as well). As you can see from Figure 2, these two continents are where the highest proportion of people are Catholic, as well as the two continents where he served as a missionary and where he will serve as Pope.

::That being said, I do concede that MOS:TIES does refer to an English-speaking nation, and therefore could be considered invalid.

::Thanks for contributing, JacobTheRox (talk) 09:03, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Agree. He is no longer Robert Francis Prevost, no longer simply an individual of Chicago or the US; he is now the leader of the global Catholic Church, with a responsibility that spans continents, cultures and the world. As Pope Leo XIV, he represents a universal institution, and his connection to the United States becomes secondary to the broader, international context in which he operates. The Vatican, as the epicentre of the Catholic Church, follows a different set of norms, including date formatting DMY. His position now carries with it the weight of an office that is global in nature and this shift away from his American identity is reflected in how he is viewed and addressed internationally. Edl-irishboy (talk) 10:25, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

:::: But the Vatican is not an English-speaking country, so ties to the Vatican carry precisely no weight whatsoever. --Trovatore (talk) 00:09, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::This misses the broader point. The Pope’s significance is international and his position as the leader of the Catholic Church spans continents and cultures. Therefore, the article about him, even as an individual, should reflect this global context by using DMY, which is consistent with international conventions for prominent global figures, rather than MDY. To focus on the Vatican's linguistic norms is to disregard the fact that the papacy is recognised worldwide and that this should be reflected in the formatting used in his personal article. The decision should not be limited to the format chosen in the article’s early stages if the subject’s global nature and international representation warrant a shift. Here, DMY is the more suitable format, as it better reflects the Pope's global role instead of being tied to any national or regional affiliation. Edl-irishboy (talk) 20:30, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

::@Celjski Grad thanks for quoting MOS:DATERET, however you missed a bit:

::{{tq|If an article has evolved using predominantly one date format, this format should be used throughout the article, unless there are reasons for changing it based on the topic's strong ties to a particular English-speaking country, or consensus on the article's talk page.}} (my emphasis)

::This is crystal clear that if consensus here forms for the change then the change happens. TarnishedPath^talk 10:30, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

:::It’s also crystal clear that we do not have a consensus. Celjski Grad (talk) 10:47, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

::::If that was the case, the RfC would have been closed already as "no consensus", but it has not. Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 10:58, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::The RFC has been open for 14 hours; it would be ridiculous to close it now consensus or no consensus. However, MOS:DATERET specifies that a consensus can override any existing format, so the consensus reached here should not be inclusive of people only quoting DATERET as a reason (as it is circular thinking). JacobTheRox (talk) 11:01, 9 May 2025 (UTC)\

::::::: That same argument, if accepted, would also apply to anyone only quoting DATETIES. So I think that pretty much cancels out. It's perfectly valid to say "while consensus can override either DATETIES or DATERET, I agree with the motives behind those, and don't see any reason to override them in this case". Just quoting DATETIES or DATERET is a reasonable shorthand for that. --Trovatore (talk) 00:52, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::Precisely. TarnishedPath^talk 12:15, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

::::Are you sure? I feel like I see more statements that "support DMY" than statements that "support MDY". Or does that not (yet) count as a consensus? SportscarFan2004 (talk) 11:51, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::It’s based on neither unanimity nor majority. Wikipedia:Consensus gives more detail. Celjski Grad (talk) 12:16, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

:: MOS:DATETIES is also very clear that, "in certain topic areas, it is customary to use a date format different from the usual national one" that the normal rule would specify (emphasis mine). Custom can be based on a long-standing tradition. While the example given in MOS:MILFORMAT is the US military, there is at least a valid similar argument that MOS:DATETIES and MOS:DATERET do not automatically shut down the possibility of DMY, if a consensus in that direction should emerge from this RfC. --Tim Parenti (talk) 16:56, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

• If I am not mistaken, Vatican documents are published with a date. Perhaps we could wait to see what date format they choose for documents signed by Pope Leo XIV? Does Wikipedia's date policies factor in the date format preferred by the subject of an artcicle? Averagebilly (talk) 13:48, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
• :The vatican uses DMY, as does Italy which it is a microstate within. JacobTheRox (talk) 13:57, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
• :As seen on the Holy See website, the Vatican uses dmy dates, [https://press.vatican.va/content/salastampa/en/bollettino/pubblico/2025/05/09/250509c.html as seen here] .. "Minutes of the acceptance of the Roman Pontiff and his assumed name, 09.05.2025" and [https://press.vatican.va/content/salastampa/en/bollettino/pubblico/2025/05/09.html here], etc. Edl-irishboy (talk) 14:47, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
• ::"09.05.2025" is a different format from any format in which the month is written in letters. Dates with the month written in letters, using Italian, are in a different format from dates with the month written in letters, using English (in case anyone finds those date formats associated with the Vatican). Jc3s5h (talk) 01:46, 10 May 2025 (UTC)
• :::The issue at hand is not about numeric formats like "09.05.2025" or dates written in Italian. May I draw your attention to the DMY format used in official English-language Vatican materials. In this Holy See Press Office publication, the date appears clearly as “22 June 1963”. This is a plain example of the Vatican using DMY in its English-language output. [https://press.vatican.va/content/salastampa/en/bollettino/pubblico/2025/05/10/250510a.html (Message Qui Fausto Die addressed to the entire human family] 22 June 1963). Edl-irishboy (talk) 20:59, 10 May 2025 (UTC)
• :I posted this above, but the Vatican's biography of Leo XIV actually uses MDY [https://www.vaticannews.va/en/pope/news/2025-05/biography-of-robert-francis-prevost-pope-leo-xiv.html]. ~~ Jessintime (talk) 17:16, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
• ::Yes and I have replied. The biography is posted in the Vatican News, and I reiterate again that the Vatican News uses both dmy and mdy dates. The Vatican's official website, The Holy See, excluding the news media, uses DMY dates. [https://www.vatican.va/content/vatican/en.html The Holy See]...[https://press.vatican.va/content/salastampa/it/bollettino/pubblico/2025/05/09/0301/00526.html Clearly shows 09.05.2025]. Edl-irishboy (talk) 18:54, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
• Just a note to say I've alerted WikiProject Catholicism about this RfC, and also left a notice at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers. Would it be worth adding {{code|reli}} and/or {{code|style}} to the RfC template above? Adding this RfC to multiple topic categories might attract more contributors and ensure wide consensus, which would suit such an internationally significant article subject. Pineapple Storage (talk) 20:24, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
• :Added reli, as its a Catholic article. Valorrr ^{(lets chat)} 22:06, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
• ::I've now added {{code|style}} as well. Pineapple Storage (talk) 01:02, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

Hi everyone. I am adding this section to discuss arguments that are coming up that are being considered incorrect, contentious, or misleading by other editors. This is important as I do not want to form a consensus based on information that is not truthful or that is misleading. Thanks, JacobTheRox (talk) 12:56, 10 May 2025 (UTC).

The manual of style says that {{xt|If an article has evolved using predominantly one date format, this format should be used throughout the article, unless there are reasons for changing it based on the topic's strong ties to a particular English-speaking country, or consensus on the article's talk page.}}. However, this is the attempt to form a consensus on the article's talk page. Therefore, using MOS:DATERET is circular thinking as it is using the fact a consensus is needed to overrule the current system as part of that consensus.

Furthermore, WP:RETAIN (on which DATERET is based) states that {{xt|When an English variety's consistent usage has been established in an article, maintain it in the absence of consensus to the contrary. There is only very exceptionally [...] a valid reason for changing from one acceptable option to another.}} Firstly, this shows that any use of WP:RETAIN is also circular thinking in this RfC, and secondly his accession to pope is an exceptional situation, and one that is seen as redefining his identity, and even his popular name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JacobTheRox (talk • contribs) 12:56, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

:If we were to hold to your logic, we would be deleting not just WP:DATERET but the entire MOS. Actually, not just the MOS, but every other policy and guideline we have as well. Per WP:IAR all of them can be overridden if the need arises.

:WP:DATERET holds that we don't change the established usage unless there is good reason to do so. The argument we got consensus that we like DMY is not a good reason. Nothing circular about that. If you like DMY and you think that's a good reason to change, the way to do it is to change the MOS. Not to go round random article talk pages proposing a change to DMY based on your personal preference. Kahastok talk 13:36, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

::I don't think you understand my point, so let me try articulate it better.

::* MOS:RETAIN and other things based on it, for example MOS:DATERET can be overridden by a consensus on an article's talk page.

::* This RfC, which is on a subpage of Pope Leo XIV is trying to establish whether there is consensus that DMY should replace MDY.

::* Therefore, the consensus of this RfC can override MOS:RETAIN and MOS:DATERET if it is different to what is already on the article (MDY).

::* Using MOS:RETAIN and MOS:DATERET here is arguing that the fact it is MDY already should contribute to the consensus of this RfC.

::* However, as this RfC is establishing whether to overrule MOS:RETAIN and MOS:DATERET, it is being used as an argument for its own sustainment.

::* Therefore, this is circular reasoning because the MOS is being used to form a consensus on whether the MOS should be applied.

::Another way of thinking about this is:

::* If the result of this RfC is in favour of DMY, then MOS:RETAIN and MOS:DATERET are overruled and DMY will be implemented.

::* Therefore, at that point they are not relevant to the article anymore, because a consensus has been reached that it should be changed.

::* However, if MOS:RETAIN and MOS:DATERET were considered and that caused the consensus to be MDY, then they would have influenced the outcome of whether they should be used.

::* Therefore, the manual of style would be directly influencing whether the manual of style is upheld.

::* Therefore, this is circular reasoning because the MOS is being used to form a consensus on whether the MOS should be applied.

::I hope this explains better why I don't think it should be allowed considered valid. This doesn't disqualify the entire MOS and every other policy and guideline we have as well. Most parts of the manual of style (e.g. MOS:PUNCTUATION, MOS:ORDER, MOS:IMAGE etc.) do not have the clause of: {{xt| unless there are reasons for changing it based on [...] consensus on the article's talk page.}}

::Thanks, JacobTheRox (talk) 15:20, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

:::{{u|JacobTheRox}}, you do not get to decide whether an argument is "allowed". You can certainly argue that an argument is invalid. But you don't get to say, in advance, this argument is not to be made. --Trovatore (talk) 16:16, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

::::As stated above, {{xt|Hi everyone. I am adding this section to discuss arguments that are coming up that are being considered incorrect, contentious, or misleading by other editors. This is important as I do not want to form a consensus based on information that is not truthful or that is misleading.}} Furthermore, I was using the term 'allowed' to mean that I do not think it should be considered as an argument on its own when forming a consensus. I do not mean that editors cannot make it.

::::Wikipedia:Closing discussions states: {{xt|The closer is there to judge the consensus of the community, after discarding irrelevant arguments: those that flatly contradict established policy, those based on personal opinion only, those that are logically fallacious, and those that show no understanding of the matter of issue}} (bolding is mine). I am currently arguing that WP:DATERET is logically fallacious, and therefore any arguments that list DATERET on its own should be discarded.

::::However, I am sure that some editors who have simply supported MDY on the grounds of DATERET may seek to expand upon or change their argument to allow it to be included in a consensus, as their opinions are still 100% valued. That is why I am raising it now to ensure that no-one is unfairly left out when they have contributed to the discussion.

::::I apologise for short-sightedly using the word 'allowed' as I agree it is not the best in this scenario. I will change this now but leave this here as a record that this is why you raised the point about its usage.

::::I hope this clears some things up. JacobTheRox (talk) 16:34, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::I don't think editors relying on DATERET need to change their argument to have it included in the consensus. On the contrary, if I were closing this discussion, I would be reducing weight given to argments that come up with novel interpretations of DATERET, using the letter of the rule to try and defeat the spirit of the rule, which is what I believe you are doing here. Kahastok talk 16:42, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::I do not see how you can accuse me of both coming up with a 'novel interpretation' of DATERET, while also accusing me of 'using the letter of the rule'. Those two things are directly opposed, are they not? If I am interpreting the MOS in a ridiculous way, I cannot be using its exact wording as an argument, or it would not be an interpretation.

::::::The exact wording is {{xt|in the absence of consensus to the contrary}}. I do not understand how one can interpret that as anything other than {{xt|the consensus of an RfC can overrule the existing date style of the article}}. Equally, I do not understand how the MOS can have a 'spirit' that disqualifies it from being used as written.

::::::The Wikipedia article for letter and spirit of the law says that {{xt|intentionally following the letter of the law but not the spirit may be accomplished by exploiting technicalities, loopholes, and ambiguous language}}. If you are implying that I am somehow exploiting this circular thinking in order to preference DMY over MDY, then you are very much mistaken.

::::::It will be up to whoever closes the RfC to decide how much to weight each argument. I am simply setting out my concern over the efficacy of this argument within forming a reasonable consensus.JacobTheRox (talk) 16:50, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

Now, as to the merits, is DATERET a valid argument? Actually it's the best argument. Oh, not its literal wording; JacobTheRox is correct that this RFC is attempting to determine a consensus, and that DATERET controls in the absence of a consensus to the contrary.{{br}}But some reason should be adduced for such a contrary consensus, and I haven't seen any very good ones. DATETIES is completely out as there are no strong ties to an English-speaking country. Consistency with other Pope articles is a conceivable argument, but in general we look for consistency within an article, not between articles. --Trovatore (talk) 16:21, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

:Right. Every policy and every guideline can be overturned by talk page consensus per WP:IAR. The language of WP:DATERET is fundamentally expressing the same principle. If there's a good reason to change, change. If not, don't.

:The alternative is that we create a discussion on the merits of MDY vs DMY that spreads across millions of talk pages as DMY and MDY preferrers try to achieve consensus for their preference on each talk page individually. Don't think that's hyperbole - it wouldn't be the first time. That's why we have an MOS. Kahastok talk 16:33, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

::I agree with your point that DATERET and IAR are antithesises which essentially argue for MDY and DMY respectively. However, I do not think they should be used as valid reasons within this RfC's discussion for advocating for either one. The whole point of this is to find a consensus about whether DMY or MDY is more appropriate (I am actually leaning MDY at this point), but the two arguments of DATERET and IAR are not helpful in that.

::The point of this RfC is trying to find if there is consensus to overturn DATERET. If there is not, the article will stay using MDY. Therefore, there is no need to mention DATERET within the RfC. JacobTheRox (talk) 16:43, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

::: No, not so. The reason to mention it is to point out that there needs to be an active reason to change the format. Absent that, it should stay what it is. That's the single best argument that has been presented on this page. --Trovatore (talk) 17:12, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

::::Is that not inherently obvious without the need of individual editors to support MDY for the reason for DATERET only? I would presume that anyone closing the RfC would know that {{xt|there is only very exceptionally[...] a valid reason for changing from one acceptable option to another}} and overrule WP:RETAIN. However, in my opinion, there is a difference between factoring in WP:RETAIN when closing an RfC and quoting it as a be-all-and-end-all argument within the discussion. JacobTheRox (talk) 17:46, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

::::: As I said above, I think it's a reasonable shorthand for "I see no active reason for overriding the default provided by DATERET". --Trovatore (talk) 18:20, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

The manual of style states that {{xt|Articles on topics with strong ties to a particular English-speaking country [...] should generally use the date format most commonly used in that country.}} The Vatican is not considered an English-speaking country, however it is also quite a complicated situation as the Vatican is not a normal country by any means. It often publishes documents in English, which use a mix of DMY and MDY but leans towards DMY. Its official news organisation, Vatican News, uses DMY consistently as far as I am aware.

Furthermore, the manual of style states that {{xt|In articles without strong ties to a particular English-speaking country, the choice of date format is controlled by MOS:DATERET; is unrelated to the topic's ties to particular countries; and is independent of, and unrelated to, the national variety of English used in the article}}. Therefore, this seems to validate DATERET over DATETIES, however this situation is complicated if DATERET comes to be considered an invalid argument (see above) — Preceding unsigned comment added by JacobTheRox (talk • contribs) 12:56, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

:The Vatican is not an English-speaking country, period. There are no strong national ties to English-speaking countries for this article. --Trovatore (talk) 16:27, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

::Indeed this is my thinking, but the devil would advocate for the fact that the Vatican isn't really an anything-speaking-country as it is not a country by any usual means. As all of its citizens are only so by appointment of the pope, and no-one is born in the Vatican for obvious reasons, it is difficult to prescribe it an official language. It publishes English-language sources which use both DMY and MDY dates (although leaning towards the former). Its news service available in English, Vatican News, only seems to use DMY dates to my knowledge.

::The fact that this argument is both incredibly widely used and also has a massive flaw in it is exactly why I added it here. However, I have also been accused of not embracing the spirit of the MOS so maybe I'm supposed to see that here as well ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ JacobTheRox (talk) 16:54, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

:::TIES applies only to English-speaking countries. If you don't consider the Vatican a country, then that's even stronger reason to exclude it from TIES-like considerations. (We really should get rid of TIES entirely; arguments based on it tend to devolve into distasteful nationalistic bickering, as is well on display on this page.) --Trovatore (talk) 17:11, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

::::Every single RfC and bicker-session like this makes me just want to scrap ENGVAR, TIES, etc. There's a reason why most encyclopaedias use one format of english and stick to it. I can see the appeal of allowing some variation for written english, but for dates? How many people on the internet reading wikipedia actually care about DMY vs MDY?

::::Equally, I think any clause in the MOS that includes that it can be overridden by a consensus is just bound to lead to problems. Can we not just have a style and stick to it? I would suggest the rule is that an article uses the date format of the country it is most associated with, regardless of language. However, this is a discussion for an RfC on changing the MOS (and quite significantly at that). We have to follow what is currently written, which is leading to all sorts of problems. JacobTheRox (talk) 17:37, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

::::: I personally, despite being American, find DMY more "logical" and tend to use it myself, and it wouldn't have broken my heart if consensus had settled on DMY through the whole 'pedia, similar to what happened with "logical quotation" (which I also personally prefer). But there's no way we were ever going to agree to use either American or Commonwealth English for the whole encyclopedia. ENGVAR is what let us avoid the fate of Norwegian, which split into two, for a language mutually comprehensible with Swedish. --Trovatore (talk) 17:44, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::I think there is a marked difference between standardised ENGVAR and standardising DATEVAR. Surely no one is going to be upset by that (he says)? I think it's easy to say how you'd change the MOS if it was under your control, but from our perspective here we have to follow the MOS as it is currently enforced {{sad face}} JacobTheRox (talk) 17:50, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::: See the mouseover text at https://xkcd.com/878/ --Trovatore (talk) 18:26, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

It has been asserted in the past that Pope Francis is an example of a pope from a MDY country whose article uses DMY, and that this should be taken as a precedent. This information is not true; Argentina is a DMY country and therefore no such conflict existed within his article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JacobTheRox (talk • contribs) 12:56, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

:However all papal articles have consistently used DMY, reflecting the international nature of the papacy and the Vatican's established norms. To argue that we should deviate from this practice for any pope based on arbitrary national ties would introduce inconsistency into Wikipedia's handling of papal articles. Edl-irishboy (talk) 20:36, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

I'm not sure if this has come up in the RfC but I'm sure it did in the previous talk page discussion. As stated above, the manual of style states {{xt|In articles without strong ties to a particular English-speaking country, the choice of date format [...] is independent of, and unrelated to, the national variety of English used in the article}}. Therefore, it should not be considered a valid argument simply on the grounds of consistency. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JacobTheRox (talk • contribs) 12:56, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

:It has been brought up. This one supports MDY but it has been striked through:

:“Support MDY Pope Leo XIV is written in American English, which calls for dates to be formatted in the American format. We should either change the entire article to use British English (and the British English date format, DMY) if there is consensus or keep the MDY format per DATEVAR.”

:This one mentions American English and supports DMY:

:“*Support DMY. Pope Leo may be American-born, and it may be appropriate to use American English here. However, in my view, Pope Leo is most notable (in the general sense, not the WP:N sense) not because he's American, but because he's the pope of Vatican City, which is not an English-speaking country and uses predominantly DMY dates. Per MOS:DATETIES, {{tq|In articles without strong ties to a particular English-speaking country, the choice of date format is controlled by MOS:DATERET; is unrelated to the topic's ties to particular countries; and is independent of, and unrelated to, the national variety of English used in the article.}} So, in my view, it can be the case that this article uses American English, but Pope Leo's nationality is incidental, at best, to the reason why he's notable right now.” Edl-irishboy (talk) 20:14, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

• This RFC has become an attack on the whole concept of Retaining existing styles. Over and over again, misinterpretations of what counts as a tie to a country for style purposes have been put forth. If the guideline had been interpreted correctly, and the RFC proposed ignoring the style retention guideines anyway, that would be valid. But by accepting a change when a majority of the posts don't understand "Retaining existing styles", there is a likelihood that "Retaining existing styles" will be deleted and Wikipedia will be nothing but an edit war between the United States and the rest of the world. In short, the sloppy posts have ruined this RFC and so it should be rejected. Jc3s5h (talk) 17:42, 10 May 2025 (UTC)
• :I think it is clear that this entire RfC is completely out-of-hand, and can instead be neatly summarised as the following:
• :* The article currently used MDY dates, which reflects his birth country and should also be favoured by WP:RETAIN.
• :* Because the papacy is something that transcends beyond his American origins, WP:DATETIES suggests that the date format of the Vatican be used, which is DMY. Furthermore, the fact that he has become the pope is an extreme and rare change that allows it to be considered in the first place despite WP:RETAIN
• :* However, WP:DATETIES only applies to English-speaking countries which it is difficult to argue that Vatican City is an example of. This is complicated by the fact the Vatican is quite an unusual country and the fact that the papacy is a global role anyway. This is not covered in the MoS but MOS:VAR says: {{xt|Sometimes the MoS provides more than one acceptable style or gives no specific guidance. When either of two styles is acceptable it is generally considered inappropriate for a Wikipedia editor to change from one style to another unless there is some substantial reason for the change}}. This suggests that the existing MDY format should be maintained.
• :Or in other words, this entire RfC can be consideredas the following two questions:
• :{{xt|Can Leo XIV be tied to the papacy if the Vatican's status as an English-speaking country is dubious at best, and if so is Leo XIV tied to the papacy to an extent that not retaining the existing style is appropriate?}}
• :I don't see why we have to have what can only be described as an RfC-war to decide on the answer to this, especially when most arguments seem to not really focus on this question at all. Having read through the RfC, and thought about it myself, I would say that the Vatican is not sufficiently English-speaking for Leo to be tied to it, and therefore the answer to the first question is no. I do think he is sufficiently tied to the papacy, but in the context of the Manual of Style this is irrelevant.
• :Therefore, I would suggest that this RfC is discarded as an example of why the MoS, RfC system, and the rest of Wikipedia is borderline completely dysfunctional at this point.
• :I would prefer if the following editors agreed with me on this before any attempt to do that is carried out:
• :{{collapse|title=List of editors I originally reached out to|
• :@Jc3s5h {{agree}} per their original comment that this is a reply to.
• :@Trovatore
• :@Kahastok: {{disagree}} per their comment on their user page.
• :@Ymerazu: {{agree}} per their comment on 02:05, 12 May 2025 (UTC)
• :@Celjski Grad: {{agree}} per their comment on 19:02, 10 May 2025 (UTC).
• :@TarnishedPath: {{disagree}} per their comment on 00:00, 11 May 2025 (UTC)
• :@Horse.staple: {{agree}} per their comment on 16:32, 11 May 2025 (UTC)
• :}}
• :Thank you everyone for your time on this; it is much appreciated by me and I'm sure I speak for a lot of editors in saying that. JacobTheRox (talk) 18:35, 10 May 2025 (UTC)
• ::Sincere thanks JacobTheRox for your continued efforts. Would you consider the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard as a next step instead of another RFC? Celjski Grad (talk) 18:42, 10 May 2025 (UTC)
• :::I don't see a viable path to a successful attempt at changing the date format, unless there is a change to the MoS that allows the Vatican to be eligible for WP:TIES. I agree that DRN is a good next step, however as their page says {{xt|we cannot accept disputes that are already under discussion}}, I cannot bring it to their attention until there is at least some agreement that this RfC should be discarded. JacobTheRox (talk) 18:54, 10 May 2025 (UTC)
• ::::Then I agree. Celjski Grad (talk) 19:02, 10 May 2025 (UTC)
• ::::WP:DRN is not a pathway for a specific content dispute once consensus has been formed at an WP:RFC. Whatever the outcome of this RFC, if there are those who disagree with it, after discussing it whoever the closer is and still finding no resolution, the appropriate path for review would be WP:AN.
• ::::Onto the naming of editors who you disagree with above as though they are engaged in some sort of misbehaviour, that is completely out of line and I would encourage you to interact with other editors in a more collaborative manner. TarnishedPath^talk 00:00, 11 May 2025 (UTC)
• :::::Answer to DRN not being the correct pathway:
• :::::: There is no clear consensus here as the arguments for DMY and MDY are both being disputed as valid by those who argue for the other.
• :::::: People arguing for DMY do not consider WP:DATERET as a reason why the article should be MDY, but instead something that just means that the closer should bear in mind DMY has to be very strongly supported as it is overturning an existing precedent.
• :::::: People arguing for MDY do not consider WP:DATETIES as a valid argument because the Vatican is not an English-speaking country.
• :::::: Therefore DRN is appropriate as it will be impossible to form a consensus that everyone else doesn't consider to be based on arguments that are invalid. If the closer sympathises with both of the above arguments, there will be almost nothing left to form a consensus with.
• ::::: Answer to your point about naming editors who have disagreed with me
• :::::: I am not naming editors who disagree with me because they are doing something wrong. I am naming them because I want there to be agreement from people who have argued a wide variety of opinions here that this RfC should be discarded. If I only asked people who think the same thing as me, I cannot then claim there was any consensus in discarding the RfC.
• :::::: I do not understand how you can interpret my request for consensus from those who I have previously disagreed with as "naming and shaming". Equally, there is no more collaborative way than asking for 7 different editors (all of whom have different views from me or one another) to agree with me before I do something that could be controversial (i.e. closing an RfC I created and have participated in without any consensus).
• :::::I hope this clears up your concerns, and thank you for raising them. JacobTheRox (talk) 15:14, 11 May 2025 (UTC)
• ::::::{{tq|... before I do something that could be controversial (i.e. closing an RfC I created and have participated in without any consensus).}}
• ::::::OK, I wasn't sure if that was where you were going with your previous comments. I need to be extremely clear with you here. You are not to close this RFC under any circumstances, given that there has already been broad participation and you are involved. When participation slows, you may post at WP:CR requesting an independent closer to determine consensus. TarnishedPath^talk 12:14, 12 May 2025 (UTC)
• :::::::As the suggestion of closing the RfC has become a dispute of its own, I now think it is more sensible to bring the case to WP:DRN with the RfC still open. This will allow comments to continue until DR, as an independent uninvolved viewpoint, decides whether or not the RfC should be discarded. I will probably do this on Friday due to personal commitments. Thanks, JacobTheRox (talk) 18:32, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
• ::::::::Why not just let the RfC go its natural course? Let the closer worry over it once the discussion has cooled down. An RfC is a way of dispute resolution, hence getting the DRN involved seems quite besides the point. Gawaon (talk) 18:35, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
• ::I don't agree with "Because the papacy is something that transcends beyond his American origins, there is an argument to be made that DMY is more appropriate." This implies that DMY is more appropriate for any article that isn't tied to the United States. That's wrong. DMY and MDY are on an equal footing. Saying that any article that isn't tied to the US should be DMY is an invitation to the largest edit war in decades. Jc3s5h (talk) 18:55, 10 May 2025 (UTC)
• :::I agree this wording is not ideal; I will change it now. Thank you for bringing it up. JacobTheRox (talk) 20:07, 10 May 2025 (UTC)
• ::I would prefer if editors agreed with me on a lot of things. I initially supported a status quo of keeping the MDY format. However, I have since changed my view because it is important to note that the LEO XIV article would be the only one not to use DMY. Does his status as the first American Pope make him different enough to break that tradition?
• ::Given that every other article uses the DMY format, I believe that format should be retained no matter what his national origin is. Horse.staple (talk) 05:27, 11 May 2025 (UTC)
• :::I read Jacob's post as "before I do anything drastic, I want to give people a chance to weigh in." I did not read it as a literal appeal to agree. If that's not the correct reading, Jacob can correct it. Ymerazu (talk) 10:01, 11 May 2025 (UTC)
• ::::It's also possible likely that I misread the tone. This has proven to be a much more contentious topic than it appears on the surface, and I apologize for any spice in my reply. Horse.staple (talk) 10:05, 11 May 2025 (UTC)
• ::::Yes that's correct. I do not expect you to 100% agree with the fact that the article should be in MDY, but the wording I used in my reply to Celjski Grad was {{xt|I don't see a viable path to a successful attempt at changing the date format}}. I think your point about his tie to the papacy is reasonable, and that consistency between popes would be ideal, but WP:DATETIES is invalid unless the Vatican can be called an English-speaking country.
• ::::My personal opinion is that the Vatican should be eligible to be considered an English-speaking country under WP:DATETIES, but that would involve a separate RfC to amend the MoS. I would be interested in pursuing this at a later time, but that is not relevant to the outcome of this particular RfC.
• ::::Ymerazu is correct in saying that I am looking for consensus that this RfC is not an effective form of dispute resoution or consensus building. Please do not feel the need to apologise for your argument, as I do not necessarily disagree with its points but within this RfC itself we cannot simply ignore all rules and then expect to override WP:RETAIN as well. That may be a hurdle too big to jump in one go.
• ::::Thank you everyone once again for your time in helping on this matter. JacobTheRox (talk) 12:57, 11 May 2025 (UTC)
• :::::The consensus seems pretty clear, just based off of my back of the napkin counting. 2/3 of respondents support DMY for a variety of reasons. If we eliminate those who support the status quo (“Keep it how it is” is not an argument for why it should be the way it is) those numbers become even clearer. Horse.staple (talk) 14:44, 11 May 2025 (UTC)
• ::::::Yes but I'm sure you'll agree with me that the overarching reason for suggesting DMY dates is WP:DATETIES. This is an invalid argument as it says {{xt|Articles on topics with strong ties to a particular English-speaking country [...] should generally use the date format most commonly used in that country.}} The Vatican is not considered an English-speaking country and therefore WP:DATETIES does not hold.
• ::::::If you want to ignore the MoS, you're going to find it even harder to overcome WP:RETAIN and replace the existing precedent. Therefore, the most sensible option is to discard this RfC and instead start a different RfC which involves changing the MoS to allow the Vatican as an 'English-speaking country' (which I think you could probably get support for).
• ::::::If we ignore all arguments of WP:DATETIES and WP:DATERET for reasons that have been extensively discussed already, there is almost no real discussion left on this page. Therefore the RfC should be disbanded anyway because it clearly is not going to produce a consensus if people extensively rely on flawed arguments which a closer would choose to discard.
• ::::::I also don't think you quite get what I'm asking for consensus on; I am not asking for consensus that the article should be DMY but that this RfC is never going to get anywhere and has become far too contentious. Therefore, it should be discarded and the topic should be moved to DRN. If you want to start a separate push for allowing the Vatican to be eligible for WP:DATETIES, be my guest and I will support you in doing so.
• ::::::Thanks, JacobTheRox (talk) 15:05, 11 May 2025 (UTC)
• :::::::I see your point. I support closing this RfC in favor of either DR or a broader change to the MOS. I agree that true consensus isn’t likely here. Horse.staple (talk) 16:32, 11 May 2025 (UTC)
• ::::::Keep in mind, though, that RFCs are not majority votes. If the strength of arguments is considered, I suppose that a reasonable closer might arrive at a quite different conclusion from what a mere headcount would suggest. Gawaon (talk) 15:35, 11 May 2025 (UTC)
• ::Hi Jacob, you asked me to weigh in. My understanding is that the editors who care most about and best understand the related Wikipedia standards think this RFC is not a good approach to changing the article date format. Reading their arguments and the standards, I agree. As such, I think the best course is to close the RFC.
• ::The arguments in favor of keeping this RFC open, insofar as they are in scope, seem to boil down to "ignore all rules", which is a wonderful principle that would unfortunately be misapplied here. It would be misapplied because ignoring all rules is meant to allow sound editorial practices in exceptional situations, not to squash editors you disagree with and ignore established best practices. Especially so when we are talking about a date format, not something that would affect a living person. Ymerazu (talk) 02:05, 12 May 2025 (UTC)
• :::"...ignore all rules is a wonderful principle that would unfortunately be misapplied here."
• :::Question: Why would WP:IAR be misapplied? If WP:DATETIES emphasis of ties to an English-speaking country is keeping us from reaching a consensus for this page, why couldn’t we ignore it?
• :::You follow up by saying "it is meant to allow sound editorial practices in exceptional situations..." which is what I'm hoping we can do here. At least when I suggested invoking it, I did so hoping that doing so would allow us to see past the letter of the policy. I know that DATETIES says "strong ties to an English-speaking country." Since we are asking whether this article warrants an exception, I think the spirit of IAR fully applies here.
• :::Ignore specifically the "English-speaking" part of DATETIES and it becomes very clear what country the Pope has ties to, and therefore what date format should be used. Horse.staple (talk) 07:29, 12 May 2025 (UTC)
• ::::Hi Horse.staple, thanks for your reply. I want to emphasize that the good faith purpose of closing the RFC as I understand it is to let the date format change proposal to go by different (more appropriate) routes. Ymerazu (talk) 23:12, 13 May 2025 (UTC)
• :I will say that "This RfC should be discarded because some !voters are commenting contrarily to what the guideline says" is at best a dubious proposal. If it were a policy, sure. But MOS:RETAIN is a guideline, not a policy; a guideline is not a requirement, and there are sometimes good reasons to go against a guideline. Also, the guideline page itself says: {{tq|If you believe an alternative style would be more appropriate for a particular article, seek consensus by discussing this at the article's talk page}}. This is precisely what's happening here. We are not yet at the point where MOS:RETAIN is about to be thrown out; in any case, consensus is calculated based on strength of !votes, not headcount. – Epicgenius (talk) 15:50, 11 May 2025 (UTC)
• ::Agree as per Epicgenius. It is not a policy, but rather a guideline, and consensus can be calculated by the strength of votes. Edl-irishboy (talk) 18:43, 11 May 2025 (UTC)
• :This is a dangerous precedent imo, it isn't calling for it to be discarded but this section seems like overturning consensus because a select few don't like the way it's going. These manuals of styles don't call for these policies to be unchanged and carved in stone, it explicitly allows for change if there is consensus and where there is "some substantial reason for the change", "or consensus on the article's talk page." etc. - which are the substance of most of these arguments, and valid to bring up and be debated AlbusWulfricDumbledore (talk) 16:35, 11 May 2025 (UTC)
• ::The problem with this argument of ignore all rules is that it sets an even more dangerous precedent; you are essentially arguing that no matter how many guidelines something contradicts, it can be overturned by a simple talk page consensus because these policies are not meant to be "{{xt|unchanged and carved in stone}}". This line of argument seems a lot more problematic to me than closing this RfC and relisting it at the DRN. After all, arguments can be "{{xt|[brought] up and be debated}}" there.
• ::I agree that it would be ridiculous to suggest closing this RfC and abandoning any attempt to change from MDY to DMY. That would be ignoring many editors' valuable opinions. But is this RfC where a true consensus or justification for change is going to come from? No.
• ::Furthermore, I just wanted to add that it seems to me like lots of people here are more generally annoyed with the MoS than they are with its application on this article immediately. This is a further reason to split this RfC into a Dispute Resolution issue for this article specifically, and then have a separate RfC on amending the MoS.
• ::Thank you for your opinion, and for raising what I want to affirm is a very valid point, even if I do not quite agree with it per the reasons explained above. JacobTheRox (talk) 11:51, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

I am closing the DRN request as pending in another forum, this RFC, and have explained my reasons in detail in Wikipedia:Closure of Leo XIV DRN. The RFC will continue to run. It may be appropriate to discuss revising or rewording the MOS, but the current RFC asks a question that should be asked. If the MOS is changed, it may then be in order to start a new RFC to supersede this RFC, but that isn't a reason to stop this RFC. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:19, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

:@Robert McClenon, thank you for injecting some common sense into the suggestion that the RFC should be discarded merely because the person who started it doesn't like the direction of the discussion. TarnishedPath^talk 05:42, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

::WP:GOODFAITH

::WP:PA

::Please be careful with your language as this is now the second time you have accused me of either mistreating people who disagree with me and/or attempting to quash due process. Unlike you have done to me, I will presume that you are acting in good faith and this is simply an innocent mistake that you have phrased yourself like this. Thanks, JacobTheRox (talk) 16:11, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

:Thanks for weighing in, Robert. The closure comment is very reasonable and answers questions I had. Best. Ymerazu (talk) 07:54, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

:Thanks for this, Robert. You are much more experienced than me and I was recommended DRN not knowing it was not an appropriate course of action. As there has been momentum behind editors' dissatisfaction with the quality of the RfC, I'd love to know what could be done to help make sure it is fair and effective at forming a consensus. Thanks, JacobTheRox (talk) 16:13, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

As has been mentioned, DMY and MDY are currently on equal footing in Wikipedia, and under a technical reading of policy, it is true that the only primarily-English-speaking country the Pope has ties to is the US, even though he obviously has much stronger ties to the Vatican and arguably also Peru. I'm a supporter of using DMY for consistency with previous pope articles and general common sense, but it is true that there is a technical policy-based argument for MDY based on the current wording of policy.

If the wording of the policy is at odds with common sense, is it time to revisit the policy, and consider making DMY the primary system with MDY only used for articles where the subject is primarily linked to the US, to result in a similar policy to MOS:UNIT? It would avoid any issues like this happening in the future. Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 16:17, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

:No. WP:DATETIES is more comparable to WP:ENGVAR than to MOS:UNIT because just as it's easy for an American to read a work written in British English, and vice versa, it's easy for an American to read a date in DMY format, and vice versa. This differs from units, where encountering a statement that two towns are 25 miles apart causes a noticeable mental clash for those who don't speak English as their first language. Trying to solve a physics problem, expressed in US customary units, on a professional licensing exam sends engineers with a four-year degree running for cover. Jc3s5h (talk) 16:29, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

:I've seen it said a couple of times now on this RfC that DMY and MDY are "on an equal footing" on Wikipedia... This might be a silly question, but what do you actually mean by this? My understanding is that they would definitely be "on equal footing" for articles with ties to an English-speaking country or territory that uses both (ie. Kenya, Canada, Ghana, Philippines, Puerto Rico, Cayman Islands and maybe Greenland, where English is a recognised language). Aside from these, is it true that for articles related to any non-English-speaking country, DMY and MDY are "on equal footing"?

:I think it's definitely worth asking the question as to whether MOS:DATETIES should be reworked to address location-specific date formats for articles associated with non-English-speaking countries. The one possible difficulty that I can see with this is that several countries and territories use YMD in prose text (2025 May 11), not just in computing/shortened form (2025/05/11). (According to List of date formats by country#Usage map, these are China, Japan, South Korea, North Korea, Taiwan, Hungary, Mongolia, Lithuania and Bhutan.) To my knowledge, there are no English-speaking countries that routinely use YMD in prose, so English-speaking readers on English Wikipedia might struggle with readability if YMD were introduced to the prose of articles related to countries where this was the norm. How would we deal with this? Supporters of MDY would probably object if DMY were imposed on articles associated with exclusively-YMD countries. I'd be interested to hear what others think about this. Pineapple Storage (talk) 16:48, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

::'Is it true that for articles related to any non-English-speaking country, DMY and MDY are "on equal footing"?' Yes, that's precisely what DATETIES says, referring to MOS:DATERET for such cases. Gawaon (talk) 16:57, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Yes, apologies, the wording of the question was a bit vague. I meant, are DMY and MDY on equal footing in that authors creating articles about a non-English speaking country can pick whichever they prefer, regardless of which format that country uses? I understand there are sometimes considerations about geographical proximity, but these seem to be inconsistently applied. Pineapple Storage (talk) 17:04, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

::::In "Formats" section of WP:MOSNUM, all the formats listed in the table "Acceptable date formats" are equally acceptable in appropriate spots within the article, provided a consistent "family" is used, and unless there is an exception. A "family" that could be in one article might be "2 September 2001", "8 Oct", and "2020-11-30". Another acceptable family suitable for a different article would be "May 9, 1775", "Jul 20", and "1789-07-14". There is no exception for the article being closely related to a non-English speaking country. Jc3s5h (talk) 17:20, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::I agree that {{tq|There is no exception for the article being closely related to a non-English speaking country}} in the current MOS guideline regarding date ties. I think what @Chessrat was asking (and what I was addressing in my previous comment) was whether it's time to consider changing the MOS to include this type of "exception" for non-English-speaking regional ties. Pineapple Storage (talk) 17:47, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::Indeed- I think it's worth considering changing the MOS to make DMY the default format, with MDY relegated in status to being an acceptable alternative format to be used in articles primarily tied to the US. It would make more sense given DMY is by far the most common format globally. Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 18:15, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::What is your justification for stopping at WP:DATETIES and not extending the idea to WP:ENGVAR{{snd}}make British English the default absent a tie to a country that predominantly uses a different variety of English? Jc3s5h (talk) 18:27, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::I don't know about @Chessrat, but my immediate answer to this would be because the majority of English speakers don't use British English. The same can't be said about DMY. Pineapple Storage (talk) 18:37, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::The majority of English speakers also don't use American English. The English language is a lot more diverse than date formats! :) Pineapple Storage (talk) 18:41, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::Fully agreed with this. Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 18:53, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::Date format and ENGVAR are separate by design. You can have an article written in American English that uses the DMY date format. Horse.staple (talk) 22:24, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::If we're discussing changing/implementing a default date format, can I throw https://xkcd.com/1179/ ISO 8601 into the ring?^/s Horse.staple (talk) 20:08, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::That would reduce the maintenance of the pope articles a great deal. We wouldn't be able to write any dates before October 15, 1582, so we would delete all the pope articles before Pope Gregory XIII. Jc3s5h (talk) 21:00, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

::The post by Pineapple Storage fails to address topics that have nothing to do with any country. For example, if Pineapple Storage had been the editor to create "Pole of inaccessibility", I wonder what date format they would have chosen. Jc3s5h (talk) 16:58, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Personally, for articles without a specific regional tie, or that are globally applicable, I would be inclined to choose the most widely-used format (ie DMY). Regardless, it's my understanding that MOS:DATETIES definitely doesn't apply to articles that have no connection to any particular country or territory, so altering the wording/content of the MOS section on date ties wouldn't have any affect on {{tq|topics that have nothing to do with any country}}. This is why I didn't address it in my comment above, which was specifically about the question of reworking Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers#Strong national ties to a topic. Pineapple Storage (talk) 17:12, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

::::It isn't clear to me that DMY is the most widely used English format. Do you count countries? Or maybe add the total populations of countries that are predominantly English speaking? What about adding the total number of people who speak English as their first language? Maybe the total amount of daily text in the English language, grouped by which date format the work uses. Jc3s5h (talk) 17:26, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::Again, a bit of imprecise wording from me—apologies! By "widely-used" I meant globally widely-used, not just in English-speaking countries (although I know MOS:DATETIES currently only considers English-speaking countries and territories); you had asked about which format I personally would choose for a global/broad article. I agree that determining "most used" format amongst all English speakers globally would be very difficult. It's a lot easier to identify which format is used by the most English-speaking countries and territories; cross-referencing the table at List of date formats by country#Usage map with the list of countries and territories where English is an official language, it's clear that a majority of English-speaking countries and territories use DMY. However, as we've said, introducing a weighted consideration for number of English speakers would be a lot more complicated. Pineapple Storage (talk) 17:42, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

::::If you wish to change the MOS, the place to do it is WT:MOSNUM, FWIW. Kahastok talk 19:29, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::For sure. This RfC has shown that enough people have strong feelings about MOS:DATETIES that it likely warrants an RfC of its own. Pineapple Storage (talk) 19:38, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

:MOS is not a policy, it is a guideline. As stated by WP:NUMBERS, ‘This guideline is a part of the English Wikipedia's Manual of Style. Editors should generally follow it, though exceptions may apply.’ Edl-irishboy (talk) 18:48, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

::So, the question comes back again. What is it about this article specifically - that does not apply in the general case - that would lead us to make an exception for it? That's the core question that DMY-preferrers need to answer and far too many have not even tried. We've got loads of people above making irrelevant arguments like {{tq|easier to work with in citations and increasingly standard in Wikipedia, even in American English articles}} or {{tq|The vast majority of the world uses DMY, and so does Italy and the Vatican}}. Even if both those arguments have some merit, they are rejected by the MOS in the general case, and the comments make no attempt to argue why this article should be different from the general case. Kahastok talk 19:29, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

:::One other point that has been raised is consistency among papacy-related articles. What are your thoughts on this argument? Pineapple Storage (talk) 19:40, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

::::Given that the lead of Pope Benedict XVI has the word criticised but the lead of Pope Francis spells it criticized, I don't think it's a very good argument. These articles are already inconsistent, and insofar as this creates an inconsistency I think it's so minor as to not be worth worrying about. But it is at least an argument. Kahastok talk 20:28, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::Pope Benedict XVI's page uses Oxford spelling and Pope Francis' page uses American English, so it is correct regarding criticised and criticized, just like the current Pope Leo's page. The discussion is not about the type of English used. Edl-irishboy (talk) 20:47, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::Not for nothing, but date format is independent of WP:ENGVAR. It is possible to have an article written in American English that uses DMY. Horse.staple (talk) 20:48, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::If they can be inconsistent in terms of WP:ENGVAR, why can they not be inconsistent in terms of date format? Kahastok talk 20:57, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::Because date format is independent from ENGVAR by design. You ask why this American is so notable to merit an exception to DATETIES. I counter why is this Pope notable enough to break the consistency of every other papal article?

:::::::The writing style of the article was probably made for a mix of subject focus and editor consideration, but it is ultimately irrelevant because this is a discussion on date format, where it is notable that there is a consistency that readers may expect. Horse.staple (talk) 21:09, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Why think about this as an exception to a policy in the first place? Most of Wikipedia’s policies, WP:DATETIES included, are not meant to be carved in stone and taken as word of law. The question of whether Leo’s status as the Pope is a significant enough change to the date format.

:::DATETIES says: " Articles on topics with strong ties to a particular English-speaking country should generally use the date format most commonly used in that country." If we Ignore the English-speaking part we can see that the Pope now has strong ties to both the Vatican and the United States, leaving the question of which tie is strongest. Horse.staple (talk) 19:56, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

::::Why think of it as an exception? Because it is an exception. The rule explicitly does not allow the logic you are trying to argue. Yes, if the MOS didn't say "English-speaking country", it would be different - but that would also mean that articles with strong national ties to China would give today's date as {{tq|2025年5月11日}}. But that's a debate for WT:MOSNUM. Kahastok talk 20:28, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::It's only an exception if we think of DATETIES as an absolutely binding rule. I maintain that we should ignore all rules to get beyond what the policy says and to the core of this dispute.

:::::I reject your reasoning that ignoring the rule in this exceptional case (exceptional in the sense that there has never been a case like this before) will lead to some slippery slope that creates date chaos anywhere a national tie does not match the ENGVAR otherwise used on the article. Your conclusion just doesn’t follow. Horse.staple (talk) 20:34, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::One option would be {{tq|2025 May 11}}, but this isn't ideal in terms of readability for English-speaking readers unfamiliar with YMD in prose. See my comment re YMD-exclusive regional ties [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Pope_Leo_XIV/RFC:_Date_format#c-Pineapple_Storage-20250511164800-Chessrat-20250511161700 above]. Pineapple Storage (talk) 20:43, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

:::The question has already been answered: this article is different because the Pope’s role as a global religious leader makes it distinct from a typical American biography. While he was born in the US, his influence is international and the article focuses on his position as Pope, not his American birthplace. He has spent much of his life in DMY-using countries like Italy and Peru and the Vatican itself uses DMY. Given that the majority of the world uses DMY and this article is for a global audience, adopting DMY is the logical choice for clarity and clear consistency. Consistency with other papal biographies further supports this. All other articles about Popes use DMY and following this convention ensures uniformity and again clear consistency across Wikipedia. The Pope's role is global, not tied to the US, justifying the use of DMY. We also need to apply WP:COMMONSENSE and WP:BEBOLD in this situation. Wikipedia’s guidelines are not rigid but are meant to evolve based on context. The Five Pillars of Wikipedia emphasise that it is a living project and that exceptions can be made for clarity and improvement. In this case, the Pope’s global significance justifies an exception to the usual formatting. Insisting on MDY, despite the clear arguments for DMY, disregards the broader international context in which the Pope operates. WP:BEBOLD encourages us to make changes that improve the article’s clarity and accessibility. Edl-irishboy (talk) 20:42, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

::::And the point that that misses is that May 11, 2025 is not so US-centric as to make it completely incompatible with articles not about the United States. That's why we allow it, equally with 11 May 2025. You've just made an argument that could apply to any article on Wikipedia without strong national ties to the United States, but the project-wide consensus as it stands is that that isn't good enough. Project-wide consensus is that DMY is not to be favoured (or disfavoured) for global or worldwide topics, or topics with strong national ties to non-English speaking countries. Rather, DMY and MDY are equal per WP:DATERET. If you want to change that, change the project-wide consensus at WT:MOSNUM.

::::It's argued that there has never been a case like this before. But the circumstances you're arguing apply to thousands if not millions of articles across Wikipedia, on this point of style and others. That's why we have a project-wide consensus expressed by the MOS. Now, if you want to ignore the MOS that's fine - if there is good reason in the specific circumstances we're dealing with here. But, if the only reason is Italy and the Vatican uses DMY, a claim that the MOS specifically and deliberately makes irrelevant, then that's not a good reason. Kahastok talk 20:55, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::No one is arguing that MDY is prohibited on international topics. The argument is that DMY is more contextually appropriate in this specific case. The idea that “DMY and MDY are equal per WP:DATERET” is correct in the abstract but only applies when there is no compelling contextual reason to prefer one. In this case, there clearly is. WP:DATERET doesn't demand absolute parity regardless of context. It calls for stability unless there's good reason to change. Here, there is: the Vatican, again, the institutional and geographic context of the papacy, is a non-English-speaking European sovereign state. The Pope, regardless of nationality, assumes a role embedded in the liturgical, administrative and cultural framework of that institution. Vatican sources, documents and media use DMY in English translations. The entire apparatus of the papacy uses DMY, making it both natural and stylistically consistent to reflect that in the article. The claim that this reasoning could apply to “millions of articles” is a red herring. We’re not arguing a broad rule, we’re arguing a specific case. This is an edge case where an individual (American) holds a role (Pope) that is rooted in a very different cultural and institutional context (the Vatican, Italy, Catholicism). The final claim, that Vatican/Italy ties are irrelevant because the MOS "deliberately makes them irrelevant", is not accurate. MOSNUM simply says we don’t favour DMY just because a topic is global. That’s not what’s happening here. We’re favouring DMY because the entirety of the subject’s public life in this role is shaped by, expressed through, and documented using European formatting. That’s not favouritism, that’s editorial coherence. Edl-irishboy (talk) 21:11, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::I'm afraid you kinda are arguing that MDY is - or should be - prohibited on non-US topics. Certainly on non-English-speaking European topics. Because you keep on saying that DMY is more "contextually appropriate", but your reasoning could be equally valid on just about any other non-US topic.

::::::You seem to be arguing that DMY is somehow deeply rooted in Catholicism, and this may be the problem, because I don't believe for one moment that it is. Perhaps it would help if could cite some Catholic religious doctrine or papal bull of some kind that demonstrated that DMY is the only valid way of describing dates according to Catholic theology? Kahastok talk 18:47, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::I’m not arguing that MDY is or should be prohibited on non-US or non-English-speaking European topics. I’ve consistently said that in this specific case, DMY is more contextually appropriate. That’s not a universal rule, and I’m not applying it universally. I’m applying editorial judgment to a unique situation. This isn’t just any other non-US topic. This is the papacy a long-standing, well-documented tradition of using DMY in all its official English-language output. I don’t need to cite a papal bull to prove that. I can point to literally any Vatican press release, liturgical calendar or document published by the Holy See. [https://www.vatican.va/content/vatican/en/events/event.dir.html/content/vaticanevents/en/2025/5/12/notificazione-18maggio.html] [https://www.vatican.va/news_services/liturgy/2010/documents/ns_lit_doc_20101120_index-concistoro_en.html] [https://press.vatican.va/content/salastampa/en/bollettino/pubblico/2025/05/12/250512b.html] [https://www.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/motu_proprio/documents/20220211-motu-proprio-assegnare-alcune-competenze.html] [https://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20000626_message-fatima_en.html] The idea that I need theological justification to support a basic formatting decision is absurd and frankly unserious. I’m not arguing for a blanket rule. I’m arguing that in this edge case where an American now serves as Pope, the article should reflect the formatting style of the role he now holds, not the country he happened to be born in. That’s what I mean by “contextually appropriate.” It’s about accuracy, consistency across papal articles and reflecting the institutional norms of the subject’s office. That’s not nationalism and it’s not favouritism. It’s basic editorial coherence. Edl-irishboy (talk) 17:59, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

The arguments I've seen can be reduced, broadly, to "Support MDY per wikilawyering" and "Support DMY because his status as Pope transcends his status as an American Bishop" (plus a touch of "Oppose MDY because WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT").

Suggestion: Can we Ignore all rules? I believe WP:DATERET and WP:DATETIES unduly emphasize English-speaking in their writing, so what would you say if those policies didn’t exist in the first place?

I believe (after some thought) that DMY is the best choice to align with other articles related to the Church, the Pope, and the Vatican (see for example 2025 Papal Conclave which uses DMY. Policy and status quo should not stop us from reaching a consensus. Horse.staple (talk) 19:38, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

:Completely agree. The status quo shouldn’t restrict us from making decisions that better reflect the context of the article. As I say again, the Pope’s role is more relevant as the head of the Vatican and the Catholic Church than as an American citizen. Countries like Italy and many others that the Pope engages with use DMY and it’s the format in official Vatican communications. In this case, following the guidelines based purely on MDY for an article of this global significance seems counterproductive, especially when the broader international perspective clearly calls for DMY. It makes sense for Wikipedia to prioritise consistency across articles. The existing guidelines about date formatting seem too tied to nationalistic conventions and should be adjusted when they don't align with the context of a global role like that of the Pope, thereby adopting WP:IGNORE and WP:BEBOLD. Edl-irishboy (talk) 20:56, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

::Frankly, why are you people you excited about this? Who cares whether some article uses DMY or MDY? It's a minor difference anyway, and regardless of the outcome of this RFC, most readers will probably barely notice, let alone give it a moment's thought. Gawaon (talk) 20:59, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Because I am a WP:Wikipediholic and gain personal fulfillment in debating ultimately trivial topics with absolute strangers invested in building consensus on this topic, and across the broader site.

:::On its face this topic may seem meaningless, but it is no less a topic that needs to be settled one way or another. Unilateralism is just not how Wikipedia operates^{even though I am, as everyone knows, the universal arbiter of truth /s}. Horse.staple (talk) 21:29, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

:::There's a difference between "I am apathetic to a decision's outcome so I won't be involved in decision-making" and "well nobody's going to care so just do it my way". Kingsif (talk) 22:02, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

:::The difference may seem minor, but Wikipedia is built on the principle that even small details matter..especially when they contribute to consistency and accuracy across articles. Many readers may not consciously notice, but presenting information in a way that aligns with the subject’s institutional background reinforces Wikipedia’s credibility. Edl-irishboy (talk) 22:10, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

:::If the Wikipedia was a democracy, we would most likely adopt DMY globally, as it is more widely used, and more amenable to manipulation by automated processes. That never happened, because in the United States, the use of MDY, inconvenient as it is, is considered a front in an ongoing culture war, and the use of DMY is un-American, and therefore a threat to the United States's control over Wikipedia, and the reaction might result in the US government shutting the whole project down. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:45, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

::::As someone who likes the YMD and DMY formats personally, I think the real reason predates the current U.S. presidential administration's actions with regard to the WMF. I'd just chalk it up to people in general being resistant to use a format that they're not accustomed to, regardless of whether they're Americans or not. – Epicgenius (talk) 02:13, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::YMD should be the internation standard as it makes filling extremely simple, however that's not how it is. TarnishedPath^talk 05:22, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::I honestly think that's at the heart of 90% of the enthusiasm in here. People are used to one format and the other feels "wrong" to them. That's why I have to roll my eyes a bit at the accusations that keeping MDY is American Exceptionalism (Side note: Wouldn't it be Americentrism / US-centrism? I think people are confusing these concepts). Ymerazu (talk) 23:19, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

::::You are quite right: this predates the current administration by many years, as has the allegation that Wikipedia is anti-American because it tolerates DMY dates. "Nobody's going to care" is wishful thinking in the current political climate. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:25, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::Well we have to have some rule for the article one way or the other. One reason being to prevent endless back-and-forth "fixing" by driveby editors, another being that, while it doesn't much matter which form we use, within an article its bad form to be switching between them at random. I suggest flipping a coin using some service such as Random.org. I think they have a service that can generate a trusted key or something so that people can verify the result, and if they don't surely somebody has. Herostratus (talk) 13:36, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::You're not wrong about the political climate but has anyone in this thread made the argument that DMY dates are anti-American? I have not seen that if so. Ymerazu (talk) 23:58, 13 May 2025 (UTC)