Please see the Request for Comment, which found that there was no consensus as to whether to use DMY or MDY dates in the article. Since the article originally used MDY dates, MOS:DATERET dictates that the article should continue using MDY dates unless otherwise decided.
This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (center, color, defense, realize, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourcedmust be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
Pope Leo XIV is within the scope of WikiProject Catholicism, an attempt to better organize and improve the quality of information in articles related to the Catholic Church. For more information, visit the project page.CatholicismWikipedia:WikiProject CatholicismTemplate:WikiProject CatholicismCatholicism
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chicago, which aims to improve all articles or pages related to Chicago or the Chicago metropolitan area.ChicagoWikipedia:WikiProject ChicagoTemplate:WikiProject ChicagoChicago
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity
This article is within the scope of WikiProject European Microstates, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of European Microstates on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.European MicrostatesWikipedia:WikiProject European MicrostatesTemplate:WikiProject European MicrostatesEuropean Microstates
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Illinois, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Illinois on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IllinoisWikipedia:WikiProject IllinoisTemplate:WikiProject IllinoisWikiProject Illinois
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Italy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Italy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ItalyWikipedia:WikiProject ItalyTemplate:WikiProject ItalyItaly
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Latin America, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Latin America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Latin AmericaWikipedia:WikiProject Latin AmericaTemplate:WikiProject Latin AmericaLatin America
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw
This article is supported by WikiProject Peru. This project provides a central approach to Peru-related subjects on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.PeruWikipedia:WikiProject PeruTemplate:WikiProject PeruPeru
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Rome, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the city of Rome and ancient Roman history on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.RomeWikipedia:WikiProject RomeTemplate:WikiProject RomeRome
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
J.D. Capelouto (May 12, 2025). "Pope Leo XIV divides Wikipedia volunteer editors". Semafor. Retrieved May 12, 2025. They also disagreed over how to address the new pontiff's views on issues he has not publicly discussed in detail.
I would say he's the first American Pope i.e. first Pope from the USA. Second Pope from the Americas, and first from North America. US citizens are worldwide known as Americans so we can't change the rules because a vocal minority disagree. Omnis Scientia (talk) 19:48, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Granted, he would have a point if this article was written in Spanish or another language where the term "American" primarily refers to people from the "Americas"
I agree. I've changed the lead back to say "American", which in English is the demonym for people of the United States. GnocchiFan (talk) 20:06, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Again, this is the English Wikipedia. In the English language, the proper Demonym for people born in the United States is "American" there is no alternative in wide usage.
In the English language at least, American refers to the people of the United States of America, and is how the large majority of the people here identify ourselves, regardless of outsiders. Claire 26 (talk) 23:26, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I find it really strange that Latin Americans so adamantly refuse that the term "American" refers to people of the United States. I suspect it has somewhat to do with a complex given the US' preeminent status as the world's leading superpower, but I digress. If one talks to literally anyone outside the Americas, they will automatically assume that an "American" is someone from the US. That isn't changing. Can anyone comment on this? NoveosRepublic (talk) 01:32, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My Macquarie Dictionary (the de-facto standard Australian dictionary) defines American to mean six things: (1) of or relating to the USA or its people, (2) of or relating to North or South America, or any of the peoples of these continents, (3) a citizen of the USA, (4) a native or inhabitant of North, South or Central America, (5) the English language as spoken in the USA, (6) a type of playing marble.
And that is how I, being someone NOT from Latin America BUT very much in the Anglosphere, understand the term. That is, it is an ambiguous term that people from the US use to describe themselves, but that also denotes people from the entire landmass comprising the North and South American continents ... as well as the other meanings. Ordinarily that ambiguity is inconsequential ... when someone from the US says they're American that is obviously true because they are BOTH from (1) the landmass comprising the North and South American continents and (2) from the US. It works both ways and everyone is happy.
But you asking a bunch of people to stop calling themselves X, which they have done for hundreds of years, because you claim to be the only trueX ... good luck ... :-). Elrondil (talk) 04:14, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Instead, why not embrace and celebrate that shared bond with all those that call themselves American? Find words that work for everyone. Attempting to force others to use, or not use, words you choose ... that isn't free speech ... and a human rights violation (see article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights). Elrondil (talk) 04:38, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The Americas are two continents in English. In Spanish or other languages, where they refer to North and South America collectively as "America", and refer to people from the US as "Estadounidense", this would make sense, but since this is an English article, I believe we should call him an American. The term "North American" is ironically a bit too ambiguous, since North American could also imply he is Canadian or Mexican.
I think that it should say "Leo is the first American pope, and the second pope to be from the Americas", or maybe "Leo is the first pope to be from the United States, and the second from the Americas". It also seems that the whole argument against calling him American is a bit silly -- nobody called Francis "the first American pope" in English-speaking media, but rather, the first pope from the Americas. Midship Runabout (talk) 23:28, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't even really true of Spanish in general. In Latin American Spanish countries (which, to be fair, house the majority of the world's Spanish spenders), yes Americans are referred to as "Estadounidense" or some derivative, but in Spain and a few other non-American Spanish nations, US Americans are called Americana. This also used to be common in Latin America. CamdenQ (talk) 09:36, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The article should not force everyone to use US slang perspective and make things deliberately confusing for everyone from other countries. Certainly he is the first Pope from the United States (as well as the first from Peru; dual citizen). The "First American Pope" was of course Francis. That may not be how some people in the US are used to hearing it, but Wikipedia is not restricted to USA only, so let's state things simply and clearly. -- Infrogmation (talk) 15:29, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Silly. Everyone understands what is meant when something is called "American." Leo XIV is the second consecutive Pope from the Americas, but he's the first American to become Pope. Bighardsun (talk) 18:10, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is a silly debate because it suggests that a Pope from the United States cannot have a demonym that isn't something like United Statesian.
This is accurate and should prevail: Leo XIV is the first American Pope, the first Peruvian Pope via dual-citizenship, the first North American Pope, and the second Pope from the Americas.
The current version -- "A dual citizen of the United States and Peru, Leo is the first pope from North America and the first to be a Peruvian citizen" -- is a bad and pedantic way of trying to make United Statesian a thing, or otherwise obfuscate that the American guy is an American guy. Bighardsun (talk) 18:08, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I edited the sentence you mention about dual citizenship. The reason it reads the way it does now is because it had previously said, "A United States and Peru dual citizen, Leo is the first pope from North America and Peru." It sounded terrible. "United States" doesn't work well at all as an adjective in this sort of context. So I flipped it to say, "A dual citizen of the United States and Peru ...." Someone else later changed the end of the sentence to say "and the first to be a Peruvian citizen" with an edit summary along the lines of "need to make his Peruvian citizenship more explicit." I thought that was overkill but couldn't be bothered to go back and change it. I will agree that I get tired of Wikipedia's anti-US mafia making silly arguments every time the word "American" is used, and I get tired of people from the Western Peninsula of the Asian Continent arguing that there is just one "American continent" (there are two). Their sniping is never going to stop, but the arguments being made against "American" here are utterly disingenuous. 1995hoo (talk) 18:18, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
To help educate my fellow wikipedians, in the English language, "America" is equivalent to "USA". However "Americas" as in plural, mean North, South and Central America. So Pope Leo XIV is the first pope from America, but not from the Americas. As an American, I'm not confused, it's how our language works. If you still find the term confusing, know wikipedia is in many languages, so perhaps go to your native language wikipedia and edit there. For reference:
"America" redirects here. For the landmass comprising North and South America, see Americas. For other uses, see America (disambiguation).
Several terms redirect here. For other uses, see US (disambiguation), USA (disambiguation), United States (disambiguation), and The United States of America (disambiguation). 75.61.99.105 (talk) 00:53, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We have officially lost the plot. Of all the facile back and forths on whether we should call Pope Leo an American or not (which everybody in the Anglosphere is), by far the most ridiculous is this little gem of a line: "Leo XIV is the first pope to have been born in the United States or North America". Have you seen a map before? Saying he is the first pope to have been born in the United States or North America is like saying that Pope Benedict was the most recent German or European to have been pope. The US is very obviously in North America, to say that he is the first one from the United States or North America is ridiculously redundant. Saying he is the first from the United States would suffice. Can we all just agree to call him an American in English Wikipedia and whatever else in Spanish Wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Midship Runabout (talk • contribs) 2025-05-13T03:00:41 (UTC) (Special:Diff/1290149657)
Cannot believe the trivial trivia being argued over this article and by now we deserve a spot on the "lamest edit wars" list.
The abbreviations "U.S." and "US" are governed by the guideline at MOS:US. @GloryToCalifornia has demanded discussion while sustaining an edit-war on this triviality. Okay, here's the facts:
GTC cited a small excerpt of the guideline which calls for retention. That retention is qualified: "unless there is a good reason to change it". Therefore let us enumerate the good reasons to change it [from "U.S." to "US"]
The same guideline says that "U.S." is deprecated elsewhere in favor of "US".
The establishment is debatable. By the time the article was stabilized in early 2023, a single instance of "U.S-born" was the only usage present, and that's a rather ambiguous and anomalous usage. I would disagree that it's a firm establishment.
This article was not so popular when Prevost was a Peruvian bishop. He became an obscure cardinal and little changed. Now he is first-ever US-born leader of the universal Church and there's an opportunity for us to overhaul the article, and bring it into a vastly improved state. Upgrading to "US" usage is a good direction forward, and the increased notability is a good reason.
Going forward, if other abbreviations such as "UK" are introduced, then we'll need that consistency again, therefore if "US" usage is already in place, it's one less worry for us.
Edit wars and disputes on the Manual of Style are really petty and should never be sustained or bitterly protracted like this. Those who insist on the back-and-forth are losing our assumptions of good faith and calling into question their own competence or reason for editing here.
Someone added "U.S." in a few places in the article. The guideline says use U.S. if it's established in the article. I also just saw "US" too so I don't know if it was removed or there's both mentions of "US" and "U.S". If U.S. is established and nobody removed it or anything, we should keep "U.S." in infobox like the guideline says. Also a leader of over a billion Christians, the infobox needs to look professional. "US" doesn't look right for a person so significant GloryToCalifornia (talk) 17:45, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, no, no. Don't misrepresent the guideline by abridging it. I linked it and anyone can read the full text. I just finished laying out justifications. I even argued that it's not established and you still say "if".
Now you also say it "doesn't look right / professional". Now you're imposing your own tastes to contravene our Manual of Style. See Wikipedia:IDONTLIKEIT. Your personal tastes are overridden by consensus, guidelines, policies. You cannot edit war over feelings or personal judgement. You'll lose. I advise that you take a break from disputes and editing and think about it. The more you write, and the more you edit, the deeper you're digging a hole. Bro. 2600:8800:1E8F:BE00:533B:8CAA:DD87:2FC9 (talk) 17:48, 23 May 2025 (UTC) IP range 2600:8800:1E8F:BE00:0:0:0:0/64 blocked for block evasion of User:Elizium23.[reply]
I said "if its established" because I saw someone put U.S., but today I also saw a mention of US, so I dont know if an editor removed it or not. But IF it's established let's follow the guidelines. IF not let's find who removed it and why before doing anything else GloryToCalifornia (talk) 17:53, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am late weighing in (and defending myself against templated attacks on my talk page) because I have the day off work and I went to see the new Mission:Impossible. My point was very simple. MOS:US is accurately quoted above. But if all of you would simply bother to search the darn article, you would find the same thing I did. "U.S." with periods appears six times, all of them in article titles in the references. Those don’t count as "established" for purposes of assessing the article's text (just like if the BBC referred to the "World Trade Centre" it would not establish that as the correct name of the complex in New York). That form does not appear anywhere in the article's text (other than, earlier today, in the infobox when user GlorytoCalifornia kept inserting it there). Meanwhile, "US" without periods appears three times, all in the article's text (I searched for those letters with spaces on either side to cut down on false positives, and of course I’m not counting instances of the pronoun "us"). So under MOS:US, either no form at all was established or "US" without periods was established, but either way it is very clear that "U.S." with periods was not established, which means that the MOS guideline directs that we should use "US" (no periods). That is why I reverted it earlier. 1995hoo (talk) 22:06, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
One further comment: It’s currently spelled out in full in the infobox. I certainly think that’s a fine solution to the issue that started this discussion. 1995hoo (talk) 22:11, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't seen the new Mission impossible yet so don't spoil anything. Also I just saw the infobox, I think having "United States" in infobox looks good too. I think that's about the only agreement we're going to have so might as well call consensus right here GloryToCalifornia (talk) 01:56, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose expansion to "United States". This is an Infobox; every field needs to be as brief and concise as possible. We need to abbreviate here, of all places. Please remove the misleading hidden comments from the article's wikitext. They must have been planted by The Syndicate!
Oppose "U.S." style abbreviation. While acknowledging that it was in prior use by Non-Official Cover agents in years past, we've enumerated and established plenty of "good reasons to disavow change it". Conversely, there is no compelling reason to retain it.
Support "US" style abbreviation, should you choose to accept it. Let us seize this opportunity, as the article undergoes a complete makeover, to bring this style into compliance with common usage. The other styles are deprecated elsewhere. There are plenty of good reasons to change. It's an overall upgrade.
I checked your edit history, you started editing yesterday. And how do you know so much about the wiki as an IP user? It's clear you're logged out of your account pretending your a different person, I just don't know which account I talked to today was you. Just log in. Also, it wasn't a misleading hidden comment, me and the user I had a dispute with came to an agreement, and you, without an account, decides to drag the conversation on despite saying earlier it's petty if I care what's in the infobox. Also, since "U.S." is established in this article if we remove "United States" from the infobox, we would have to put "U.S." not "US" according to Wikipedia's guidelines on what's established. You're breaking the WP:IDONTLIKEIT guideline you accused me of breaking earlier. GloryToCalifornia (talk) 10:59, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The IP range 2600:8800:1E8F:BE00:0:0:0:0/64 has now been blocked for block evasion of User:Elizium23, following the outcome of an AN/I thread they posted where they admitted to logged-out sockpuppetry. I have struck out nearly all the comments they have left on this talk page accordingly, aside from original posts in threads which have received response from other users. Their comments are not to be taken seriously as a result. — AP 499D25(talk)13:37, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Should the introduction use a comma or a semi-colon between the birth name and the birth date? 13:45, 19 June 2025 (UTC)
I'm so tired of this. This is the RfC for consensus. Every other article about someone who changed their name uses a semicolon not a comma. You want a comma to come after Robert Francis Prevost but no other article does that. Marilyn Monroe, JD Vance, Muhammad Ali, Kanye West famous people who changed their name legally, all their articles use a semicolon not a comma.
GloryToCalifornia (talk) 03:49, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
also the articles about Pope Francis and Pope Benedict, their articles when they were Pope said "is head of the Catholic Church since _____" not "has been head of the Catholic Church since _____". Stop changing it until we reach consensus GloryToCalifornia (talk) 04:02, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Saying "stop changing it" and then proceeding to edit war to keep in your preferred version is still edit warring, and you're past 3RR now. Edit warring is disruptive, regardless of whether or not you are right, and regardless of whatever attempts to seek consensus you take, especially if you use those attempts as pretext to keep a preferred version of content.Departure– (talk) 04:24, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's June 13. I reverted 3 edits. Breaking the 3 revert rule means going over 3 reverts in one day. And if this is an edit war why didn't you warn the other editor. By the way it looks like he knows there's an RfC because I just seen him on my talk page but doesn't wanna discuss. I'll wait when you're ready. GloryToCalifornia (talk) 04:31, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page—whether involving the same or different material—within a 24-hour period. An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes or manually reverses other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert. Violations of this rule often attract blocks of at least 24 hours. Fourth reverts just outside the 24-hour period will usually also be considered edit warring, especially if repeated or combined with other edit-warring behavior.
I suggest removing this request as frivolous and hope this agitated editor will reconsider his approach to Wikipedia while in time out. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 04:37, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Departure– 3 reverts. 4 and 5 you showed weren't reverts they were edits. Didn't break the 3 revert rule. And you lied in your edit summary that the page was only about semicolons it's also about "has been head of head of the Catholic Church" vs "is head of" GloryToCalifornia (talk) 04:38, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Listen, at the end of the day, it's still warring to include content and you're only one away from AN3, so please stop reverting. Also, you lied in your edit summary that the page was only about semicolons is inaccurate, as the RFC you've laid out only concerns the style usage of semicolons over commas - also not citing any WP:MOS but that's besides the point. I'm giving out plenty of rope here. Departure– (talk) 04:43, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Departure– Read the second message of this RfC, it States clearly this isn't just about semicolons but I'm also making it about how the first sentence will be structured. I'm going to sleep, I'll continue this RfC in the morning. Please stop threatening to block me for 24 hours just because you don't like the edit I propose, and actually discuss, please don't ghost the talk page without an explanation, it happened yesterday with someone, if you're going to leave this talk page give an explanation, and let's try to make this conversation healthy when I wake up. If everyone does Ghost this talk page I don't know if I'm allowed to revert after 24 hours to remind everyone this talk page is still going on, we'll see. GloryToCalifornia (talk) 04:52, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No you're not. Edit-warring isn't just about more than 3 reverts in 24 hours and you also appear to be saying that you intend gaming the bright line rule. You need to stop and stick to the talk page. Also your RfC is malformed and is a mile away from complying with WP:RFCNEUTRAL. It needs to be closed. And finally you opened this thread with "I'm so tired of this". There's a well-trodden solution to that: drop it and do something more productive. DeCausa (talk) 07:00, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia-wide consensus at MOS:CHANGEDNAME says a comma should be used for living people. It looks like Vance and West should be changed to conform with the guideline not the other way about. DrKay (talk) 07:11, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
JD Vance's article was changed when I mentioned to an editor 2 months ago how other articles use semicolon but the pope's article doesn't. They changed JD's article back to semicolon. Let me ask a question, is a comma required or just suggested, because if it's required why do famous people who millions and millions of people know use a semicolon and not a comma, that's what bothers me, that it seems like the pope's article is the only article that follows this "rule GloryToCalifornia (talk) 10:49, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't describe it as a 'rule' because MOS is a guideline not a policy. But then again, I have not paid close attention to see what each article uses after a famous person's birth name. Though I would advocate for consistency, regardless of whether the person is living or dead. Keivan.fTalk19:56, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Im trying to advocate for consistency too and I just got topic banned from this page for "edit warring" even though I begged the person I was fighting with to go on talk page but he ignored me for a while lol. I also said I could revert in 24 hours if they Ghost me on the talk page because I had a feeling it would happen, they've now completely ghosted me on the talk page, probably why I was topic banned. This whole semicolon thing looks bad because it's not consistent with other articles, if the administrator would change the article about JD Vance and put MOS: BIRTHNAME and fix other articles that follow this "rule", which it might not be a rule but a suggestion, we would have consistently and everything would be good, or put a semicolon back in this article GloryToCalifornia (talk) 01:34, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
AIUI the correct forms would be:
Pope Leo XIV (born Robert Francis Prevost, September 14, 1955)
Pope Leo XIV (//ˈliːəʊ//; born Robert Francis Prevost, September 14, 1955)
Pope Leo XIV (born Robert Francis Prevost; September 14, 1955 – Octember 32, 2055)
Pope Leo XIV (//ˈliːəʊ//; born Robert Francis Prevost; September 14, 1955 – Octember 32, 2055)
That is:
If the contents of the parentheses begin with the pronunciation of the main/current name, then there should be a semi-colon after the pronunciation.
If the person is alive, then it's "born name comma birthdate", but if the person is dead, then it's "born name semi-colon birth–death". This is because "born Bobby, birthdate" is a sort of abbreviated sentence or grammatical clause ("He was born with the name Bobby on this date"), but "born Bobby; 1955–2055" is two grammatical clauses ("He was born with the name Bobby. He lived from 1955 to 2055.").
This naturally explains the "inconsistent" appearance of the articles @GloryToCalifornia names above:
Marilyn Monroe is dead, and the parenthetical description correctly separates her birth name from her lifespan with a semi-colon.
JD Vance is alive, and the parenthetical description correctly separates his birth name from his birthdate with a comma.
Muhammad Ali is dead, and the parenthetical description correctly separates his birth name from his lifespan with a semi-colon.
Kanye West is alive, and the parenthetical description correctly separates his birth name and its pronunciation from his birthdate with a semi-colon.
JD Vance's article is like that because I brought it up lol, give it less than 10 days the semicolon will be back. I think there needs to be an invisible note like there is on this article telling people comma per MOS: BIRTHNAME GloryToCalifornia (talk) 04:33, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
He becomes head of state, Vicar of Jesus Christ to believers, etc. My guess is that declaring his Papal name would count as "legal change" by most definitions. But how American and Peruvian bureaucracy view it, I can't say. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 22:31, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think it has to be a comma. Per WP:LOCALCONSENSUS, editors at a single page cannot override project-wide consensus at a policy or guideline page. MOS:CHANGEDNAME is a project-wide guideline. Changes to the guideline should be proposed at the guideline talk page. DrKay (talk) 14:15, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@DrKay well this article has an invisible note telling people to keep a comma, can you add that on JD Vance's page so Wikipedia is consistent, to make sure Vance's article has the comma stay? And when are you going to lift restrictions on my account? GloryToCalifornia (talk) 15:20, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Per the other comments I believe that a comma make most sense as that seems to be the standard practice for other similar articles. IndrasBet (talk) 13:22, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not done: Suggested picture has not been uploaded as file to Wikimedia, and also I do not see a justification for replacing the current free-content picture with one that is not free. Please see the Wikipedia free content guidelines. SI09 (talk) 12:45, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
To state it more clearly, Wikipedia policy prohibits use of a copyrighted image of a living person when an acceptable free image is available. There are serious legal consequences if Wikipedia violates copyright laws. Sundayclose (talk) 15:13, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is with regard to my discussion with Pbritti at my homepage. See here [1], where I pointed to quotes from the NPOV policy which basically means ensuring source attribution, such as "The only bias that should be evident is the bias attributed to the source". I also brought out the difficulty of finding balancing sources given the honeymoon stage of Leo's papacy. Pbritti replied in his talk page that he no longer has concerns. See here: [2]. I asked Pbritti's permission to bring up our discussion here, and he agreed as he understands that my intent is to give "context to other editors interested in the discussion." I will indeed try to improve the wording of texts so as avoid the impression of non-neutrality, although as mentioned it is difficult: not just due to the present honeymoon period, but because we are reporting about a person who has been much praised by people--precisely the reason he was elected pope. Please do help by tweaking the wording, if you see ways to improve it. Marax (talk) 03:07, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the content, I oppose reinsertion of it in any real way. Much of it was platitudes or block quotes. If sources containing commentary from encyclopedically relevant voices (rather than friends of Leo while he was Prevost) are added, though, I'm on board. ~ Pbritti (talk) 03:15, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If material is cited appropriately in the body of an article, it typically does not require a citation in the lead (see WP:LEADCITE). That final sentence of the lead was written utilizing a statement under the Views section that was cited. However, it was a slight misrepresentation of that material. I have amended the lead to reflect the source. Thank you for your help! Best, ~ Pbritti (talk) 16:53, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
.svg)
.svg){kind=small}
Not done: Suggested picture has not been uploaded as file to Wikimedia, and also I do not see a justification for replacing the current free-content picture with one that is not free. Please see the Wikipedia free content guidelines. SI09 (talk) 12:45, 5 July 2025 (UTC)
The redirect Pope Leo XVI has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 July 22 § Pope Leo XVI until a consensus is reached. ArthananWarcraft (talk) 11:34, 22 July 2025 (UTC)