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
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 – 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 [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
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
easier to work with in citations and increasingly standard in Wikipedia, even in American English articles or 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)
- Oxford spelling actually uses -ize. I've corrected the lead of Pope Benedict XVI accordingly. Graham (talk) 04:19, 22 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
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
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 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. 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)
So that this section doesn't end with the above assertion of a flatly false statement (a long-standing, well-documented tradition of using DMY in all its official English-language output ), here's the Vatican News Office:
Pope Francis died on Easter Monday, April 21, 2025 The funeral Mass for Pope Francis will begin at 10:00 AM on Saturday, April 26 Inauguration Mass of Pope Leo XIV to be held on May 18 News from the Orient - May 22, 2025 As of April 2, 2025 ... Cameroonian priest, kidnapped on May 7, released
Shall I go on? EEng 17:31, 23 May 2025 (UTC)
- I have to dismiss your reply to my comment as "flatly false". If you read the whole RFC, I have touched on this multiple times. "
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: , uses mdy, while , uses dmy. "
- The visit kicked off today, 23 June... Tomorrow, 24 June... depart Lebanon on 27 June
- speech on 13 May
- on Monday, 12 May at 10:00, Pope Leo XIV will meet
- on Monday afternoon, 5 May 2025. The Congregation began
- Conclave that begins on Wednesday, 7 May 2025
- On 28 and 29 July 2025, just before
- on Saturday, 20th July in city’s Roman Catholic Cathedral
- published sixty years ago on 6 August 1964.
- running until 24 November
- morning of Sunday, 11 August, due to a heart attack.
- from 2 to 27 October in the Vatican.
- on 15 August, the Solemnity of the Assumption of Mary
- taking place from 16 to 20 September in Vienna...he presided over on Sunday 15 September on the eve
- begin on Wednesday, 2 October...1 October 2024
- It is important to note that all articles published in the Vatican News includes DMY dates at the end of the page, as shown here: 25 April 2025, 14:00
- As you say, shall I go on? It is to my understanding that the Vatican News uses both DMY and MDY dates. However, as I have said already, the official Vatican Holy See website https://www.vatican.va/content/vatican/en.html uses DMY dates. So to bring back my original comment, the Vatican does have a long-standing, well-documented tradition of using DMY in its official English-language output. Edl-irishboy (talk) 19:19, 23 May 2025 (UTC)
the Vatican does have a long-standing, well-documented tradition of using DMY in its official English-language output – So what? It also has a long-standing, well-documented tradition of using MDY in its official English-language output. It's all so strained. EEng 00:28, 24 May 2025 (UTC)
- It’s not strained to apply editorial judgment based on current, institutional norms, it's responsible. Yes, there’s historical variation in the Vatican’s formatting and as said many times the Vatican News uses both MDY and DMY. But when faced with inconsistency, we should weigh sources. The official Holy See website representing the pope in its most formal, centralised capacity consistently uses DMY today. That’s a relevant and reasonable basis. What is strained frankly is brushing off clear patterns in favour of an argument that treats all inconsistency as license to default to birthplace formatting especially when that downplays the global role he now holds Edl-irishboy (talk) 13:23, 24 May 2025 (UTC)
- The only problem with that fine piece of reasoning is that brushing off those arguments is exactly what MOS tells us to do, exactly in order short-circuit vanity-fueled wastes of time like this one.Your posts throughout this discussion have been like a catechism of arguments rejected over and over during the 25 years of MOS's development. The most recent is
we should weigh sources . Absolutely not. It's a bedrock principle of MOS that sources are sources of facts, not style, except in narrowly carved-out areas (usually for technical reasons e.g. search MOSNUM for the string /kwh/). Why? So we don't have to engage in angels-dancing-on-the-head-of-a-pin debates over whether the Vatican News Office carries more or less weight than the Calendar of the Saints or something. EEng 14:44, 24 May 2025 (UTC)
- The MOS doesn't exist to dismiss thoughtful editorial reasoning, it exists to guide it. Labeling this discussion as “vanity-fueled” doesn’t contribute meaningfully to a resolution and unnecessarily casts bad faith on editors engaging in good-faith debate. While similar themes have arisen before, each case brings its own context. The idea that any concern related to style must be invalid because it echoes past disputes contradicts the very need for editorial discretion. The argument is that the environment described by the sources, here the Vatican and its communication norms, can provide helpful context in making a stylistic decision between otherwise permissible options. That’s not “weighing sources” in the traditional sense of verifying facts. The sources are not being used to override the MOS, but to inform the context. That context can help editors exercise judgment when MOS allows flexibility. This isn’t about theological parsing or pitting sources against each other. It’s about recognising editorial patterns in related articles and aligning style choices accordingly. Edl-irishboy (talk) 17:32, 24 May 2025 (UTC)
The idea that any concern related to style must be invalid because it echoes past disputes contradicts the very need for editorial discretion – In the name of Jesus, Mary, Joseph, and all the saints and apostles, do you still not get it at long last? See WP:MOSBLOAT#If_MOS_doesn't_need_to_have_a_rule_on_something,_then_it_needs_to_not_have_a_rule_on_that_thing, item 2b. It's all the past, pointless disputes that brought DATETIES and DATERET into being. It is the intent of those guidelines to remove flexibility, not allow it. (I notice you're not citing any guidelines or policies here, but I'll just note that elsewhere you've cited WP:CONSISTENT, ignoring the fact that it applies to article titles only.)At this point I'm really, really going to stop responding, because refuting the same vague appeals to, well, appeals to everything other than guidelines and policy, has lost its entertainment value. EEng 19:01, 24 May 2025 (UTC)
- I’m frankly astonished at the dismissive tone here, especially after repeatedly clarifying my points with reasoned explanations and references to established editorial practice. You cite WP:MOSBLOAT and the intent behind DATETIES and DATERET as if that magically ends all discussion on editorial discretion. But the existence of guidelines aimed at reducing disputes doesn’t mean editors are forbidden from applying judgment within the permitted scope. Furthermore, your repeated mischaracterisation of my citing WP:CONSISTENT when I never claimed it applies broadly is disingenuous and detracts from any serious engagement. Your decision to “stop responding” because this discussion “has lost its entertainment value” reeks of bad faith and undermines the collaborative spirit Wikipedia depends on. I have no intention of endlessly rehashing the same points either, but I will not stand by silently while my valid editorial reasoning is dismissed as baseless or frivolous. If this is the end of your participation, so be it but I encourage anyone reading this to consider the substance, not the dismissive tone. Edl-irishboy (talk) 19:33, 24 May 2025 (UTC)
- You say,
the existence of guidelines aimed at reducing disputes doesn’t mean editors are forbidden from applying judgment within the permitted scope .
- The "permitted scope" where we can apply judgement in this case is as to whether Pope Leo XIV has strong ties to the United States (in which case we use MDY based on those ties) or not (in which case we use MDY based on WP:DATERET). And, since the result is the same either way, the choice of argument used to justify it is academic. Kahastok talk 22:10, 24 May 2025 (UTC)
|
Archived
Resolved
Not done !voted Support
No consensus no !vote, commented
Request withdrawn (No longer needed.)
Done (diff)
Pending
→ 
→ 
15 June 2025
Promoted no !vote, commented
Passed
In progress
Reviewing...
Merge
Redirected !voted to 
Moved !voted to Keep and 
Archived
Resolved
This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:30, 6 May 2025 (UTC) 
Not done !voted Support
No consensus no !vote, commented
Request withdrawn (No longer needed.)
Done (diff)
Pending