Talk:Pope Leo XIV

Proposal to update the lead image (Consensus discussion)

"Hello. I would like to open a formal discussion regarding the current infobox image Pope Leo XIV 3 (3x4 cropped).png. While I respect the current consensus, I believe we should consider a higher-quality alternative. The current image is a crop, which inevitably results in lower resolution and some digital noise, especially on high-definition screens. I propose replacing it with . My arguments for this change are:

• Higher Resolution: The proposed image is a full-frame shot, not a crop.
• Better Lighting: It provides a more natural skin tone and better contrast.
• Professional Composition: It is a more representative official portrait of the Pope from the 2025/2026 period.

I am an editor with 13 years of experience on the Polish Wikipedia (pl.wiki), and I care deeply about the visual quality (UX) of papal articles. Let's discuss if this new material can serve the article better than the current crop, KamilosR (talk) 08:55, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

Oppose - I think the lighting is too flat and the background doesn't provide nearly as much contrast as the current one does. There's also something about his eyes that seems a little bit off. Also, it doesn't particularly matter to me, but the image you proposed is actually a crop of another image. ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 11:13, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

Agree – I agree with your exact reasoning, further supported by the fact that many other language mutations have already made this switch, and as someone who also cares greatly about visual quality and user experience, I am glad to see you on here! BasicWriting (talk) 22:56, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

Agree per nom's rationale. Other language wikis and his WikiData also use this image. A bit surprised we didn't follow the other wiki's lead by using this image sooner. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 15:24, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

Present-tense for lede ("Pope Leo XIV is...")

We can discuss this further here, but again, I'd argue that since virtually every article does this exact thing for the first line of the lede, I would think this is the MOS for articles of living people. Perhaps it might need to be rewritten in other ways, but that would also require a discussion. BaBaBa91 (talk) 01:06, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

The current tense is fine since he described Pope Leo as the current head of the Catholic Church, and I think using “was” is past tense, which would imply that he has died, but he is alive per MOS:BIOFIRSTSENTENCE. HurricaneEdgar 01:18, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

Well it's settled then, but hopefully the editor trying to continually reverting his misinformed change will cease. BaBaBa91 (talk) 02:59, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

Pinging @Pol098 and @NSpartanMazda, who are also involved in the Pope article. HurricaneEdgar 07:43, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

It's been fine as it is because Pope Leo is alive (this edit was done before the death of Pope Francis). The lede is the head of the Catholic Church in the two days after his election and recently of seven months. @BaBaBa91 explained this perfectly in the edit summary; virtually all articles have this line as "is" (for a living person) and "was" (for a deceased person), furthermore the WP mentioned does not stipulate such for the lede and definitely doesn't apply to the title of a person (which will obviously be changed when he dies). As for the "since Month Year" is acceptable because pervious popes had the "from DMY to his death in DMY/MY" format.

Some Popes (like Leo XIII for example had this lede was head of the Catholic Church from 1878 until his death in 1903. My suggestion/purpose is either we keep it as it is now, or remove the "May 2025", so the lede just like last edit before Pope Francis died. SpartanMazda (talk) 11:32, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

I agree with the idea to remove the "May 2025" part to keep it consistent with his predecessor's article. I'm continually trying to edit many Catholic prelate articles that used to contain and simply it down to their role and title. I think it works better than making it past tense in order to justify how long he has been in office for, which is what the infobox already is there for. BaBaBa91 (talk) 19:11, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

I WP:BOLD removed “since May 2025” because it is redundant, as many heads of state, both monarchical and non-monarchical, such as King Charles, do not include that month. HurricaneEdgar 22:07, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

That's fine with me, and I agree with @HurricaneEdgar on this one. SpartanMazda (talk) 05:46, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

@Kiwipete The previous wording is fine because Pope Leo is still alive, so using "is" is more appropriate. Including the month and date would be redundant, as many heads of state, both monarchical and non-monarchical, such as King Charles III, do not include them. HurricaneEdgar 04:49, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

The problem I have is that the lead does not state when he became pope. In the English that I understand, the construct "have/has been ... since ..." should be interpreted as something that started in the past, and continues to the present day. Indeed, present perfect continuous seems to indicate this as well. If there is a documented MOS for this, I'd be interested to know. Thanks, Kiwipete (talk) 08:55, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

wikilink to pope

Is there a reason this (and seemingly most modern articles of popes) do not actually link to the pope article. The only place you can navigate there is through the infobox, where it is hidden under "Bishop of Rome", while "Pope" in that same infobox links to List of popes, which is nonsensical.

The first mention of pope in a popes article that isnt capitalized should link to the pope article. Pope in the infobox should link to the pope article, and some other way should be found to get to the List of popes (even if "Pope (list)" looks ugly when centered. — jonas (talk) 09:26, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

I would be opposed to those changes to the infobox, but I think it's probably fine to link pope when it comes up naturally in the lead ("He is the first pope..."). It is a fairly well-known term, but I can see a navigational value. ~ Pbritti (talk) 15:00, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

Suggestion - Add next to footnote 182

The source below explicitly explains that Leo XIV resumed the papal practice of staying in Castel Gandolfo,abandoned by Francis.

The source cited in footnote 182 just allude to Leo's first stay in Castel Gandolfo.

I think it would be good to include another footnote alongside footnote 182 with this more specific text.

https://ewtnvatican.com/articles/pope-returns-to-castel-gandolfo-historic-summer-home-of-the-popes-5833 ~2026-33023-75 (talk) 02:20, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for the citation. Kiwipete (talk) 02:47, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

In introduction list another first

Pope Leo is listed as the first American in the very first paragraph of the page, can we also consider listing his black (of color) history as a significant first as well? Why is this only relegated later in the article as "Louisiana Creole" = which is accurate but there should be greater note that he is black. Example reference: https://hnoc.org/news/pope-leo-xiv-publicly-acknowledges-african-roots-in-new-interview ~2026-33129-16 (talk) 23:48, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

Because he has never identified as Black with regards to his primary identities. Additionally, it is plausible that he is not the first pope of Subsaharan African descent. ~ Pbritti (talk) 02:56, 5 June 2026 (UTC)