Wikipedia is not censored. Images or details contained within this article may be graphic or otherwise objectionable to some readers, to ensure a quality article and complete coverage of its subject matter. For more information, please refer to Wikipedia's content disclaimer regarding potentially objectionable content and options for not seeing an image.

National variations of the English language have been extensively discussed previously: Wikipedia does not prefer any national variety of English. While Wikipedia strives to use language common to all English varieties , some spelling, grammar, or terminology may differ or be absent in a reader's preferred variety. Refer to the relevant style guide on national varieties of English and see a comparison of American and British English.

To report an error in content currently or imminently on the Main Page, use the appropriate section below.

• Where is the error? An exact quotation of the text in question helps.
• Offer a correction if possible.
• References are helpful, especially when reporting an obscure factual or grammatical error.
• Time zones. The Main Page runs on Coordinated Universal Time (UTC, currently 03:12 on 11 November 2024) and is not adjusted to your local time zone.
• Can you resolve the problem yourself? If the error lies primarily in the content of an article linked from the Main Page, fix the problem there before reporting it here. Text on the Main Page generally defers to the articles with bolded links. Upcoming content on the Main Page is usually only protected from editing beginning 24 hours before its scheduled appearance. Before that period, you can be bold and fix any issues yourself.
• Do not use {{edit fully-protected}} on this page, which will not get a faster response. It is unnecessary, because this page is not protected, and causes display problems. (See the bottom of this revision for an example.)
• No chit-chat. Lengthy discussions should be moved to a suitable location elsewhere, such as the talk page of the relevant article or project.
• Respect other editors. Another user wrote the text you want changed, or reported an issue they see in something you wrote. Everyone's goal should be producing the best Main Page possible. The compressed time frame of the Main Page means sometimes action must be taken before there has been time for everyone to comment. Be civil to fellow users.
• Reports are removed when resolved. Once an error has been addressed or determined not to be an error, or the item has been rotated off the Main Page, the report will be removed from this page. Check the revision history for a record of any discussion or action taken; no archives are kept.

Olaf Scholz

• The German ruling coalition (Chancellor Olaf Scholz pictured) collapses over disagreements on economic policies.

The word "collapses" seems too strong as the linked article, 2024 German government crisis, does not use it. What it actually says is "...FDP effectively moved into the opposition, rendering the current coalition a two-party minority government." So, there's still a coalition but it has lost one of its members and so will continue as a minority government for now. Scholz is negotiating what happens next and it seems to be too soon to say exactly what that will be. Andrew🐉(talk) 13:37, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Indeed, I'm not even sure why this is in ITN given that the government is still very much in place. There will presumably be elections soon and we should post then.

  Also, when I first read this I thought it was Scholz himself who had collapsed. It's a poorly worded hook, given the presence of the photo caption in the middle, making it look like the Chancellor has had a mishap.  — Amakuru (talk) 14:35, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, the first two sources at the ITNC nom were "Scholz sets stage for German snap election as government collapses" and "Germany’s Coalition Collapses, Leaving the Government Teetering".—Bagumba (talk) 19:41, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How can the lead paragraph of Carlton Colville Scouts Memorial, deemed good enough for placement on the main page, fail to say where it is located? And why is it so unclear in the article body as well, where mentions of a memorial lack wikilinks to its location? Echoedmyron (talk) 02:02, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The hook currently uses italics (''Volksrebbe'') to mark the Dutch-language term Volksrebbe. Per MOS:LANG, this should instead be {{lang|nl|Volksrebbe}}. jlwoodwa (talk) 21:16, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Afzal Khan (d. 1659) - article has died 20 November and 10 November as the Julian date. JennyOz (talk) 07:28, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Those Wolverines certainly must have one cunning PR person to have got themselves into virtually every set of DYKs for, what, a week? More? Awien (talk) 14:17, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

DYK is prone to runs of various topics if a motivated editor or two expands a series of articles in rapid succession. I've done it with hockey players myself. We've seen runs of species articles, actors, geography, etc. Resolute 14:21, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• We had Wolverines Football in POTD a week or two ago, and nobody commented. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:26, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not trying to make a big deal of it, just that it was enough to be noticeable. Awien (talk) 14:59, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ties in with the 'main page US centricism' discussion immediately above :) Jackiespeel (talk) 09:40, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

On the Main Page, it says "Friends'". The page to which it links says, "Friend's". Which is correct: FRIEND'S or FRIENDS' ?

Editors should note that this refers to the "On this day" entry for "Friends' Day in Argentina and other Latin American countries". I'd suggest that consistent use of "Friend's" in the article makes that the correct form. But I don't understand Spanish, so cannot check the sources. Anyone? HiLo48 (talk) 10:58, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Friends' Day would be Día de Los Amigos. However, the article says it is Día del Amigo. Therefore, it should be Friend's Day.--WaltCip (talk) 12:58, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Fixed. --Jayron32 14:01, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Day of the friend (friend's) - not, day of the friendS (friends')? CopperSquare 07:59, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Sea of Tranquillity : should be Sea of Tranquility Doprendek (talk) 22:06, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done. This kind of request is meant to go to WP:ERRORS. Hut 8.5 23:02, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Could the separate article Belgian National Day be put on the page, rather than the simple "National Day" link, which just provides a list of national days, as at the moment? Many thanks! Brigade Piron (talk) 08:57, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that it is a stub so it can't be linked prominently (boldfaced) at the Main Page... –HTD 12:05, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As there 'will be a lot of it about' - don't complain, it will pass in a few days. Jackiespeel (talk) 09:16, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But it's an irresistible urge to complain... --WaltCip (talk) 16:59, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If only Americans had royalty... –HTD 17:06, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• The USA did overthrow a Monarchy. And no, the Kardashians don't count.--293.xx.xxx.xx (talk) 04:42, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm from New Zealand, actually; a Commonwealth nation.--WaltCip (talk) 17:19, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't referring to you, just the fact that royals+Americans would've been a lethal mix... –HTD 19:05, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's a boy. Now the paparazzi can take down their ladders.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 19:50, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Americans had royalty, right up to 1776! Mjroots (talk) 20:14, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Right up to 1963/68. 87.113.216.108 (talk) 20:49, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And unsurprisingly, someone bitched about it a few sections up when a Kennedy appeared on the main page. Resolute 21:20, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bah. The Kennedy family is much less significant that 19th century pre-Indonesian Chinese literature, because a person automatically loses ten significance points for being American and gains ten for being from an oppressed nation. (But seriously, there's been several items to do with Indonesia on the Main Page this week.)— Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.28.82.250 (talk • contribs) 21:41, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• And another tomorrow, in OTD. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:22, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(reset) Trying to be ahead of the discussion - and I was including the Belgian monarchy in my comment (and will refer some of the replies to Emperor Norton). Jackiespeel (talk) 21:17, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just for everyone's amusement, there's now a discussion ranting about UK royalty at WT:ITN#UK country bias and procedure, incidentally by the same person who insists that the US Senate is a parliament in itself. –HTD 13:53, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, both countries get more coverage than they should, but the UK-bias is way odder because its much smaller. By sheer numbers, a certain US-tilt in the most polished articles is predictable and perfectly reasonable. But I quite often come on here and see two or three items somewhere relating to some obscure noble from 200 years ago or some British naval milestone, and I'm not sure how that happens to be.

• "Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge, gives birth to a son, third in the line of succession to the thrones of the Commonwealth realms."
• "British cyclist Chris Froome wins the Tour de France."

A man rides 2,000 miles through some of the toughest terrain France has to offer, battling 219 of the finest cyclists in the world. After three weeks of pain and suffering, he achieves the unthinkable - a second consecutive yellow jersey victory for a British rider, and a first for an African rider, on the 100th running of one of the greatest sporting events on the planet.

A foetus squeezes itself through a fallopian tube. It gets three times as much space on the front page of Wikipedia. (I know it looks like twice as much above - only twice! - but the picture placing makes it three times on the front page at time of typing.)

For the record, I'm not in any way outraged or pissed off. I think it's hilarious. --81.152.113.134 (talk) 22:16, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"A foetus squeezes itself through a fallopian tube." That would be news. AlexTiefling (talk) 22:55, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't aware of this fascinating complication of the royal birth. It's probably going to be the first royal in the Guinness Book of World Records!

I knew my GCSE Biology was probably going to let me down. I was going to use a different part of the reproductive system but was afraid it would have misogynistic overtones :P --81.152.113.134 (talk) 07:16, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hail Prince George! Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 17:42, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gosh, a stroke of genius, followed by a hearty cheer, in very quick succession there. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:47, 24 July 2013 (UTC) .. but hastily pressed into abdication, alas. [reply]

The subject is the prince, not the Duchess. Now we have his name, the blurb should be the much simpler

"Prince George of Cambridge, third in line to the throne of the Commonwealth realms, is born to the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge."

μηδείς (talk) 20:15, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, what's wrong with "Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge, gives birth to a son, Prince George of Cambridge, third in the line of succession to the throne of the Commonwealth realms."? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:35, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That makes it sound like a divine gift from God. -- tariqabjotu 20:57, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Shucks. And we thought Wikipedia wasn't a news channel. Does the name make him even more notable? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:33, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]