Editing of this page bynew orunregistered users is currentlydisabled due tovandalism. See theprotection policy andprotection log for more details. If you cannot edit this page and you wish to make a change, you canrequest unprotection,log in, orcreate an account.

National variations of the English language have been widely discussed previously: Wikipedia does not favor any particular variety of English. While Wikipediaaims to use language common to all English varieties, some differences in spelling, grammar, or terminology may differ or be absent in a reader's preferred variety. For guidance, see the relevant style guide on thenational varieties of English and thecomparison of American and British English.

To report an error incontent currently or imminently to appear on Main Page, use the appropriate section below. Reports should contain:

• Where is the error? An exact quotation using{{!xt}} of the text in question helps.
• Offer a correction if possible using{{xt}}.
• References are helpful, especially when reporting an obscure factual or grammatical error.
• Time zones. The Main Page runs onCoordinated Universal Time (UTC, currently 16:19 on 25 October 2025) 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 onlyprotected from editing beginning 24 hours before its scheduled appearance. Before that period, you canbe bold and fix any issues yourself.
• Do not use{{edit fully-protected}} on this page, which willnot get a faster response. It is unnecessary, because this page is not protected, and causes display problems.(See the bottom ofthis 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.
• Actual errors only. Failures of subjective criteria such as interestingness are not errors.
• 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. Checkthe revision history for a record of any discussion or action taken; noarchives are kept.

• Near the end, the summary mentions "the Lancastrians" without any explanation of who the term referred to, which is confusing to readers unfamiliar with the subject matter. --2001:FB1:38:2D4A:4D0D:CDD:24A9:95FA (talk)08:52, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• The TFA is promoted on the front page with a pic of the supposed Coat of Arms of Henry VI, created by the prolific (retired) Wikipedian heraldry artist Sodacan. I believe it'sWP:OR and doesn't in fact exist. It's certainly completely unsourced. This thread explains the background:Talk:Coat of arms of England#Arms of Henry VI Given that it is unsourced, dubious and not even featured in the article in the first place it should be changed asap.DeCausa (talk)11:37, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I agree with @DeCausa. It's one of my pet peeves that we insist onWP:HQRS for text, but mostly turn a blind eye to the provenance of the images we use. I did a little poking around and found some sources inCoat of arms of England, one of which is on-line and doesn't sound like it's describing what's shown here.^[1]RoySmith(talk)14:01, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  

  @TFA coordinators: not wishing to tread on any toes, but I'm with the users above here. It seems we've got (at best) uncited material on the main page, which is a pretty big "no". We could swap for e.g.File:Henry VI of England, Shrewsbury book.jpg?UndercoverClassicist^T·C14:07, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• I proposed using that coat of arms in the TFA request. I'm fine with replacing it with UC's proposed image.Z1720 (talk)15:59, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

   Done, at least for now. Also added a brief explanation of "Lancastrians".UndercoverClassicist^T·C16:01, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

At the end of this TFA blurb, the following sentence appears:

This article is part of afeatured topic:1989 (album).

This should be changed to:

This article is part of afeatured topic:1989 (album).

This change correctly appliesreverse italicization: when an entire sentence is italicized, titles that would normally appear in italics (like1989) should instead be shown in a non-italic font.

To make this change, this edit request needs to be implemented. I made this edit request more than a month ago and even starteda discussion, which got archived with zero replies. I think this is enoughsilent consensus. After the edit request is done, this change can be made by going tothis page and changing{{TFAFULL|How You Get the Girl|1989 (album)}} to{{TFAFULL|How You Get the Girl|1989 (album)|''1989'' (album)}}.Xoontor (talk)14:39, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I added two new articles to the birth/death section (Rahmah el Yunusiyah andNikolay Alyokhin). I invite editors to double-check to ensure that they are eligible to run.Z1720 (talk)16:17, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why is there noWikifunctions,Incubator, etc.. on thehomepage?Wikinews already have Wikifunctions in its homepage.Versions111 (talk)11:46, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There were discussions of this in 2023 and 2024 atTemplate talk:Wikipedia's sister projects § Add Wikifunctions or not?, which did not get consensus for the addition.jlwoodwa (talk)19:31, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

But Commons, Wikiquote, Wikispecies, and Wikinews has Wikifunctions, and even Incubator in Meta-Wiki and Wikidata.Versions111 (talk)19:59, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If there's a discussion and consensus isn't reached, then that's that. No point arguing about it.Schwede6621:29, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense. The last discussion was 18 months ago, when it was said "one hold up being that funct appears to be in pre-release still?"

That is no longer the case. The conclusion in that discussion was "Not done for now", because no consensus was reached. Even if it had been,consensus can change.Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing);Talk to Andy;Andy's edits15:34, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you have read the previous discussions, and you have a new point to make beyond what's already been said, then you can start a new discussion. However, I doubt that "other projects do it this way" will be enough on its own; each project has its own practices, and there is no requirement for consistency, especially not without knowingwhy those other projects made that decision.jlwoodwa (talk)21:43, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How do i add a fact? My fact is: That Byran Charnley’s kaleidoscope cats likely didn’t show his decent into madness because we don’t know what order they were painted in?(Boeing747Pilot)Boeing747Pilot (talk)13:13, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Boeing747Pilot The purpose of the Did You Know section is to highlight new content. So it features new articles, recently expanded articles, and articles that have recently been recognized as being high quality ("Good articles). In order to highlight that fact aboutByran Charnley and hisKaleidoscope cats, you would first need to write an article about him or the paintings. Then, you couldnominate the article.Wikipedia:Did you know provides a lot more information about the process. ~ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving13:41, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Now I see we do have an article aboutBryan Charnley - that's the correct spelling. It also looks like theKaleidoscope Cats were painted by Louis Wain, not Charnley, although they influenced him. We have an article aboutLouis Wain. Louis Wain is currently rated as B class; Bryan Charnley is rated as a stub. Expanding and improving those articles would be the path to getting something in DYK. ~ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving13:55, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ok good to know. I have been editing for a while and would love to see a fact on the main page.(Boeing747Pilot)Boeing747Pilot (talk)14:58, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I also should work and have my fact be a little better considering i learned about this from a shady source.(Boeing747Pilot)Boeing747Pilot (talk)15:01, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Quick question, how much would i need to do to “expand” the page and get the fact.(Boeing747Pilot)Boeing747Pilot (talk)17:08, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

According toWP:DYK5X, you need to expand it 5 times from it'sreadable prose size. For example, if it was 1,000 before, it would have to be 5,000 after the expansion to qualify for DYK.GalacticVelocity08 (talk)19:20, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Main Page discussions

• Articles with short description
• Wikipedia semi-protected talk pages