Talk:Main Page

Main Page error reports

To report an error in content 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 on Coordinated Universal Time (UTC, currently 05:44 on 7 February 2026) 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.
• Actual errors only. Failures of subjective criteria such as taste 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. Check the revision history for a record of any discussion or action taken; no archives are kept.

Administrators: Clear all reports

Errors in the summary of the featured article

Please do not remove this invisible timestamp. See WT:ERRORS and WP:SUBSCRIBE. - Dank (push to talk) 01:24, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

When reporting an error in a Featured Article blurb, please notify the article's FAC nominator and the TFA co-ordinators. The co-ordinators can be notified by using {{@TFA}}; the nominator can be found on the article's Talk page.

Errors in "Did you know ..."

Current DYK

The Man Who Slipped on the Ice cites Irish Mirror and Goosed as sources for the man never being identified. I cannot find this claim in the Irish Mirror. Goosed explicitly states this, but I cannot find any editorial policy to find out if it adheres by journalistic standards.

Within the article it's mentioned that Facebook may have identified the man, cited to the Irish Independent. That means there's some doubt as to whether this man is truly anonymous.

Let's change it to ALT2. User:Finnfrog99 User:Delcoan User:DragonflySixtyseven Bremps... 00:30, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. DS (talk) 00:40, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

User:Bremps hello there! thanks for noticing my mistake, I referenced the wrong mirror article, I referenced the 1st one when I shouldve referenced the 2nd, which calls him a mystery man, my mistake!

I'm fine with switching it to ALT2, either works User:Finnfrog99 (talk) 00:51, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

Done. DS (talk) 01:00, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

Errors in the summary of the featured list

Monday's FL

(February 9)

Wednesday's FL

(February 11)

Friday's FL

(February 13)

Errors in the summary of the featured picture

Notice to administrators: When fixing POTD errors, please update the corresponding regular version (i.e. without "protected" in the page title) in addition to the Main Page version linked below.

Today's POTD

• "with a length of 137 to 157 centimetres (54 to 62 in) across the wings" - rather clunky language - "with a wingspan of 137 to 157 centimetres (54 to 62 in)" would be better IMvHO. Mjroots (talk) 04:40, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

General discussion

Automatically determining POTD kind

I've noticed people need to keep editing the Main Page to adjust the POTD text to "Today's featured video" or "Today's featured pictures" (plural). I wrote a short module, Module:POTD kind, that parses the POTD to determine what is being shown, and then returns the correct text. I've updated the sandbox to use it and in my short review of the various POTD protected pages, it seems to work correctly. And if the module doesn't work, it'll default back to "picture", so it shouldn't be any worse than the status quo (I hope).

Let me know what you think, if it's all good then I can update the real Main Page in a few days. Legoktm (talk) 05:01, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

Previous similar suggestion: Talk:Main Page/Archive 209#Changing the manual date addition for the POTD by User:Dot.py. It includes slightly more file extensions, see Template:Get file type. In particular, it had mp4 for video in addition to webm and ogv, and mp3 for audio. —⁠andrybak (talk) 05:37, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

The solution @Legoktm suggested is much better than mine. I made that template to be more of a catch-all for file extensions, but POTDs are always (from what I've seen) .jpgs, .webms, and apparently .ogvs, so their solution is less complex and specifically for the Main Page. Their solution also includes cases for multiple pictures. dot.py 05:52, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

Legoktm's version also has the advantage that it operates on the protected POTD subpage (Template:POTD protected/2026-02-07) only, i.e. without access to POTD parameter extraction via template {{POTD image}}, an approach which is avoided in how POTD on the main page operates right now. —⁠andrybak (talk) 06:29, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

Ah, I didn't even notice that! That is much better, considering the fact that only 1 page (the module) would need to be protected rather than at least 3. dot.py 06:35, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

Oh cool, I missed that thread. Great to see that it's not just me who recognized we could have a better solution to the problem!

Regarding file extensions, Commons doesn't (yet) allow mp4 video, but it's trivial to add to the module as future-proofing. Has POTD had audio before?

(I will be honest that the POTD vs. POTD protected switcheroo makes very little sense to me but that's an issue for another day). Legoktm (talk) 18:59, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

May that day come soon. Schwede66 19:17, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

We really should lauch a mini project to solve this problem once and for all. We have known for years POTD being out of alignment with the rest of the Main Page is a stupid issue. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 21:48, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

Then we can leave mp4 off the list, cool. POTD didn't have audio, but there was Wikipedia:Sound of the day before, which seems to have never taken off, so we can skip the audio part as well.

Template:POTD protected existed since 5 January 2007, and was used since Special:Diff/98546089, which was also around the time that cascading protection was introduced: logid=6443209. Usage of its subpages was introduced several months later: Special:Diff/129758756. I couldn't find anything relevant in the talk archives, except that there was a bout of vandalism affecting the main page in December 2006, when the protection had to be done manually: Talk:Main Page/Archive 86#Vandalism. Ticket phab:T10392 about protection indicators was created as a result of it, but I don't know about cascading protection. —⁠andrybak (talk) 19:32, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

@PrimeHunter what do you think of replacing the #switch for the heading of "Today's featured picture" with Module:POTD kind on the main page like so: Special:Diff/1335602045/1335612245? —⁠andrybak (talk) 11:52, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

@Rjjiii suggested that it could be changed to another word, which is quite a simple solution that needs no templates or modules needing to be transcluded. Perhaps it could be changed to something like "media" (c:Main Page has "Media of the day"). This would also avoid anything to be updated (like if .mp4 gains support on Commons or a .png picture is a POTD). dot.py (alt) 21:46, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

Yes, I'm not averse to doing a module but would prefer the simple solution. If we use a module, it will get protected which makes maintenance more awkward. Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 01:39, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

 Done I've implemented the change on the Main Page and pages like /Tomorrow as well. Legoktm (talk) 01:49, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

Wording of ITN item

Mentioning the total death toll of the Balochistan attacks, even when additionally clarifying that this includes "counter-operations", seems to suggest a much more devasting incident than what actually happened. The number of militants among these casualty numbers should probably be clarified, either by adding "including militants" or only listing civilian / security forces causalities (my preference). — An anonymous username, not my real name 03:30, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

I do see this point of view, although the blurb is already quite long and we might want to avoid making it even more cumbersome. "Including militants", or "most of them militants", is probably the shortest way to clarify the blurb. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 09:27, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

The blurb is currently

• A series of attacks by the Balochistan Liberation Army and resulting counter-operations leaves more than 190 people dead in several districts of Balochistan, Pakistan.

This uses the same hackneyed phrase as the following blurb which leaves more than 140 people dead. This formulaic style is not good writing.

The nominated blurb was:

• At least 133 people, including the attackers, were killed in attacks by the Balochistan Liberation Army in several districts of Balochistan, Pakistan.

No-one had any objection to that and so it should have been posted directly without alteration. It seems crisper and clearer and so addresses the OP's complaint.

Andrew🐉(talk) 10:00, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

 Done Updated accordingly — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:05, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

@Andrew Davidson

Re - 2026 Balochistan Attacks

I am definitely arriving late to this party, and current events are not really my speciality, but I find the wording of this article (aka "the ITN item" - whatever that means?)¹ was not improved by the previous change applied some ten hours ago.

That revision has left us with;

At least 190 people, including the attackers, are killed in attacks by the Balochistan Liberation Army in...

It is stated that this was the (original) nominated blurb (where, when?), and that no-one had any objection to that. I was offline, so mea culpa, but where would I now find this discussion please?

Notwithstanding that, the current wording leaves me with the impression is that the majority were killed "by the BLA", whereas the reality is quite the opposite.

According to the BBC, it seems that the BLA are responsible for 48 deaths (31 civilians plus 17 security personnel). In response, Pakistan's security forces have killed at least 145 attackers. The fact that I doubt the accuracy of these numbers, or the idea that there were so many alleged "attackers", and yet they achieved so little, is of course largely irrelevant.

Why was the previous wording dismissed as being "hackneyed" and "formulaic", and how could the revision be "crisper and clearer", and yet leave me believing the BLA were directly responsible for all 190 deaths?

(¹) ITN - in my ignorance, I originally thought that "ITN" was Independent Television News, a valid alternative to the BBC. I now wonder if it is Wikispeak for "In the News"? Either way, as someone visiting this page for the first time, I naively assumed that the heading would specifically reference the "2026 Balochistan attacks" Perhaps I should just crawl back into my own space and leave all this to the professionals. Please advise.

WendlingCrusader (talk) 20:11, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

ITN is the In the News project which organises the corresponding main page section.

The discussion of this news item was Wikipedia:In_the_news/Candidates#(Posted)_2026_Balochistan_attacks.

The main article for this topic currently has a confused account of the attacks and counter-attacks so that I'm not sure it is correct or reliable. I shall continue to monitor developments but have no special powers or understanding of them.

Andrew🐉(talk) 20:37, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

I do also find the article puzzling. It is is desperate need of fact-checking and reorganisation. Chorchapu (talk | edits) 03:14, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

I started discussion at WP:ERRORS and recommended that the blurb was pulled. Instead the blurb was tweaked by Amakuru and the discussion was removed as resolved. Nothing much has been done to the article, especially its first sentence. I contemplated fixing it up, based on my research of sources such as this, but decided that it was a waste of time. See "Everyone here is corrupt".

As it always does, the dust will settle again. Most of the Pakistani establishment and its media will forget Balochistan, again. And armchair analysts will continue with their punditry.

Andrew🐉(talk) 10:50, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

Surely the attackers were not killed in their own attacks? They would have been killed by those defending against those attacks or by people retaliating for those attacks afterwards. Unless you are saying that the attackers killed each other or themselves. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 16:51, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

There were several waves of attacks in several locations involving multiple factions. These may have included suicide attacks as the article mentions suicide vests. Others will have involved fighting on both sides and others may have been counter-attacks. We don't seem to have a detailed tactical account while the claims of success seem partisan and so are not reliable.

Fighting seems to have continued as there's talk of the town of Nushki being contested. For example, What's Behind The Unprecedented Attacks In Pakistan’s Balochistan?

RFE/RL could not independently verify the conflicting claims by the two sides in the sparsely populated region inaccessible to journalists. The government has also imposed an Internet shutdown in the province, making verification even more difficult.
Pakistan's security forces on February 4 wrested control of Nushki, a town of some 50,000 people, from separatist militants after three days of fighting. The army used drones and helicopters against the militants, the authorities said.
The scope and scale of the attacks have “not been witnessed before” in Balochistan, where separatists and militants have typically relied on classic guerrilla hit-and-run tactics, said Baloch.

Andrew🐉(talk) 18:10, 4 February 2026 (UTC)