Talk:WhatsApp

WhatsApp editnotice?

Since the editnotice is template-protected and the talk page redirects here, would it be possible to add a message about not posting private information to the talk page? A lot of people somehow mistake this for customer support and end up posting their own phone numbers (or sometimes emails) there. ChaotıċEnby(t · c) 18:58, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

I've semi-protected the talk page. I like your suggestion, but I don't believe a stronger edit notice will help – people tend not to see edit notices when editing from a mobile device. – bradv 19:02, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Didn't know about that last thing, still thanks! ChaotıċEnby(t · c) 19:11, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

TokTok

@‪ASpacemanFalls‬, this article is about Whatsapp not about TokTok? The content is irrelevant. ☆SuperNinja2☆ TALK! 04:32, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

It's relevant as a bit of context. UAE bans app to promote its telecoms - their telecoms are reported to distribute spyware, simple as that. ASpacemanFalls (talk) 07:07, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

That piece of information is extra, and unneeded here because it's disputed and controversial and misleading when mentioned just like that without further context and that's why it should be analyzed in larger context in it's own article not here. To make it within the policies, we should mention the app's company opinion and the UAE's opinion on it to meet the WP:DUE, which as I said earlier, not suitable here. ☆SuperNinja2☆ TALK! 11:00, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

"because it's disputed and controversial and misleading"

Disputed by which reputable sources? Cite them, please. Controversial in what way? Misleading in what way?

"To make it within the policies, we should mention the app's company opinion and the UAE's opinion on it"

That is not what WP:DUE says and WhatsApp itself doesn't have an opinion on TokTok, at least one mentioned in the article. The factoid included in the article is strictly about the dubious idea to block WhatsApp calls and the reasons for it. It can be made more neutral by adding information on UAE's stated motives, but that's already present, in a capacity. ASpacemanFalls (talk) 19:55, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Research Process and Methodology - SP24 - Sect 201 - Thu

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 4 March 2024 and 4 May 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Ef2467 (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Ef2467 (talk) 00:54, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

WhatsApp on iPad

Perhaps it's worth noting that you can access the official WhatsApp (no third-party app) on the iPad by simply adding a shortcut of the web version to the home screen. It works just fine and feels pretty much like a native app, and that's how I've been using it for a long time now. Granted, you don't get notifications and it takes a few seconds to load, so an official app would still be welcomed. Maxeto0910 (talk) 22:17, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Add a revenue section?

I was reading List of most-visited websites and surprised to see WhatsApp at #5, firstly because I don’t consider it to be a website - seems more like a webclient to me - and secondly because I don’t experience ads when using it. I wondered how it makes money. This seems to be a common question on the internet, but I couldn't see it covered in the Wikipedia article.

Do you think it worthwhile to add a section on revenue and a sentence in the lead about it?

Sources could include . Commander Keane (talk) 01:20, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

GB WhatsApp

The article says that «Another application called GB WhatsApp is considered malicious by cybersecurity firm Symantec» but Cory Doctorow tells a different tale. Tuvalkin (talk) 20:29, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Bot added cn templates problem

@Venture18+: You seem to have bot-added {{cn}}s at diff.

The statement it was attached to in first case in section WhatsApp#2009–2014 is, as I just verified in cited source, supported with the inline citation at at least two previous paragraphs.

The same applies about general verifiability with citations above and not-expected to be disputable and over-citation request in the next cn-case in section WhatsApp#WhatsApp Business in a paragraph that lists additional examples of what was said, and supported by citations in previous paragraph.

The terms app, front-end, as are on-premises - and cloud-api (which are not explained there to be back-end, server side components of the distributed modular system) were (at the time of that diff, and are at the time I write this) already clearly introduced above in the article and/or already cited sources. So if something is needed here possibly is {{clarify}} and/or rephrasing this section, possibly including repeating some of redundant info also there for the sake of users accessing that section only and not reading the article through, but not the cn-template. And here I'll not do the rephrasing (need to go teach sailing), so I'll just remove the cn-template.

Also, the bot should probably be changed to propose the operator - probably you - to operator-verify that contents really was not verifiable with sources already in place and cn template was needed, and not install it automatically unconditionally, which here was not the case, the cn was out of place in this case.

If bot already has this functionality, you or other operator missed that contents already was verifiable, and you or your bot should not install cn, but just install repeat of existing named citation there too if you felt it is needed, as I did manually.

The problem shall increase to much more serious one when/if someone creates/start using a similar bot to remove all info where cn templates would be older than a defined period (fixed, parametrized or operator per case given) instead of having it operator reviewed, to make those backlogs more manageable.

I did not yet encountered such a bot, but already have restored info after patrollers who behaved much like such a bot.

Such a couple of bots could, while quickly and efficiently dealing with backlogs, be as quick and efficient removing a a lot of relevant (and verifiable) info, and if that were the case I would get tempted to create one that would chase such situations and retrieve the removed info, with just probably the same failure to propose restoration instead of automatically restoring.

Then those three bots would chase each other's tail setting cn-s, removing info and restoring it around Wikipedia with not quite predictable results...

So, let's try to prevent that before it happens.

While live people can still cope to add citation - where really needed - and remove cn manually, instead banging your head why relevant info is missing when you need for quick recall of some details, and then finding it removed, and needing to go to all rigmarole to return contents when needed, when you urgently need to do something you needed refresh or check the info in your memory. If it happened to often, someone else like me might get frustrated and feel the need for the third type of bot, one for automatic restorations of such contents, make it an let it loose...

I won't, I've already chased and troubleshot situations like that and wouldn't like to see that here; if someone wants to try it let's create a big enough sandbox and test it there, not on running Wikipedia. Marjan Tomki SI (talk) 11:54, 18 June 2026 (UTC)