If you expected a reply on another page and didn't get it, then please feel free to remind me. I've given up on my watchlist. You can also use the magic summoning tool if you remember to link my userpage in the same edit in which you sign the message.

Please add notes to the end of this page. If you notice the page size getting out of control (>100,000 bytes), then please tell me. I'll probably reply here unless you suggest another page for a reply. Thanks, WhatamIdoing

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27

This page has archives. Topics inactive for 60 days are automatically archived 4 or more at a time by Lowercase sigmabot III if there are more than 6.

Hi, thoughts on Wikipedia:Writing articles with large language models/March 2026 proposal? There's some discussion on its talk and at WT:AIC#AI-bot on ANI Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 23:37, 10 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Idea for an explanatory essay on NPOV: User:Kowal2701/Due and undue (perhaps the target of WP:DUE and WP:UNDUE if/when in project space). Something we discussed a while back that’s been bugging me, is that people cite WP:DUE which points to WEIGHT, when really they mean WP:BALASP. Was thinking this’d clear up any confusion and make life easier for newbies Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 02:29, 13 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Is the intended content something like "When editors say DUE, they don't always mean exactly that?" WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:20, 13 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Sort of, but that premise wouldn't make sense if DUE pointed to it. I'm unsure what to actually put in the sections that doesn't just duplicate the policy (other than giving lots of examples). It could just serve as a disambiguation page for DUE and UNDUE (something like this) Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 19:27, 13 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The general direction that we're heading in at NPOV is to split "viewpoint" from "basic information" into separate concepts (DUE vs BALASP, basically). Getting there will take a couple of years, but we've made a start. The weak point in NPOV that we've been addressing during the last year or so is the bit I call "write an encyclopedia article". By this, I mean that there are certain basic facts about the subject that are conventionally presented in an encyclopedia article, and these should have a place even if the reliable sources spend relatively little time talking about them. The second (and fairly new) paragraph at WP:BALASP is an effort to address this gap in our advice. I think that as we build that section to be useful, and give editors enough time (years, not weeks) to discover it, then the BALASP shortcut might become better known. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:23, 13 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

That makes a lot of sense, BALASP looks much better. It seems closely related to MOS. I would've thought a complete split would be best eventually, and then mention the overlap (like with WP:VERIFYOR). In the meantime I can add a {{Redirect}} hatnote to DUE Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 20:59, 13 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

might be interested in WP:PAGSFIRST, think I've seen you say something similar Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 10:00, 22 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, your new page summarizes a very human tendency. Thanks for sharing the link. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:43, 22 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

"generally un/reliable" --> "usually un/reliable"? "usually" conveys usage and gets people reflexively thinking about context. One issue, and it's a very big one: the shortcuts would be ugly Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 19:42, 12 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

What I like about "usually" is that it disrupts the "WP:GREL" thinking. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:46, 12 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Maybe something we could tie in with the rework of RSP? The GREL etc. redirects could still work, but the anchors and shortcuts changed to "usually X" and UREL and UUNREL (ew)? I could propose it at VPI or WT:RSP, but it'd probably be one of those things that gets a few murmurs and then archived Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 21:01, 12 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I'm less certain about agreement. People dislike changing jargon. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:21, 12 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

yeah, that's why I thought it'd be better to tie it into another transformative change. But I may just suggest it at WT:RSP, that crowd seems thoughtful, and it's such a low-effort/trivial change Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 21:56, 12 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Mathglot, what do you think? Would the English Wikipedia be better if we changed "GREL" to "usually reliable", etc.? WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:30, 13 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

A couple of thoughts. First, the term, as well as the abbreviation for it, were chosen before the time I became heavily involved at RSP. Regardless, I would be loathe to change a phrase that may have come out of consensus. We may need some archive archaeology (archiveology?) to determine if that was even the case, or whether some template writer had to call it something, ended up calling it that without much thought and it stuck (or at least, no one objected, or there were bigger fish to fry, etc.).

Even though it would be easy to change it now, it is really no easier, as the 'gr' is emitted by template in the table rows in the RSP table, and the longer form—whatever it is—will be emitted by template under the new system, so changing it later when we have 500+ landing source pages will be a matter of changing a couple of words in a single template (i.e., trivial).

Because the change from the current system to the new one is large, my inclination is to keep the adjustment for users to the very minimum, i.e., just do the changes that are forced upon us by the situation, and deal with other nice-to-have enhancements as separate issues after we are live with the new system. We could either just keep a list somewhere and remember to come back to it, but there is also a Phabricator project for doing the conversion at T414382, and one task is T414754 "RSP post-cutover cleanup", and this could be added under it T414382 as a sub-task if desired. But this subdiscussion would be better held there, to encourage other opinions. Mathglot (talk) 02:47, 13 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure that nothing about RSP's early days was discussed thoroughly. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:27, 13 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Lmk if this is dumb/too ambitious. Similar to the direction RSP is taking, Wikipedia:Reliable sources should be changed to Wikipedia:Source reliability and rewritten so that WP:CONTEXTMATTERS isn’t just an addendum but the basis. Like "reliable source" should always be written as "source reliable for the claim", and there should be more guidance on the different contexts. The good thing about the status quo is that it clearly relegates some sources as unreliable for literally everything bar their own content, but this could still be covered in the lead re "reputation for fact-checking", USERGEN etc. Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 15:43, 8 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's a good concept, but it's a big job. What's the smallest step you could take now towards that goal? WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:57, 8 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Talking to you :) Can do a rough mock-up at some point and fly it past people at WP:WPPAG for them to possibly take over Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 16:43, 8 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Then congratulations: you're already on the path towards improving that guideline!

I suggest confining the rough mock-up to a single part of the guideline for now. Wholesale replacement of any guideline is extremely unusual, so I think that you want to give a solid example but still limit how much effort you're putting into it at this stage. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:54, 8 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

User:Kowal/Mockup re Source reliability is roughly what I have in mind Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 12:36, 10 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SOURCEDEF would have to be changed in coordination with WP:SOURCE.

It looks like you're planning to rearrange things. This is usually possible, and I suggest doing it first, to make future diffs easier to understand. WP:RS is kind of disorganized right now, so a proposal to rearrange without changing the text might be welcome. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:48, 10 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, good idea. It sort of depends on people being bold afterwards since carbon copies of the current sections may not make much sense in the/a new structure. I could start a discussion at WT:RS and notify WP:WPPAG, and probably WP:VPP if that goes down well Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 18:42, 10 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

And WT:V, because some changes would have to be coordinated with that policy. But think about it as a series of baby steps: anything helpful that moves a page in the right direction is good, even if it's small. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:20, 10 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect Just what I asked for, but not what I want has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 April 2 § Just what I asked for, but not what I want until a consensus is reached. 1234qwer1234qwer4 14:19, 2 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I think your latest comment at Wikipedia:Education noticeboard was uncalled for. After N-->Inf years of teaching undergrads, grads etc I know how they behave when all they want is a grade. Ldm1954 (talk) 21:12, 3 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure you know students. But you don't seem to know how the Wiki Edu program works. For example, you don't know what training is provided, how it is delivered, or how it is tracked, but you assume that the students are not doing it. If you volunteered to work with one class, I think you would have more facts and fewer assumptions. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:21, 3 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I have looked at the training, and as stated it is far below the level or rigor that is required in academia in the US. Typically you are required to view an online course that takes ~ 30 minutes with video's included, none of which can be skipped. You are then required to take an exam and get 80% of the answers right, the numbers are logged and it is decidedly non-trivial. I know that training in companies and US national labs make what academia does look pathetic.

For completeness, from the requirements info "faculty must complete mandatory training regarding discrimination, sexual misconduct (annual), and research-related compliance, such as Human Research Protections (CITI) or Research Security, depending on funding and role. Trainings are managed through myHR. Specific NIH/NSF-funded faculty must also fulfill mentoring and responsible conduct of research (RCR) training." Ldm1954 (talk) 21:41, 3 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that a video about discrimination and harassment, followed by a multiple-choice test that asks questions like "Can you get fired if you engage in sexual harassment?" or "Does treating men and women differently count as sex-based discrimination?" is even remotely comparable to the training that Wiki Edu does. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:54, 3 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The faculty training is far more extensive and detailed than the WikiEd, I ran through the first WikiEd for students which is trivial. Admittedly the sexual harassment ones are less rigorous, at one time I was a designated reporter as my wife ran a shelter so know somewhat more. The safety training is much stricter and extensive.

As I said before, at US National Labs & (some) companies the training requirements are much stronger. Ldm1954 (talk) 22:23, 3 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. The more relevant comparison, though, is that the training for non-student newbies is exactly nothing. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:54, 3 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

That is true, but not the same. As WP editors we are subsidising classes at not-for-profit, for-profit universities in WikiEd. Ldm1954 (talk) 02:04, 4 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by "subsidizing"?

Financially, the existence of classes is neither here nor there, as (a) "WP editors" don't pay for it, and (b) what the Wikimedia Foundation is paying for is to for us to have the benefit of someone who makes the classes less awful than they used to be.

If you're thinking in terms of volunteers' time, I suggest to you that a supervised class is a much more desirable thing than either an unsupervised class or a paid editor. Additionally, Wikipedia's purpose is education, so teaching students about Wikipedia (e.g., "Don't trust that – I had a class once that edited Wikipedia, and it's really true that anybody can put anything on the page") and how to contribute is compatible with our purpose.

I would like you to reflect on what it means for Wikipedia to be "the encyclopedia anyone can edit". "Anyone" includes students, and even people whose skills are much worse than students and whose motivations are much less pure. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:26, 4 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Students pay to take classes, and most US universities now operate as for-profit institutions; the days of academic ivory towers are long gone. We are defacto acting as unpaid TA's/adjunct faculty for the faculty who teach these classes, they are paid editors.

My identity is transparent, I do not know how much you know about how universities in the US really work. (I know a little about the UK, there are similarities.) In WP we judge academic notability on achievements; R1 university administrations judge based upon how much money you bring in. Sorry, but while I would have agreed with your comments about altruistic assisting university education 30 years ago, those days are long gone. Ldm1954 (talk) 02:47, 4 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure that the ivory tower was disappearing in the days of Arthur Roberts (physicist) and you could still smell the fresh paint at Argonne National Laboratory.

If you don't feel like helping students learn is an altruistic endeavor, then nobody's making you WP:VOLUNTEER for it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:10, 4 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

A request for amendment in which you were involved in has been closed and is archived at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment/Archive 135 § Amendment request: Enforced BRD.

For the Arbitration Committee, GoldRomean (talk) 23:35, 4 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

story · music · places

Happy Easter! -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:04, 5 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Today's FA is Bridge, - a broad topic by many. My father loved bridges, and I wrote a few articles with that in mind (Empress Elisabeth Bridge, adding to Chain bridge and Müngsten Bridge, the latter for childhood memory), and also thinking of bridges between people. - I brought two bios to the same page, Christian Schwarz-Schilling and Bill Ramsey whose regular Swingtime I used to hear in the car driving to choir rehearsals ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:57, 17 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Today's story is about one of three bios I brought to today's main page: look and listen, an extraordinary woman in many respects. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:21, 30 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I thought "Bridge" would be about Frank Bridge, an unjustly neglected composer. Okay, some of his stuff is run-of-the-mill British pastoral. But with (say) The Sea there is[1] inspiration! Bon courage (talk) 20:18, 30 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You are infinitely more knowledgeable about the guidelines than me, so I am curious if I am on the right track in understanding WP:BIDIRECTIONAL here [2]. I noticed that you started the relevant discussion at Wikipedia talk:Categories, lists, and navigation templates/Archive 11#Proposal to clarify BIDIRECTIONAL. I checked the later discussions on the talk page and didn't find anything else particularly relevant. Katzrockso (talk) 00:36, 9 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

My impression is that BIDIRECTIONAL applies to ordinary 'horizontal' navboxes and not to sidebars. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:54, 9 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Just to give you a sense of this, the {{psychology sidebar}} contains 25 links. If BIDIRECTIONAL were enforced on sidebars, it would appear on exactly 25 articles. Instead, it is transcluded into about 750. Similarly, {{feminism sidebar}} has 350 links but 1100 transclusions. On the flip side, {{Conservatism sidebar}} has about 280 but only about 80 transclusions, and {{Greek alphabet sidebar}} has 58 links but only 40 transclusions. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:10, 9 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. I see this has been disputed in the past (there was a 3 post discussion at the talk page where someone asked if BIDIRECTIONAL applies to sidebars), but I suppose let's provisionally stipulate that the WP:BIDIRECTIONAL does apply to sidebars. I'm more interested in if the guideline as stated really suggest anything about whether the entries in navboxes have to transclude the navbox. Katzrockso (talk) 22:05, 9 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It says "Every article that transcludes a given navbox should normally also be included as a link in the navbox, so that the navigation is bidirectional", not "Every article that transcludes a given navbox has to also be included as a link in the navbox, so that the navigation is bidirectional". The literal wording allows editors to choose to omit the navbox.

My impression is that BIDRECTIONAL was largely created by and implemented by a small-ish number of editors who were enthusiastic about navboxes. Some of them "enforced" the rule in the sense that they would check for compliance and add missing links/templates whenever they discovered them. As it isn't an obviously disruptive activity, the community never had much reason to intervene or to think about whether the written rule reflects reality or whether the written rule reflects what the community actually wants.

AFAICT the main (only?) rationale for BIDIRECTIONAL has always been that if you use a navbox to move to another article, you might wish to go back to the first one, so a BIDIRECTIONAL-compliant navbox would make that possible. But web browsers have a back button, and there's a search box at the top, so this is a weak or even kind of silly rationale. Imagine the scene: You're on a laptop/desktop system (because they aren't displayed on the mobile site). You click a button to read an article. You want to go back to the first. Would you usually (a) hit ⌘ Command+[ or equivalent browser-based navigation tool to go back to the previous page, or (b) scroll to the end of the article, uncollapse the navbox, scan through the items until you finally find the one that you want, and click the link? Everyone has their own personal preferences, of course, but I'm (a) every single time. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:56, 9 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

That is my understanding of the guideline as well, but it seems this is another case of editors overinterpreting certain guidelines. Katzrockso (talk) 00:12, 10 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page watcher here: but that is not the only reason that we insist on bi-directionality. Navboxes and sidebars are editor constructed navigational aids between related articles that are tightly related in the sense that if we did not have the sidebar, we would be using the "see also" sections. Sidebars, in particular, are intrusive. Some may find them decorative, but when they start stacking up four or five deep on a page, sometimes with more sidebar than page content, they are no longer serving their purpose.

Why is that? Because we are writing for a reader and suggesting that the sidebar contains a series of articles that they may be interested in. The median Wikipedia article is only around 300 words because of the stub sea. Mean article size is about 750 words, but I'd suggest this implies the mean article linked by a sidebar will be longer. Pulling a number out of the air, a conservative 1000 word mean article means that the psychology sidebar mentioned is directing the reader to 25,000 words (I'd bet it's more in fact) - that's a lot of reading, but not unreasonable. But in that case the Conservatism sidebar is linking the reader to well over a quarter of a million words that editors have simply decided are related. We are not aiding the reader, we are swamping them with an impossible amount of reading, presented with almost no context (unlike the links in the article itself) from which they cannot pick what they need to know.

And it is that "editors have simply decided" that is key. If editors can just choose what is "tightly related" to this sidebar based on nothing better than their own feelings, we are allowing information to be synthesised into a collation based on their own judgement and nothing more. This is ripe for abuse and abuse is not uncommon.

The principle of bi-directionality, therefore, has the following benefits:

1. It ensures that editors of the page being linked to from the sidebar can have a discussion about whether the subject really is tightly integrated per the guidelines. If not, they refuse the sidebar, and the page is not therefore part of the tightly related series and does not need to be in the series;
2. It ensures that readers can explore the sidebar series topic without having to go back to the head article. If we relied only on browser back buttons, then we don't need a template. We just need to put the series on the head article. But we provide a series template so that readers don't get lost in layers of articles (what happens if a linked article has a different series and they click on that? principles of UI design would call that excessive cognitive load, per Jakob Nielsen et al.)

In the discussion that brought you here, you did already state probably the best reason for allowing a link that is not bi-directional - if editors of the template head article decide the head article should not host the template, it would make no sense to remove it from the template. If a discussion of the template found a consensus that the template was useful, but the consensus is not to host it on the head article, a non bi-directional link to the head article makes sense. That the principle can be ignored does not mean it should be ignored, and on an encyclopaedia anyone can edit, a template with 280 entries and 80 transclusions is clearly an editor synthesis that has long since ceased to be a useful navigational aid. We have taxonomies through categories (whose bidirectionally is automatic). We don't need these bloated synthesised collations. A point PARAKANYAA has made too. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:20, 10 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Sirfurboy my point is not about whether or not it is a good thing when sidebars or navboxes have lots of links or whether they have few, or whether closely related articles are the best way to organize navboxes or sidebars, but what the actual text of the guideline states. You seem to have some very strong opinions on navboxes and sidebars, which is great, and you very well be 100% correct on the way that things should be (I don't have any opinion on navigation templates), but I think you are substituting what you want the guideline to say with what the guideline actually says.

we insist on bi-directionality is doing a lot of work here, because it appears to me the "we" in question is a certain group of editors, rather than the English Wikipedia community as a whole. Katzrockso (talk) 19:09, 10 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Although I replied to you, you will see that my point is contra WhatamIdoing's AFAICT the main (only?) rationale for BIDIRECTIONAL has always been that if you use a navbox to move to another article, you might wish to go back to the first one, so a BIDIRECTIONAL-compliant navbox would make that possible. But web browsers have a back button, and there's a search box at the top, so this is a weak or even kind of silly rationale. It is not the only rationale, and neither is it kind of silly. I have given the fuller rationale now, filling the gaps. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 19:28, 10 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It's not clear why you replied to me, then. Katzrockso (talk) 19:46, 10 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest not reading too much into the indentation levels. Back in the day, it was normal to indent one level from the most recent, no matter who you were replying to. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:34, 10 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I second Sirfurboy on this. He basically said everything I think about it. PARAKANYAA (talk) 14:57, 10 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Point #1 seems aspirational rather than reality. When a single sidebar has hundreds of links, that's evidence against the links being "tightly related". You say that that if we did not have a sidebar, we would be putting these links the WP:SEEALSO section, but we would never put hundreds of links in ==See also==. We only rarely add dozens. The normal number of links in ==See also== is zero. When the section exists, the usual number of links is one or two. Category:All articles with excessive see also sections includes multiple articles whose ==See also== section has fewer than 10 links.

Clicking Special:RandomInCategory/Pages using sidebar with the child parameter 10 times gave me 16 sidebars, with an average of 206 links in each. The shortest two had around 50 links, and third place had 76. About half were in the 100–250ish range. The biggest four had 335, 342, 426, and 616 links.

Those hundreds of links were probably added not because someone thought they were tightly related or because they're important enough to put in ==See also==, but instead because the BIDIRECTIONAL rule says that you can't put a general sidebar into a specific article unless that specific article is in the sidebar.

I think the actual process is approximately this:

1. An editor is working on an article. In particular, either there's no suitable infobox for the article (e.g., Expert) or the only reason the subject is notable is because of their tight connection to the subject of the sidebar (e.g., Alice Expertis famous for research on expertise, and so is connected to the subject of Template:Expertise sidebar).
2. That editor would be reasonably satisfied with a sidebar that hit the main highlights or most popular articles in the subject area.
3. But as soon as they add the sidebar to Alice Expert, someone rocks up and says "Hey, you're violating BIDIRECTIONAL! You can't put Template:Expertise sidebar in the article Alice Expert unless you first put the article Alice Expert in Template:Expertise sidebar!"
4. So now Template:Expertise sidebar grows a new section in which Alice Expert and all the other researchers in this area get listed, even though none of them would be put in most of the articles that the template belongs in.

I want to say that this isn't intentional, but it is a plainly foreseeable consequence of the BIDIRECTIONAL rule, and that's almost the same as being intentional. If it were a crime, it might fall under recklessness than ruthlessness. But the predictable result is sidebars bloated with hundreds of links when only dozens are actually wanted.

(Point #2 is what I said. The only difference is that I disagree that using the back button is "excessive cognitive load". I suggest instead that going to a new page, finding the new/different location of the box, re-finding the section, and re-clicking to uncollapse it to look at the links is an excessive cognitive load.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:25, 10 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

But that's what the guideline says:

Navigation templates are particularly useful for a small, well-defined group of articles; templates with a large number of links are not forbidden, but can appear overly busy and be hard to read and use. Good navboxes generally follow these guidelines:

1. All articles within a template relate to a single, coherent subject.
2. The subject of the template should be mentioned in every article.
3. The articles should refer to each other, to a reasonable extent.
4. There should be a Wikipedia article on the subject of the template.
5. If not for the navigation template, an editor would be inclined to link many of these articles in the See also sections of the articles.

If the collection of articles does not meet these criteria, the articles are likely loosely related. A list, category, or neither, may accordingly be more appropriate.

It is an area where the guidelines are being routinely ignored, but the guidelines are quite clear. What to do? Navboxes are one thing - we could reconsider the guidelines for them, but there is a strong argument for not letting SIDEBARS run further of the rails but deprecating the whole idea. Already an RfC has created a whopping great contradiction in the guidelines, because people were royally annoyed by having these stuffed in the leads of their articles. So the guideline now says sidebars are

Vertical, often found at the top-right corner of articles and called sidebars,

and then

Navigation templates located in the top-right corner of articles (sometimes called a "sidebar" or "part of a series" template) should be treated with special attention,

but then in that same paragragph:

The placement of sidebars in an article lead is discouraged by WP:LEADSIDEBAR (though they may be permitted on a case-by-case basis – November 2020 RfC).

So they are in the top right but not the top right, and, in fact, are often found scattered all the way down the RHS of the article page.

Further, in my experience, and in the evidence cited above, you have it backwards. Editors add all the articles to the SIDEBARs first, and then belatedly try adding them to the articles (especially if someone says "hey, those are not bidirectional). That is nearly always the direction of travel, and as I say, the bidirectional principle does then have the utility that it forces an editor discussion on whether the page should be in the template at all.

As for point #2, I don't think you have considered that the way that people consume information in a hypertext environment is not root and branch, allowing them to back up, to go forward, but is more akin to a web. In navigation systems you would provide the navigation as a map, always available, and allow people to traverse the map until they have completed their journey. They don't want to keep returning home to look at the map. They want it with them. That's what SIDEBARS are attempting to be, but they are immensely complex maps. They are an idea that is fundamentally broken. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 19:51, 10 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Just for fun, Conservatism has 31 SIDEBARS, pushing many sections to be padded with significant whitespace. I'm not going to count how many links that is. It is clearly millions of linked words. The page reminds me of the chest of Russian generals with their rows and rows of medals. Utterly splendid. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 20:13, 10 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Going backwards:

• 31 sidebars. What a mess.
• The typical number of links clicked on by someone using a desktop computer is one or two. It doesn't matter if you would need to "keep returning home to look at the map" when your next destination is off wiki.
• If the guideline is quite clear but the community practice is very different, then the guideline is wrong and needs to be updated to match community consensus. In particular, officially saying that the rules are somewhat different for sidebars vs footer navboxes might be a place to start.

WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:50, 10 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I am a bit skeptical, because my (limited) experience of navboxes, at least, has been the opposite. This message summarizes it. I think that it's more likely that these navigation templates start out bloated and plethoric with links (and that they're constructed more as a votive offering to the editor's special interest than with any real consideration of how a reader might want to navigate) than that repeated invocations of BIDIRECTIONAL create bloat. In this case, BIDIRECTIONAL neatly encapsulated why these navboxes didn't belong (IMO) on many of the pages where they were placed. Choess (talk) 02:39, 11 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Those are traditional footer navboxes, which I think are somewhat more appropriate for a BIDIRECTIONAL approach.

For sidebar navboxes, I'd like to see more short sidebars, even if they're used on lots of articles and fewer super long ones. I wonder if a "max links" rule would help deal with bloat. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:10, 11 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, is/was there a policy for not mentioning birthdays in pages for privacy? Thanks Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 21:12, 9 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Yesterday, all my dreams..., you're looking for WP:DOB. If you'd like to work on this, there are way too many articles that have the birth dates for the children of BLPs. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:41, 9 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the link. But my concerns were personal and hence I will say no more. Cheers Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 23:16, 9 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I wanted to let you know that your revision of Endemic COVID-19 (oldid=1340359392) is being discussed at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Endemic COVID-19 protection dispute. Worstbull (talk) 08:01, 11 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The annoying thing is that, when you look at for example this edit, the editsummary (in this case the section header, because I didn't leave an editsummary) links to the wrong place. Phab is very confusing to me so I can't link a ticket but there is probably someone who has reported this already. Polygnotus (talk) 06:14, 15 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

There's already a Phab ticket for that. Fundamentally, the problem is that the sequence is this:

1. Load the editing window, complete with a pre-loaded, editable edit summary for the ==Section== name.
2. Then the editor makes changes to the wikitext, which may invalidated the pre-loaded edit summary.
3. But the editors don't usually bother to make matching changes to the edit summary (and sometimes they don't want the change made, on purpose: Consider a case of deliberate section blanking).

WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:03, 15 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Ah yeah, thanks, that's probably it.

But then the logical solution is to fill the automatic editsummary only when there is no editsummary at the point of saving the page (post-fill), instead of loading ("pre-fill"). But there doesn't appear to be a post-fill. Shouldn't be super difficult, if, let's say, &action=edit&section=4 then generate a editsummary based on that section title.

For some reason Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/FAQ is on a talkpage, so there is no associated talkpage to discuss it. I disagree with the first three items. I can just remove them, or I can XfD the entire thing, but I can't discuss the page? A situation I've never been in before. Polygnotus (talk) 13:34, 19 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

FAQs are conventionally discussed on the talk page they're displayed on, which in this case means at Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:52, 19 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You are invited to participate in the Destubathon of the Americas, a contest/editathon which will run from May 1 to May 31. The goal is to destub as many of our 475,000+ stubs for the Americas (from Alaska down to Chile) as possible. A good chance to have fun in expanding many of our old stale stubs and win up to £2000 ($2680) in Amazon vouchers for expanding stub articles. Sign up in the Contestants/participants section on the contest page if interested. Even if not interested in prizes you are still warmly welcome to participate in it as an editathon! Hopefully we can achieve something significant in the month of May together! ♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:44, 15 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The accounts you described are a common WP:LTA which pops up daily. If you see them in the future, it would be helpful to post them at WP:AIV with the reason "LTA". This one is called WP:LTA/SB1, specifically. tony 05:21, 22 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, @TonySt. Is that URL on the spam black list yet? WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:15, 22 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know, but it doesn't really matter regardless. If it's blocked they'll just spam a different URL (or something besides a URL). tony 16:20, 22 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I see. I haven't checked to see what the target link is, so I assumed it was something specific they wanted to promote. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:29, 22 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Rather than offering a view based just on your own understanding and reasoning? Where will it all end? Bon courage (talk) 01:46, 25 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hopefully with a consensus. And maybe, in my fantasies, reliable sources that can distinguish between pseudoscience and other forms of pseudoscholarship, and maybe – just maybe – between pseudoscholarship and nonsense. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:57, 25 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Could you have a look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Holocaust memory in pro-Palestinian activism? I have checked the sources used in the article and they are valid except... the sources make it clear that this is about the POV of a small minority; in Wikipedia-speak, WP:FRINGE. The article has been cut back since the nomination to remove the SYNTH but I would value your opinion. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:36, 29 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note. I've got the tabs open, but this doesn't look like a simple question, so don't expect a quick answer. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:34, 29 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

		The Barnstar of Diplomacy
		Thank you for your input regarding my (regrettable) vandalism of Suicide Methods - coolgurl5555 ✈︎ (she/her) ✈︎ 20:01, 29 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. I hope that you're feeling a little better today. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:32, 29 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hope you get well soon coolgurl. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:20, 29 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I somewhat am but still not doing great - coolgurl5555 ✈︎ (she/her) ✈︎ 01:15, 30 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. wound theology◈ 21:50, 1 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

- coolgurl5555 ✈︎ (she/her) ✈︎ 17:17, 2 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Here, I think you’ve noted that my hypothetical example is on the boundary where different people can come to opposite conclusions (passes or fails the GNG). In the real example, people rejected the sources emphatically. Talking about the real example, which was untouched by me, would be more productive. SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:38, 4 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, WhatamIdoing. Just a timesaver tip about something I'm pretty sure you already know but probably slipped your mind. In this edit, you wrote:

Some people might read the current ("disorders") name and incorrectly guess that it's about [[Psychosexual disorder|psychosexual disorders]].

But you can save the piped link and just write [[psychosexual disorder]]s instead ⟶ psychosexual disorders. But you knew that, right? Mathglot (talk) 22:19, 7 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

That only works if you're typing in the wikitext, and I posted that in the visual editor. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:44, 8 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Aha. Well, surprised/not surprised that VE doesn't allow that. Surprised, because I assume there must be some mini popup dialog where you type in the target and the anchor text and you'd think it would just allow arbitrary suffixes and just link them, too, like wikitext does. Not surprised, because VE. (Maybe I should file a ticket; seems like a bug somewhere.) Appreciate the response; I learned something new about VE. Mathglot (talk) 01:05, 8 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Normally, you type the visible label in the ordinary doc, and add the link separately.

It's already been reported; think about how often this happens in a heavily declined language. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:18, 8 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hey @WhatamIdoing I have moved the discussion which was at the Village Pump (Policy) by following Template:Moved talk, however I see square brackets at the top in both places. Original at Village Pump and New place on the Wikipedia talk:Neutral point of view. Would you able to help me or it doesn't really matter? NicoR8 (talk) 19:28, 8 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It's not super important, but someone fixed it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:10, 9 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I'm reaching again to you because Wikipedia is being abused. You seemed reasonable before and I hope you'll look at what I'm saying objectively. I'm the IP who requested that closure request because user Joy was attacking and as admin bullying others to push his POV. After the closure he tried to convince you to accept his POV against the consensus. And ever since he's trying to convince others to revert the consensus. He had attacked everyone who disagreed. He managed to convince others that I'm a sock of another user who was pushing pro-Croatian stand, when in fact I was advocating totally opposite opinion , to remove Croatia from infobox. He's abusing his admin powers and telling untruths to other admins and they just accept it because he's an admin and I'm just IP. He didn't ban just me as a sock of that one and the same user, I saw that he convinced admins to ban several more users and I see some reports where he claimed that it's obvious others are also socks , that were rejected. He's just attacking and banning everyone who disagrees with him and he's obviously pushing his POV. Look at the article talk page, he's again pushing his POV. After he banned everyone who disagreed , it appears that there's a consensus for his POV. This is highly against wiki guidelines. NOTHERE, not dropping the stick, etc....He's also telling everyone that the article is highly problematic and pushing others to leave the article , when the only problem is him pushing POV, attacking and banning everyone who disagrees. He created all problems and who he can't just attack , like you, he's bullying to leave the article. Is there something that can be done or that Wiki article is just his private playground? Is it possible to ask some admin to create new account and try to disagree with him, on that article so the more objective admins can see how he is abusing his admin powers? Do you have any advice? I did follow your advice and have stayed away from that article, but I'm reading what's happening and I'm seeing he's not dropping the stick after loosing to that that consensus. Is there really nothing that can be done? Someone can just occupy an Wiki article and do whatever he wants there? We all shoukd be equal and be able to have civilized argumented discussion , and not "winning" by banning others. I did everything right in that formal closure. He deleted my comments. I didn't revert. Left for others to discuss and ask for formal closure. And you assessed it without my deleted comments. I was civilized and following the rules , but nothing matters. He just waits a few months, finds few users who agree with him , bans and attacks others who disagree and has his own way anyways. This isn't how Wikipedia is envisioned and is highly against wiki rules, but are admins above rules? Here again, I'm not posting to discussion, but appealing to you, is there something that can be done?~2026-29379-49 (talk) 19:45, 15 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. Are you really Wikipedia:Here to build an encyclopedia, or just to focus on Tesla's nationality? Did you Wikipedia:Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass, or are you still trying to beat a dead horse in the hope that you can get an outcome you would find more palatable? WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:20, 15 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Were are you getting that I'm "focused" on Tesla's nationality? Neither I , nor anyone else has ever been focused on Tesla's nationality or ethnicity. Go and search through archives if you don't believe me. Also, which stick am I not dropping? I haven't edited the article once , not have started the discussion that I requested formal closure for. I posted my opinion there and that's all. I mean, it's ridiculous that Joy has convinced other admins to ban me as sock of some disruptive user who was pro-Croatian , while I advocated to remove Croatia in that previous discussion. And I even didn't revert Joy when he deleted my comments, nor go to edit warring. I left for others to discuss and just requested formal closure. You know the best that you didn't even know about my deleted comments when you assessed the consensus. I did everything right and ever since then Joy has been working to get his way. Several times he tried to engage others to agree with him. He spoke about that consensus in negative tone to diminish it. He banned several users who disagreed with him. Do you want diffs? Even now, here , I followed your advice to stay away from that discussion. But , who's not dropping the stick here, I or Joy? My whole claim is that he's not dropping the stick. ~2026-29526-24 (talk) 21:11, 16 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

User Beland says that Template Infobox Person was updated last year to stop prohibiting this type of clarification [3]. And of course , who updated it [4]. Also, User Binksternet is Joy's acquaintance from previous discussions and after initially posting his opinion in the discussion that you closed where he disagreed with Joy, Joy had made him change that opinion, so now he supports Joy's stand. I could find the diffs. ~2026-29519-68 (talk) 22:20, 16 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hey,

1) you added some content on WP:Statistics. For that content I would like to request inline references containing links and/or explanations how to get the results so that readers can verify and reproduce the method as well as update the figures in the future.

for example

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Statistics&diff=prev&oldid=1320603209
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Statistics&diff=prev&oldid=1313504577
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Statistics&diff=prev&oldid=1286741086

2) Regarding the table of percentile page views: You put in quarry query 80241 into https://pageviews.wmcloud.org/massviews, correct? The list of 10,000 does not only include active articles, but also redirects and deleted articles, right? Wikipedia has 7.1 million active articles and 11.8 million redirects. So in that list of 10,000 should be more redirects than active articles. Isn't the data base somewhat skewed if one only wants to write something about active articles?

Still I would like to make a chart for this topic to show that only a very low share of articles get a lot of page views. I thought about only taking those out of the 10,000 that have at least 5 page views per day. The remaining sample size should have a way bigger share of active articles. And even with this smaller sample size, the chart shows: "Only a very low share of articles on Wikipedia gets a lot of page views"

Or do you have an idea to get a data base with page views that only contains active articles without redirects and deleted articles? WikiPate (talk) 11:36, 18 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @WikiPate. MassViews was a hassle, because it timed out on the long list, so I ended up running it in batches and then assembling it in a simple spreadsheet. If memory serves, that sample set included redirects but not (then-)deleted articles.

If you want to work on this, I suggest starting over. That means:

• Get a new sample. 10K articles is a good number to be working with. Get articles that have existed for a whole year.
• Actually, get two: one for active articles and one for mainspace redirects. Then you can compare, and then Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion can have a fair understanding of what an average number of page views is for a redirect.
• Split up the lists and make a couple of big PagePiles https://pagepile.toolforge.org/
• Run MassViews on each PagePile, and assemble the results in a spreadsheet. Really basic statistics (e.g., median and other round-number percentiles) seem to be easy for editors to understand.

WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:56, 18 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for your reply. Massviews has always run smoothly on my side. In my sample were many redirects and deleted articles. Then I changed the quarry and now there are no redirects, deleted articles and disambiguation pages included anymore. As I wanted it. With this quarry (105426):

SELECT p.page_title

FROM page p

INNER JOIN revision r ON p.page_latest = r.rev_id

LEFT JOIN page_props pp ON p.page_id = pp.pp_page AND pp.pp_propname = 'disambiguation'

WHERE p.page_namespace = 0

AND p.page_is_redirect = 0

AND p.page_random >= 0.83921

AND pp.pp_page IS NULL

ORDER BY p.page_random ASC

LIMIT 10000; WikiPate (talk) 19:34, 19 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Great. I'm looking forward to seeing the results. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:26, 19 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It says that 70% of all articles have at least 1 page view per day on average. wow.

To validate I checked the page views of 50 random articles with WP:Random. And both numbers come quite close.

I put the numbers here for now: User:WikiPate/Statistics

In SQL in addition to excluded article redirects, deleted articles and disambiguation pages I also excluded wikispecies redirects and redirects for discussion. I replaced AND p.page_random >= 0.83921 with AND p.page_random >= RAND(). The current quarry is 105482.
WikiPate (talk) 20:37, 20 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I think that what's in Wikipedia:Statistics#English Wikipedia includes redirects (which we should expect to be lower). I'd love to have your new set of numbers replace the old ones. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:25, 20 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

*done*

Could you write, how you found out this?: "About half of articles contain four or fewer references." WikiPate (talk) 23:53, 21 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The sample set is User:BilledMammal/Average articles, and from there it's very basic spreadsheet work. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:18, 22 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I am contacting you because you previously voted in elections related to the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C). You may be eligible to vote in the current U4C election, which is open now and closes on 2 June 2026. You can find out more about the candidates and the election on the election page on Meta, and from there you can access the vote itself. Your participation in these elections is important to the governance of Wikimedia communities, and your time spent learning about the candidates and voting is appreciated.

-- In cooperation with the U4C, Keegan (WMF) (talk)

Keegan (WMF) (talk) 17:19, 20 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I think this was a great idea. Thanks for putting that together! --GoneIn60 (talk) 05:58, 23 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Please boldly add any other discussions you find. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:51, 23 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I replied and shared a list of pages. In the meantime, any requests specifically for project medicine or anything else? Dw31415 (talk) 15:36, 24 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Can you give me a list of articles tagged by WP:MED that have 5+ ATODAY links? WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:55, 24 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You have the list with “naked” links right? So just scan the articles in “med” and csm1 maintenance? Dw31415 (talk) 20:23, 24 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the "naked" links are listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Deprecated archival service#Outside of citation templates and there aren't very many of them. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:30, 24 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Doing... for my notes, here is the query: https://quarry.wmcloud.org/query/105640 Dw31415 (talk) 13:52, 25 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

 Done User:WhatamIdoing/Medicine_Archival_Link_Counts Dw31415 (talk) 14:01, 25 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@WhatamIdoing, is that what you were asking for? Dw31415 (talk) 02:05, 26 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that looks good. (Ouch, 312 WP:ATODAY links in that one page!) WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:55, 26 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I asked at the WP:Help desk#Historical transclusions of an image a few days ago, but haven't gotten any responses with any actual answer. Would WP:VPM or another noticeboard I'm not aware be the right place to ask that question? Katzrockso (talk) 21:47, 27 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

WP:VPT is the correct place for that kind of question, and the answer is that there's no way to find past uses of images (or templates, for that matter) on wiki.

It might be possible with some of the historical dumps, if it was used for a significant length of time (e.g., long enough to get caught in the snapshots) or if you downloaded the huge every-single-revision-ever versions and searched. If you only want to do this for one image (or a few), then you might see whether you can find it in archive.org and see whether the global usage section (example) mentions it being used for the file you're interested in at any of the dates they captured. If it's listed there, you would know; if it wasn't, that would only prove that it didn't happen to be present on the days the archive snapshots were taken. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:00, 27 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

That's very surprising that there isn't a tool to do this or that it isn't tracked anywhere, but thanks for the information. The relevant image, for transparency, is c:File:Michael Jackson with accuser James Safechuck (46844862102).jpg. At c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Michael Jackson with accuser James Safechuck (46844862102).jpg, Rhododentrites stated "Regardless, it is in use in multiple places". Archives on web.archive.org of the commons file note only usage at c:User:Holly Cheng/Recent uploads/Hawaii/2022 March 24, one page on the German Wikipedia and two on the Italian Wikipedia. I am curious if this was ever used on the English Wikipedia. Katzrockso (talk) 23:13, 27 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

(It's one of those fundamental architectural consequences.)

You could ask that editor if he happens to remember whether it was ever used here. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:21, 27 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I asked over at Commons. Katzrockso (talk) 23:30, 27 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

		The Barnstar of Good Humor
		ur userpage has all the humor, made both me & alexa laugh. AltoHampton t • c • g • s 01:00, 28 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:13, 28 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi WhatamIdoing, in a recent discussion over at Talk:Cass Review, you mentioned to me that "the last estimate I saw was that about half of medicine was evidence-based now." Do you remember where you saw that? I'd like to read it and get more context (not for the article, just out of interest). Thank you! InfernoHues (talk) 02:52, 29 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find the source that I read that in some years ago, but https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2071976/ gives a sort of backtrace. NB that "not evidence-based" doesn't mean that no research has ever been done; it could include inadequate research or conflicting results. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:04, 29 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks :) InfernoHues (talk) 04:13, 29 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Good morning, WhatamIdoing. I am writing to ask your insight and/or for support with the Delta Academy High School Wikipedia page nominated for deletion. Currently there are 2 votes to delete, one to keep (mine), and none to merge. I am reaching out based on your previous edits to Wikipedia:Notability_(high_schools). thesofine (talk) 06:43, 4 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]