Wikipedia talk:Be bold

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia The spoken word version of this revision (diff) of this article is part of WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia, an attempt to produce recordings of Wikipedia articles being read aloud. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, where you can join the project and find out how to contribute.
Archive
Talk archives:

Contents

[edit] Userbox

Does the userbox subheader really have to be there? Couldn't we just put a link to it in the See also section? —Spebi 09:46, 22 May 2007 (UTC)


Hows come none of the horrific things that certain presidents have been involved in are ever mentioned in their wikipedia biographies? From sex rings to drug smuggling to wars based on lies to mind control. Is it too HOT and BOLD for wikipedia to expose these criminals for who they are? Or shall we just continue to feed their egos and their spiritually dirempt minds all of this white wash. No wonder they get away with it, because we let them. THanks all for laying down.

This doesn't belong here. 151.197.63.197 (talk) 22:41, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Quote to be added?

Moved from archive:

I would have added this quote to the first section (directly after the heading, "Be BOLD!"), but the page is semi-protected ...

“ It is easier to ask forgiveness than it is to get permission. ”
 
— Rear Admiral Grace Murray Hopper, USN

IMHO, it reflects the very essence of the paradigm ... if Some Other Editor agrees that this quote would be an appropriate introduction for that section, then will you add it, please?

Happy Editing! —68.239.79.82 (talk · contribs) 05:35, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

  • It's a good quote, but I'm not convinced it would be a good idea to add it (quite the opposite, in fact), since it doesn't really apply to much of the page. Most of the recent comments on this talk page have been that the page is misleading - that the page actually details both where it is and where it isn't good to edit first and ask questions later. Adding this to the top will only make it even less likely that people will note the exceptions before editing pages where WP:BB does not apply. The fact that the title is incorrect already (it should be "Be bold in updating articles") doesn't help matters, but this would only confound and compound matters. Grutness...wha? 23:54, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
    • I only really read the handful of comments at the end of the archive, but there seem to be about as many, if not more comments that say the opposite. You may add mine to that list: the exceptions are the extreme minority, and are given far too much airtime. They will discourage people from being bold everywhere else. --Abu-Fool Danyal ibn Amir al-Makhiri 03:58, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
      • I'd suggest you look at other comments on the page, not just at the last few. Sections 4, 6, 7, 8, 12, 14, 16, 17, 21, 25, 29, 42, 44, and 46 of the last archive all deal with problems associated with excpetions to the "rule", and several times mention is made of the fact that "be bold" is not what is really implied by the page at all. Particularly note sections like this, and this, and this. Speaking as someone who spends over an hour a day trying to clear up the messes people have created on templates and categories by only knowing the mantra "Be bold" and never having got past the first paragraph of this page, I see it as useful to stress that it is only for articles wherever possible. Having further endorsement of the "fact" that anything should be edited without first checking to see whether its a good idea will only make the jobs of the clean-up squads on Wikipedia harder. As things stand at the moment, any editors who do edit templates, user pages, categories and the like can be pointed to the real title of this page, the "nutshell" and the paragraphs at the end of the page. If they see that the page endorses acting first without any sort of consultation even in cases where there have been violent edit wars on similar edits in the past or cases where it takes considerable work to put things right afterwards, then they are more likely to ignore any such warnings. Grutness...wha? 00:07, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
        • OK, how do people feel about inserting it at the end of the article, like a postscript? Upon further deliberation, I agree that suggesting it be placed near the top was a Bad Idea. :-) —72.75.85.234 (talk · contribs) 22:53, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Importance of this page

I call attention to the third section cited above. "I know I would have never even tried to edit a page if I hadn't seen WP:BOLD." For reference I also include what the page looked like when that user started editing. I will try to thread through the rest of the discussion, but in the meantime I hope this helps clarify where I'm coming from: this page is important. --Abu-Fool Danyal ibn Amir al-Makhiri 15:24, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] I figured this was fairly uncontroversial...

... but still, let it be known that I moved Wikipedia:Be bold in updating pages to Wikipedia:Be bold in updating articles. The reasons are fairly obvious and well-laid out in the page--we should be somewhat cautious, certainly not excessively bold, in updating categories and templates. Does anyone mind? (I've fixed all the double redirects I could see...) Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 00:12, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

This is wiki-lawyering. The original principle was Be bold [full stop]. Also if you think deeply about this you will see how your actions contradict your words. — CharlotteWebb 02:09, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Not so. The original version of this page only ever mentions articles. Mind you, in 2002 I'm not certain templates, categories and the like existed. Wikipedia has evolved since then. As has the concept of being bold. Grutness...wha? 05:42, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Good! It's about time someone moved this to a more sensible title. The original principle of "Be bold" may have referred to all pages, but like all good rules, it gets modified when the original meaning of it is seen to be too far reaching or to cause too many problems. Even the version mentioned in the section above, from october 2005, starts with the sentence "The Wikipedia community exhorts users to be bold in updating articles." (my italics), Continues with mentioning cases where being bold is problematic, and concludes by urging serious restraint with templates. Whatever the guideline was when it started out, it is now quite clear from this early point that it refers primarily to articles. It causes far more trouble than its worth when editors see the title and think it refers to all pages - including controversial articles, templates, talk pages, user pages, categories, etc - and can be cited with disregard to any problems caused. Charlotte, although you consider it Wikilawyering and being self-contradictory, I advise you to check how many times in the archives it has been suggested that this page be moved to a more appropriate title, and how few times there was ever any objection to those suggestions. Though no formal vote was ever taken, there is an implicit consensus of sorts in those archived talk page comments. Grutness...wha? 02:22, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

If you had read what I said, you'd notice the manner in which this page has been boldly moved to an even more restrictive title (twice), and the way you are justifying it as bold editing... and possibly draw a conclusion from that. — CharlotteWebb 02:51, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Oh, I spotted it all right, and the irony of it, which you clearly didn't. It seems a most appropriate WP:POINT. Here was a move that was being bold in a case where "Be bold" clearly did not apply. And your response proved the point by your argument that being bold was inappropriate. In other words, your objection to the move made it all the more clear that Being Bold in a case such as this non-article is sometimes a bad thing. Grutness...wha? 05:37, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm behind Charlotte on this one...Be Bold says it all, really. This page should be about helping editors make the best judgments in that...not take their judgment away from them. --InkSplotch 14:12, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes -- Be bold is a principle of how to act in general, not one that depends on the particular content of the pages in question. To say otherwise is like saying "be nice (except in certain circumstances when you're dealing with real jerks)." Simply "Be Bold." is a nice summation and a good title for the policy, and doesn't need to have qualifications appended. Those can be in the text or in appended interpretations, if necessary. -- phoebe/(talk) 16:56, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Indeed, anyone can be bold anywhere; from making drastic changes to an article, to uploading a new version of an image, to reporting a vandalism-only account that has just one warning, to closing an RfA that doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell (though usually most people defer to admins and 'crats). Namespace is irrelevant. EVula // talk // ☯ // 00:26, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
...to blanking someone else's user page? to creating new articles on slang terms you've just made up in school? to removing signed comments from a talk page? to creating categories with ambiguous titles or meaningless scope? to vandalising heavy-use templates? You know what being bold entails, as do I, but new users often don't - and it is mainly to them that pages like this are important. It mentions specific cases of being bold and not being bold for a reason, specifically limiting it to updating and to articles, giving warnings about how to proceed with other namespaces and deliberately avoiding the subject of creating pages entirely. Simply calling the page "Be bold" ignores all these points and further ingrains the mantra of "do what you like" that is currently responsible for some 80% of new articles being speediable and for the majority of category and template clean-up work. It's a plain and simple fact that "Be bold" does not always apply. If it did, we would have no protected pages - and I don't just refer to those protected from vandalism, but also those protected from any editing whatsoever (such as high-use templates). We also wouldn't limit page creation to registered users - allowing anyone to create pages was tried once, but it was an abject failure and a limit had to be put in place. Wikipedia evolved, reducing that freedom by a very small amount, thereby making the encyclopedia considerably easier to maintain. Being bold where it is not appropriate is responsible to a large extent for the large numbers of articles at AFD daily, for the backlog at CFD, and for the heavy workload of those of us on the various clean-up projects around Wikipedia. Being bold is a very good thing - within limits. And that is the reason why this page has evolved in such a way that it underlines those limits. The only thing which doesn't make it clear just how far being bold should apply is the new page title. Grutness...wha? 05:32, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
it is mainly to them that pages like this are important -- I'm not so sure this is true. It's important even for long-standing contributors to remember our core policies and their spirit as well as sensibility; I rather doubt that newbie contributors ever even make it this far. I think you're losing the forest for the trees; all the particular things you have mentioned have evolved over time in response to ever-heavier use and technical improvements, and these things will doubtless change again in the future. The core policies, in contrast, have remained just that: core. That's not to say "being bold" can't evolve, either, but changing it because, for instance, someone developed page protection & it was found useful in preventing vandalism is the wrong way of going about things. -- phoebe/(talk) 17:02, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Consensus is clearly needed

Well, it is clear from the last couple of days that being bold doesn't work with this page, despite either the titles "Be bold" or "Be bold in updating articles". And this is clearly also the reason why there have been constant complaints about the message of this npage over the years. We clearly need some form of consensus over which would be the best title for this page. As far as I can see, there are three titles which meet with some form of approval and also some form of disapproval. Thus I call on people to add their comments for and against to one or the other of these three choices below. Perhaps that way we can stop what is likely to turn into an edit war. Grutness...wha? 00:24, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

If you can think of another viable option, please feel free to add it below. Grutness...wha? 06:19, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Be bold"

Pros: Simple and straightforward. Cons: Inaccurate. Much of the page lists the times that being bold is not appropriate.

For:

Against:

  1. Highly inaccurate, and would only increase the misuse of being bold on pages to which it does not apply. Grutness...wha? 00:24, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
    And those pages would be...? EVula // talk // ☯ // 05:11, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
    Other people's user pages, heavy-use and many other templates, other people's comments on talk and user talk pages, the moving of pages from one title to another without consensus, pages which have been protected, process templates and categories, some wikiproject pages... need any more examples? I doubt people would take too kindly to me being bold and editing, say {{afd}}, Wikipedia:Main page... or User:EVula. Grutness...wha? 05:54, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
  2. It would be advising people to boldly delete without checking for sources, boldly remove material they think to be copyright violations without being able to prove it, boldly use BLP to remove whatever articles make them uncomfortable, and so on. The last think WP needs now is advice to be bold. We need advice to be careful. DGG 05:31, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Be bold in updating pages"

Pros: Long-established, More accurate than simply "be bold". Cons: More restrictive. Still not entirely accurate.

For:

Against:

[edit] "Be bold in updating articles"

Pros: Accurately reflects the guideline and the text of the page. Cons: Considerably more restrictive.

For:

  1. Reflects the guideline as it has evolved, and discourages being bold in cases where it clearly causes major problems for cleanup and considerable ill-will through editing of user's comments on talk pages. Grutness...wha? 00:24, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Against:

  1. every time I have seen this said, it has been used as the excuse to introduce unsourced material. DGG 05:30, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Be bold but don't be reckless"

Pros: Accurately reflects the page. Cons: Negative and obvious. Could be construed as being even more restrictive. Doesn't addres specific areas where boldness can cause concerns.

For:

Against:

Consensus doesn't mean we need to whip out a poll, a vote, or any form of buracracy in between. Let's try just talking for a bit. There's no hurry. Wikipedia isn't hanging on the thin thread of half a sentance in this very guideline. We've got the beginnings of a section going on just above this. Let's discuss, and see where it goes from there. --InkSplotch 02:50, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Talking was going fine until someone decided arbitrarily to be bold by moving the page. The irony of the fact that by doing so a load of feathers were ruffled because it was one of the exceptions seems to have been lost on most people here. If "Be bold" was the correct solution, as the new page title explicitly states, then there would have been no problem. However, it greatly exacerbated the monor problem which the archived comments implied - that "Be bold" is too broad a title for this page. As it is, someone else decided that not only was being bold the wrong idea in this case, but that the best solution to someone being too bold was to make the title even more general - compounding the irony and the confusion. This has clearly moved us beyond the point where talking is the way forward - an edit war iis more than just likely unless we try for something more definite. And the way to do that is not by removing someone else's comments on the talk page as you did (a no-no, even under the terms of Be bold, which would under some circumstances be construed as vandalism - though not, I hasten to add, in this case), but by trying to find out which of the three suggested alternative titles is actually the best for the page. The best way to do that is to open up a discussion leading to hopeful debate as to why any of the three are good or bad names. And the easiest way to open such a debate is to get people to say why they think each of the names is a good or bad idea. Hence the headings above. I have not called for a poll, vote, or bureaucratic solution - all I have done is called for people to give comments as to why they think particular page names are appropriate or inappropriate. Hopefully from that we will get some understanding of what would be the most sensible name for the page, and have some means of knowing where the page should finish up. Please 'do not remove my signed comments from this page, or this attempt to create discussion towards hopefully finding a solution! Grutness...wha? 05:01, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Rushing to a poll has the disadvantage of excluding other alternatives, for starters. What about "be bold but not reckless", as you suggested last month? --bainer (talk) 05:57, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Well, it's a good thing I didn't rush to a poll, then. Please read what I wrote: This isn't a poll. To repeat: the easiest way to open such a debate is to get people to say why they think each of the names is a good or bad idea. Hence the headings above. I have not called for a poll, vote, or bureaucratic solution - all I have done is called for people to give comments as to why they think particular page names are appropriate or inappropriate. And anyone can if they wish add more options (as I've done with the one you mention). Grutness...wha? 06:19, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

In retrospect, its ironic that a discussing that was began by admonishing the action as wikilawyering was basically more wikilawyering. Atropos 05:18, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Then again

I don't think it's a good idea to hold these long discussions on stuff like this. Of course we encourage all editors to be bold--in all namespaces. And equally, "don't be reckless", especially not in template and category space. This has long been the case, so I've been bold and made some commonsense changes to the wording to retain the sense, without making out that article editing is any less a place to avoid recklessness than the other places. Even editing policy pages is something some of us do every day, and we certainly wouldn't get anywhere if we sat around agonising about every change on the talk page. --Tony Sidaway 05:58, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Geni says "page history makes this darn clearn it is talking about articles" (edit summary) but I don't think he's right. Some of our boldest editors are policy wonks. --Tony Sidaway 07:00, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I suggest people read this.Geni 07:00, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

"So I might have convinced you to be bold in updating pages..."
Even if there was a time when editing boldly was restricted to articles (which I doubt,frankly, given that wording), we've moved on from then. Bold editing is applicable to any wiki or wiki-like process. --Tony Sidaway 07:05, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
I've been trying to think of a major exception to the above statement, and I can't seem to think of any. (Presuming bold, but not reckless, of course.) - jc37 08:51, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
moved on? ok a latter version [1].Geni 21:00, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
The page Tony mentions is a very good page to refer to, from way back in February 2002. The paragraph above makes it clear: if someone writes an inferior or merely humorous article or article stub, or outright patent nonsense, don't worry about their feelings. Correct it... An article. Given that 2002 was before there were such things as templates and categories as they currently exist, though, it is not surprising that they weren't explicitly mentioned. However, articles were explicitly mentioned from at least early 2004, and have been explicitly mentioned in the oopening sentence of the page ever since, until a few days ago. It is the removal of this long-standing part of the article which is currently causing the fuss - it's pretty clear that the guideline has explicitly dealt with articles only for at least three years, and the problems which often accompany being bold in other namespaces is the reason for that (and also the reason why there is such a fuss about this change). As to major exceptions, just for one - why are heavy-use templates protected from editing? Grutness...wha? 06:11, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
That's a poor example, in fact, isn't it actually an exception that proves the rule? If we agree that you really need to ask first, then we'll protect it; you will be simply unable to be bold. --Abu-Fool Danyal ibn Amir al-Makhiri 13:42, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
Given that prove no longer means test that sentace makes zero sense.Geni 16:38, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
Sorry. Okay: this is not an exception. Most people can't touch protected templates, so boldness is not an issue. Rather, it shows that when we really agree that you must not be bold, and that you must ask first, we can do something about it. --Abu-Fool Danyal ibn Amir al-Makhiri 23:24, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
eh not really. Some pretty widely used templates are not protected. more to do with security through obsurity than if we want people to be bold.Geni 00:00, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
Really? Because security through obscurity is harmed by warning people against it. Shouldn't we remove references to templates from this guideline altogether then? As it happens, I don't mind that idea. --Abu-Fool Danyal ibn Amir al-Makhiri 01:21, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
As I said on wikien-l the other day, I don't even consider myself a big template editor, but looking at my contributions I noticed that I'd made a score or so of edits to templates over the past month. All of them were bold. Of course you need to take more care, but that's what "but not reckless" is about. --Tony Sidaway 00:06, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
I, as a proficient template editor, find "Being bold in updating or creating categories and templates, especially templates, can often be very bad" out-of-place, and not widely practiced. GracenotesT § 06:29, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fixing vandalism

"Fixing vandalism, of course, is nearly always welcome, even on user pages. The user will let you know if it isn't."

I think this is common sense. Surprised that we had all that scare stuff about how editing a template could cause the wiki to explode into a thousand pieces, but not one little bit about the general welcomeness of all vandalism reverts. --Tony Sidaway 06:04, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] history of the policy

I haven't finnished digging though the history yet but:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Be_bold&oldid=36790672 "The Wikipedia community encourages users to be bold in updating articles. "


http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Be_bold&oldid=77331072

"The Wikipedia community encourages users to be bold in updating articles."

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Be_bold&oldid=102578843

"The Wikipedia community encourages users to be bold in updating articles."

So over a range of sereval years WP:BOLD has only been about articles.

Geni 23:18, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Who gives a fuck about history? It's what it says now that matters. --Tony Sidaway 00:02, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
Gotta say, I agree with Tony about this. BOLD transcends namespace. EVula // talk // ☯ // 00:05, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
history shows that what you are trying to do is a significant policy change. I belive jimbo has outlined a procedure for that kind of thing.Geni 00:07, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
So you're saying that if someone wants to redesign a portal or template, or improve something within the Wikipedia namespace, as you have been doing, then it's not being bold?—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 00:26, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
Be bold is an attitude. Not actions per se.Geni 00:55, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
Huh? I'm not sure quite what this means, but wouldn't attitudes transcend namespace? --Abu-Fool Danyal ibn Amir al-Makhiri 01:26, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
I don't think it really matters what words happened to be used, it's the ideas behind the words that are important. It makes me wonder, if the words are so clear that this supposedly only applies to articles, why so many long-time Wikipedians have not understood it that way? --bainer (talk) 00:38, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
so many? Name 50 (given the size of WP:100 that would appear to be a reasonable threshold to get to before you can claim so many.Geni 00:55, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
I don't think I could name fifty Wikipedians off the top of my head, but I don't think I've ever encountered a Wikipedian of long experience who wasn't bold in all his editing, whether he professed to be or not. --Tony Sidaway 01:04, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
Allow me to introduce myself, then. I'm an editor of long experience (2.5 years, 80,000 edits) who is bold in article space and on occasions in other spaces, but who seeks consultation with other involved editorsa on quite a large number of pages, via talk pages and relevant wikiprojects - especially when these edits involve non-article pages. Grutness...wha? 01:57, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
Well go and ask 50 then.Geni 01:08, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
Of all the editors who have edited here recently, or commented here or on the mailing list, only you and Grutness seem to share the view that the concept expressed in this page only applies to mainspace. The broader understanding seems to be that the principle - be bold but not reckless - is general advice that is a consequence of Wikipedia being a wiki. --bainer (talk) 01:23, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps were the only ones who regularly have to point errant editors towards this page and point out what it actually says in the text. Or said, until it was recently changed. The page has for several years only applied to article space, with no complaints about that limitation. The complaints have only started since the removal of that limitation a few days ago. Eveyone seems to have been quite happy with how the page was before that time. Grutness...wha? 01:57, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
It seems that you're saying that you're abusing this guideline by using it to win arguments with editors who make bold edits outside article space. If that's true, it's unacceptable behavior and it really isn't right for you to demand that this guideline with its "be bold" message should be wonked around to fit your view that editors shouldn't be. If you want to argue that editors mustn't be bold in template space, write an essay and point these fellows at that. It certainly isn't policy. --Tony Sidaway 16:09, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
you have failed to justify why it should be changed to fit your view.Geni 17:12, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
The scare clauses get way too much air time as it is. --Abu-Fool Danyal ibn Amir al-Makhiri 18:22, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
It is generaly accepted that a justification should contian some element of explanation. Your comment does not.Geni 19:10, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
(reply to Tony) This ain't policy, as you said yourself - but it does give very clear indications of why edits outside article space can have far-reaching effects, and as such need particular care. If pointing an editor to that and saying "please take care for the reasons listed here" is "abusing a guideline", and "unacceptable behaviour", then perhaps no editor should ever complain about anything another editor does, no matter how much trouble it causes other editors later. And as I've repeatedly said, this isn't my view - it's the view which has served successfully as a guideline for several years now with no complaints. My own personal view would be slightly different to the one which has been presented here, but it is irrelevant, since my own personal view would not be as effective for Wikipedia. All I am saying is that there was a wording and title which served well for all wikipedians for a cionsiderable length of time without any edit warring - since the change to a new title and wording which is more likely to create an increased amoundt of cleanup, this page has undergone an edit war. There is a very very good corollary to this page's implicit "If it's broke, fix it" - "If it ain't broke, don't fix it. This page wasn't broken. Now that it has been "fixed" it clearly is.Grutness...wha? 00:19, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
As an example, I recently suggested someone be bold in contacting an editor who they thought needed someone to talk to them[2]. If the "bold" action is tied to any namespace, it would be "User talk" (but still, it's more of an attitude than an actual limitation in scope). EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:24, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
  • As a matter of interest I seem to have started this storm in a teacup by reverting this edit which was made a block-evading sockpuppet (now indefinitely banned) who had a history of poor quality and disruptive edits. IMHO, the old nutshell wasn't broke so why fix it? It's just a throwaway phrase. Don't sweat the small stuff. andy 16:03, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Wasn't you, look just a little further back: the nutshell was being altered before that user came along. Now maybe one line isn't terribly important, but there is the underlying question of whether we are to Be Bold, Be Bold, and every where, Be Bold, or whether we are to Be Bold in updating articles only (as long as they aren't controversial, featured, complex, or have a long history, that is) and Be Afraid everywhere else. --Abu-Fool Danyal ibn Amir al-Makhiri 16:50, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
Anyone who opposes the principle that "be bold" applies everywhere is perhaps unwise to be so bold as to edit war over the matter on a policy page in Wikipedia space! --Tony Sidaway 17:40, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
Keeping it at it's historical state would be the normal aproach until the chnage in policy had been shon to have wider community support. Of course you do raise the point that being bold is reasonbable for winning conflicts but crap for getting the right answer when it comes to policy and the like.Geni 19:10, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
If you are going to tell me that I am not free to be bold (but not reckless) and edit when I see an edit that needs to be made to a template, talk page, category, or project page, I'm simply going to ignore you. It is as simple as that. Why are we even discussing this? Dmcdevit·t 23:07, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
it would be a signifcant policy change.Geni 23:46, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
You seem to suffer from the misconception that policy is prescriptive. It isn't. Policy is what the mass majority of reasonable people already do. And they edit pages when they need to be edited, and boldly. I'm happy to include myself in that category. Dmcdevit·t 23:55, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
In general, however, it seems that BOLD edits to policies and guidelines invariably set off edit wars. Perhaps this is because the only BOLD edits that can be done to these pages are bad ones. Mangoe 19:37, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
No one is arguing against the "… but don't be reckless." part. In fact, if you look you'll see that all policies are constantly edited, a little bit at a time, and so edit wars are not inevitable. The edit warriors like Geni are people who haven't fully understood the policy (and in fact, edit warring is reckless in all namespaces). Dmcdevit·t 01:08, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
I have a fundamental and irreconcilable difference of perception with Mangoe over the effects of bold edits on policy pages. I've done quite a few of those in my time, and found them to be a very, very effective way of changing policy. Edit wars sometimes happen but the risk is relatively low if you're sensitive to prevailing consensus and know what you're doing. --Tony Sidaway 01:39, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
The last thing we want is anything that increases the chnage rate on policy pages.Geni 06:57, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
Written policy should keep up with practice to a reasonable extent. At times of change this means the written policy must also change. --Tony Sidaway 16:19, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
Do you think the change rate on Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion is acceptable? why? Wikipedia:List of policies currently contians 42 policies. What rate of change do you think it is reasonable to expect people to be able to keep up with.Geni 17:37, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Protection

Given the ridiculous amount of revert-warring on this page, by so many established contributors (who it would achieve nothing to block), over the last three days, I have protected this page for a week. Oh, and on the wrong version, of course. Sort this out like the experienced people you are, please? Daniel 01:28, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

{{editprotected}}

Hi; could {{pp-dispute|expiry=01:26, June 16, 2007}} be added to the top of this page? Thanks, GracenotesT § 21:02, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I see that the template is already there. But there is no reason to reduce visibility of the template, in my humble opinion. The current template is also not-as-specific. GracenotesT § 21:08, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
Done. Cheers. --MZMcBride 23:05, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
Thank you. GracenotesT § 00:08, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
Hehe, the guideline about not being afraid to edit pages isn't itself editable. - ElbridgeGerry t c block 20:57, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
That's because it's not in article space, I guess. GracenotesT § 00:26, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] nutshell

Current nutshell assumes something is already broken. But i dont think wikipedia is a broken house. Presuming that there is wrong already is pessimistic. Why not "wikipedia is good, we make it better" approach? I wish that negative word broken to be off here, in a page that is so positive in approach. I suggest nutshell "If you see a chance for improvement, go do it". Feel free to refine this statement but avoid word broken thing 202.41.72.100 03:39, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Mind you, the word "broken" appears nowhere other than nutshell. use cntr+f. 202.41.72.100 03:47, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Hmm, yes. Now that I think about it, I agree. Also, it makes it sound like we should only be fixing things that are acutally broken, and that otherwise we should be leaving well enough alone. But really we should also not hesitate to make something good even better. --Abu-Fool Danyal ibn Amir al-Makhiri 15:26, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] It seems that we're still at loggerheads

It seems that we're still disagreed about the wording of this policy. To me it seems ridiculous to say it's only about articles, as we edit other pages boldly as a matter of course and (as far as I can tell) either always have done or have done so for years. To Geni and some others the historical tradition is more important, and (presumably) bold edits to anything other than articles are wrong. What can we do to reconcile this? --Tony Sidaway 16:22, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Demonstrait a clear consensus for change.Geni 16:49, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
No, I'll just continue to take advantage of the community consensus for bold editing on all pages. This doesn't seem to have been harmed by the fact that you insist that this guideline says otherwise. --Tony Sidaway 17:14, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
Geni, I think you need to stop (boldly) warring against consensus first. You and Grutness have been the two major opposers, but the fact that you disagree with the consensus does not make it so. A lot of people have chimed in here disagreeing with you. Dmcdevit·t 20:34, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
Personally, I like this (current) version of the article. [3] Does anybody have a real problem with this version, other than maybe the name? Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 22:47, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Yes, the scare clauses still are too dominant, but we can get to that later. I'm fine with the title and nutshell... --Abu-Fool Danyal ibn Amir al-Makhiri 15:01, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
I think it is still much too strong. Most of the time I've seen it cited, it's been cited to justify out-of-consensus deletions, or, sometimes, the addition of spam. The addition of spam against consensus is easily remedied, but reverting deletions is a fairly reliable way to get involved in an edit war. I'm not sure of wording myself. Personally, I consider the advice to "be bold, revert, discuss," to be a disastrous leftover from the early days, and I'll discuss it there. DGG 18:27, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
possibly adding "but be bold in deleting only when you're deleting obvious spam" DGG 18:28, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reckless

Delete the section "… but don't be reckless." If someone messes things up, we can just revert it. A.Z. 15:20, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Rename section "… but don't be reckless." to ""… but be careful". In the sense - be bold but be careful at the same time. Secsamedy 06:17, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

The argument that 'errors can just be reverted' is what leads to revert wars. Rename the section, ok, but dont delete it.DGG 01:40, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

"..but be careful" appears to me as a positive and friendly formulation more efficient. So I tentatively change it and leave it to peer editors to revert it, but ask politely for reasons for the revert. :-) Fridemar (talk) 12:08, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] WP:SOFIXIT

I've proposed to a fellow Wikipedian who is a sysop that WP:SOFIXIT should be removed from the shortcut box. We're attempting to keep the boxes with a minimum of only two popular shortcuts. I want other people to comment on this matter here. I'm aware of its long-time existence, but please try to understand that the shortcut boxes should be kept to a minimum of two obvious ones to avoid overfilling them. Thank you. Lord Sesshomaru 06:38, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Be Bold" merch

Awhile back, I made T-shirts, mugs, bumper stickers, etc., for the wikimedia store to advertise the "be bold" spirit. I don't remember if I ever mentioned that here, so ... I'm mentioning it now. [www.cafepress.com/wikipedia/2489941 Here's the store page.] Proceeds benefit the foundation, of course. Tlogmer ( talk / contributions ) 02:53, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I want to be bold but I'm afraid of breaking some rule. This is my favorite policy so far.DrGabriela 06:13, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Disambiguation

I noticed these were removed, and have restored them: You may be looking for Wikipedia:Manual of Style (text formatting) or Wikipedia:Bounty board.

From the shortcuts it's fairly obvious that someone could come here looking for one of those, so I think they should be left it. Richard001 05:09, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Be Bold? Really?

Every time I've made an edit (and I used to have an account), it's be reverted or erased and I've been chided in the talk page. Why would I want to be bold if virtually every editor I've encountered throws policy after policy at me, reverts my edits and writes tersely to me in the talk page? And my edits have been useful and in good faith.

Some guy. 172.167.34.201 19:18, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Have you read the … but don't be reckless. section? --Silver Edge 23:47, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Just thought I'd throw this in here, since you seem to have trouble reading what I wrote: 'And my edits have been useful and in good faith.' 172.136.173.77 04:33, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
I understood what you meant in your initial post. Even though you may find your edits useful and in good faith, it may not be considered to be useful or in good faith by others. Being bold with useful or in good faith edits does not mean anyone can add information that cannot be verified or are not in a neutral point of view. Unless you provide the name of your account, I cannot tell you why your edits were reverted. --Silver Edge 07:41, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
User:Silver Edge, your initial response is probably a perfect example of what this probably newbie is talking about. A person with reverted edits who has been chided quite probably could be a newbie who doesn't know all of the rules, who is being bitten. Let me phrase what seems to be his question in a different way: "Hi, I'm a newbie, and I've had a lot of my edits reverted, when I was trying to be bold. I don't want people picking apart my edits and telling me which rules I broke, so I'm not going to furnish you with my user account. I do want to lodge a complaint that I was strongly discouraged against being bold. Where do I do this?"
If that's the question trying to be asked, I don't have an answer. Does anybody else? Fredsmith2 (talk) 00:47, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Safer to add content than delete existing content in controversial articles

Added a new sentence, that in the absence of discussion and consensus it is generally safer to add new content than delete existing content in controversial articles. Best, --Shirahadasha 06:03, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Good idea, — xDanielx T/C 23:16, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] BS

This page is total crap. All the people who are always on wikipedia get pissed at you for making even a little edit, then its removed in seconds, and then they yell at you on your talk page. --Zeldafreak104 14:09, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] not BS

The Be bold page is perfect, it's a GOOD THING and it's blessed! Except that I was bold without knowing it and discovered the article afterwards. Now, if everyone is asking anyone for permission to correct anything, then nothing will be done to improve Wikipedia without a tedious administrative processing. Nobody will want to develop Wikipedia by volunteering. Be bold may cause conflicts, but there are other means to diminish conflicts when they occur, f.ex. politeness, presupposition of best intents, don't answer direct insults, don't insult and so on. Normal conflict resolution rules apply. The main thing about Wikipedia functioning as a community information project is that there cannot exist territories (except personal pages, of course), nobody "owns" any article or the information within it. If I write in an article, it is my gift to all of you, with which you may make whatever you wish. Said: Rursus ☻ 13:37, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it is an important page. It is helpful for new Wikipedians. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 04:28, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Let's be bold, but let's get rid of the bolding

This page is really, really tacky, and not up to speed with the elements of style (WP:STYLE) in Wikipedia, which states, "Italics are used sparingly to emphasize words in sentences (bolding is normally not used at all for this purpose). Generally, the more highlighting in an article, the less the effect of each instance."

Things like the following would get removed immediately from wikipedia:

  • 4 Sell
  • Cumm 2 the Par-T To-Nite
  • FREE!!!!

So, why does be Bold persist in this page? It's tacky, just like the formatting of this post, and should be replaced with unbolded text.

Will someone remove all of the bolding from this page that doesn't fit with WP:STYLE? The guideline is to "be bold." The guideline isn't to "USE BOLD!" Fredsmith2 (talk) 00:36, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Please fix grammar on the phrase "copy-edit"

The reference to "copy-edit" should be changed to "copy edit," without the hyphen. Will someone please fix this?

See this link for a professional example of how to use the term "copy edit." An exception would be if copy edit is used as an adjective, such as "copy-editing software." Fredsmith2 (talk) 01:22, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Victor12 I would like to submit the following article in the OTHER section. It's a travel piece but with a much broader scope and mandate. It takes issue with the guide books that counsel against renting a car in Peru. My position is that if millions of Peruvians successfully negotiate their passage from point A to point B everyday, why can't the tourist be among those millions. My article dispells the myths and fears re driving in Peru. The article also has much to offer re tourism. Here's the link: http://www.artsandopinion.com/2006_v5_n2/lewis-21.htm Thanking you in advance for the consideration. Robert Lewis —Preceding unsigned comment added by Artsandopinion (talk • contribs) 20:07, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Aargh!

If I see any more references on talks to WP:BOLD in response to completely acceptable and logical questions or requests I'm going to kill someone. Can we _please_ get some sort of 'Don't flaunt this everywhere, you bloody moron' rule, punishable by death? WP:BOLD is not some sort of standard 'I am lazy, you do it' response, nor a wildcard to escape answering complex or controversial questions (in fact, acting on WP:BOLD in these situations would be suicidal). Thoughts/Opinions/Subpoenas? +Hexagon1 (t) 14:03, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

This is a good point. When editors (anonymous or not) make requests on a talk page that they could probably resolve themselves, it is of course a good thing that they learn about WP:BOLD. But what if they already know about it, and simply don't want to, don't feel able to, or don't have the time to edit the article themselves? The bottom line is that while being bold is good, requesting a change on the talk page is the second best thing; it may or may not lead to an improvement, but at least it has drawn attention to the issue. I think the problem is that the editors particularly involved in the article might take the request personally, as in "Here is a problem with the article, and I want you to fix it," which quite reasonably triggers a defensive attitude. See Talk:Mario Kart: Double Dash!!, sections 17 through 19, for an example of this. I would be all for a "You are never required to be bold, and any suggestions you make on talk pages are appreciated, although the chance of them having effect is of course much greater if you do the work yourself." clause. Maybe something could be said at WP:TALK too. -- Jao (talk) 09:52, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Good articles

The GAs that are found on WP nowadays are of quite a high standard and have usually been the result of careful work by a group of dedicated editors. I would like to see reference made to GAs in this paragraph:

Also, substantial changes or deletions to the articles on complex, controversial subjects with long histories, such as the Israeli-Palestinian conflict or abortion, or to featured articles such as cheese or Spoo, should be done with extra care. In many cases, the text as you find it has come into being after long and arduous negotiations between Wikipedians of diverse backgrounds and points of view.

Suggested new wording:

Also, substantial changes or deletions to the articles on complex, controversial subjects with long histories, such as the Israeli-Palestinian conflict or abortion, or to Featured Articles and Good Articles, should be done with extra care. In many cases, the text as you find it has come into being after long and arduous negotiations between Wikipedians of diverse backgrounds and points of view.

Such a change in wording would make it clear that extra care should be taken in making substantial edits to GAs as well. Johnfos (talk) 07:25, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Have made this change now... Johnfos (talk) 06:35, 27 February 2008 (UTC)