WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia	Spoken WikipediaWikipedia:WikiProject Spoken WikipediaTemplate:WikiProject Spoken WikipediaSpoken Wikipedia articles
v · d · eThis page is within the scope of WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles that are spoken on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.

Talk archives:
Archive 1 → Apr 2005 Archive 2 → May 2007 (includes "WT:Discuss and draft graphical layout overhauls")

[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)

[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 ...

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)
2. Not misleading, unlike the others, but doesn't come across as overly restrictive. ☻☻☻Sithman VIII !!☻☻☻ 16:27, 15 August 2010 (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)

(In response to the above) That's really just an argument against "be bold" in general, and not a very good one, at that. ☻☻☻Sithman VIII !!☻☻☻ 16:27, 15 August 2010 (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. Gracenotes^T § 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, Gracenotes^T § 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. Gracenotes^T § 21:08, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Done. Cheers. --MZMcBride 23:05, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. Gracenotes^T § 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. Gracenotes^T § 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)

Well, I did like "reckless" better. People who are generally careful and perhaps timid will be even more (excessively) so when they see a guideline titled "But be careful!". On the other hand, "don't be reckless" is an admonishment clearly directed to those people who tend to be to bold for their own good. Try to make those tone their edits down, but don't scare careful people away by telling them to be careful! LjL (talk) 21:11, 26 June 2009 (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)

For that matter, he or she may be a good-faith editor who ran into a fallacious Wikilawyer. It's extremely disheartening to make an edit completely in accordance with Wikipolicy, and have someone with a strong POV and/or protective attitude toward "their" article immediately revert and claim that XYZ policy demands it... but when you look up XYZ policy, their claim is against the spirit of the policy, has nothing to do with it, or is even directly contradicted by it.

A purely hypothetical example, albeit an extreme one:

1. Jane Doe adds a well-sourced section to the low-traffic Thingamabob article about how thingamabobs aren't as safe as previously thought.
2. John Smith reverts, claiming that the information isn't notable and the sources aren't reliable.
3. Jane Doe adds unimpeachable sources that show that thingamabobs have been implicated in several deaths, and that the thingamabob inventor is being sued on grounds of falsifying data.
4. John Smith reverts again, claiming BLP for the inventor.
5. Jane Doe notices that John Smith's user page all but identifies him as the inventor, and politely asks him to back off since he has a CoI.
6. Jane Doe asks again, somewhat more angrily, and lists her reasons for what tipped her off. John Smith edits his user page to remove those reasons, then starts drowning every response in a condescending wall of text and hotlinked policies that don't apply.
7. Jane Doe persists, getting angrier because she has no idea why no one else is paying attention. John Smith gets a couple of friends to go to AN/I and ask that she be reprimanded for violating AGF and persistently harassing him.
8. An overworked admin who doesn't have time to find the relevant information buried under mounds of TLDR takes the majority's word for it, and tells her to stop being so nasty to John Smith.
9. Jane Doe doesn't have any idea how to find and link the diffs that would prove John Smith is full of it. Furious at this point, she curtly tells the admin that he should read the history because he doesn't know what the @#$% he's talking about.
10. The admin promptly blocks her for incivility, and Jane Doe becomes editor #8,376,149 to give up on Wikipedia. She posts an angry note on the way out the door when the block expires, and everyone has a good laugh about how irrational she is and how the project is better off without her.

Are most examples of reasonable grievances nearly this bad? I severely doubt it.

Are most editors who seem to be frothing at the mouth mistreated victims of people who know how to work the system? I doubt that as well.

Are there many more reasonable grievances than anyone wants to admit, which get buried because newbies have no idea how to defend themselves? I don't doubt that at all. 76.22.25.102 (talk) 18:52, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Heh. I'm glad to see others have this sentiment and that it's not just me. Every time I see someone tell myself or another to 'be bold,' I have to laugh. So many people on here have their little watchlist and pages that they consider "theirs," as you say, and if you happen to find cause to edit that page, with cited information or re-wording, etc, etc, perhaps more than half the time you'll find your edits reverted, with the reason often seeming to be that some take great offense if their words and work has been edited and that if there is a change to be made it'll only be after they have decided so. Being 'bold' on here just amounts to time and energy wasted, I've found, and so usually if I have information to add or something to correct, I just note it on the talk page and let others go through the trouble of 'being bold.' Many people obviously have had experiences that led to the same impression, hence why this page exists and why any active talk page usually has a reply referring someone to here. It doesn't answer the problem though, I would say. This page is making the assumption that people lacking 'boldness' are such because they're overly cautious or hesitant to try, whereas I would speculate that the majority that you call for to 'be bold' were 'bold' in the past, sensibly so and not recklessly, and got beaten down for it. This page would be better, I think, to somewhere address the possibility that your edits might be reverted not because they're bad - the only possibility this page gives - but rather because of overly protective users. Maybe after the '...but be careful' section one might add, '...and also be wary of...' and then something taking into account the issues discussed with the articles Wikipedia:Ownership of articles and Wikipedia:No vested contributors. --Breshkovsky (talk) 23:03, 6 August 2010 (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 dispelled 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)

Done. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:17, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for doing so. It's a bloody shame that Hexagon1's original complaint remains as true as ever, but at least there's a sentence on the page that sorta casts doubt on the way this slogan and references to the page are commonly used. (Not being sarcastic, I do think that's progress by the Wikipedia standard.)

Fun activity that's almost predictable enough to be made into a drinking game - go find a page that demonstrates evidence of dubious POV ownership. Challenge the logic behind one of the particulars, something that can be refuted unequivocally. Engage on the talk page, and give the formal refutation. Repeat as needed. Then,

1. Wait and see how long it takes for someone to Wiki-Godwin you with "Be bold" once they realize they're out of rules to misquote.
2. Make an edit in accordance with the point you demonstrated.
3. Wait and see how long it takes for someone to revert it with an edit summary synonymous with "Major changes need to be discussed first", "This goes against consensus", or one of the arguments that you previously refuted.76.22.25.102 (talk) 02:01, 30 May 2010 (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)

[edit] Be Bold and Wikiprojects

I think wikiproject Pages should not apply to Be Bold. Because its should be discussed on the talk page of the wikiproject. What do you think? --ElectricalExperiment 19:29, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Done - I'ver addedded a note to that effect under "Non-article pages". Grutness...wha? 22:35, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

ThnakyouElectricalExperiment 14:36, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

...[ TIME ] could be a representation towards the to; Be bold. For even as I for the time and exrewnded furure will use a Talk Pge and most preferable a User talk page, though seemingly when useing either one may use one and be intended as of useing the other. For being Bold could be a slow process and a moderate and fast action , while as one time I was on a Talk page and realized that it wasn't a user talk page.

Nontheless being Bold is a concept of time, though in reason this is just an opinion. And perhaps through time a Bodied Opinion Leaves Decision BOLD. A quick action is also , for i noticed a, Bolding effort, for when a type set is altered through one or and another then a bol concept is adjusted, though still through time - a lesson in the terming 'leaves' perhaps. "Decision is also a debated {time}~ consuming effort. Opinion well it just takes time and through a respect needs to b lessoned, usually automadicly. a Bodied is in reference with though and combination, such as a combination-al :thought:. Perhaps prepairing exceptance recieving helpfull aperances prepairing situation and or situations, situational, ~thus~ activity. Be bold bypass as is, to' be-excepted Building overall lesson decidingly which perhaps is a better terming then directly as to another that will exsist. Last three and a 1/4 sentences perhaps are to much contend.David George DeLancey (talk) 17:47, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I think this regrettable. It tends to confirm the sense of WP:OWN widely held by projects. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:42, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I think it really doesn't matter anyway... the mainspace articles are much more important than the projects that manage them. If it said "be careful editing an article that's under this wikiproject", there'd be a problem. If the documentation is saying - and I think it is right now - that "oh, and by the way, be careful crossing these folks", then it oughta be the same as "you can ignore these guys for now; just be bold and edit." I don't know if that nuance is reflected here. Xavexgoem (talk) 15:16, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Both are good ideas; I'll be bold and edit. The assumption that WikiProjects reflect consensus of Wikipedia is nonsense anyway; Projects represent Project-wide consensus. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:39, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

The best I can do is:

Other Wikipedia-space pages may or may not represent a general consensus. Someone wrote them, and supports the view expressed in them, so it is often prudent to see how widely supported they are before altering them. But, except for the handful of expressions of principle which are called policies, they are advice; their binding force rests in the arguments they use and the collective voice of the editors that agree with them.

This is not ideal, so I put it here for discussion and reflection. In the meantime, the reference to WikiProjects as general consensus has been replaced by the three pages that are. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:52, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

[edit] images and policy

Images should probably have a mention along the lines of "In the case of images new images should be uploaded with new names rather than overwriting old ones. Adding information to the description of an existing image is definitely an area where be bold applies." and we should make it clear that this does not apply to policy pages.Geni 18:58, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Good point. Yet another bit to add under the "non-article" section, I'd say. Grutness...wha? 01:51, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Protection

On 14 May 2008 this page was semi-protected. Can someone who knows how please put a padlock in the top right of the page. Thanks DineshAdv (talk) 12:48, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 'Be bold' message template needed

To the innumerable people who flag and otherwise complain about contents, I answer with an invitation to be bold. I end up writing this once or twice a week. Could someone create Template:Bold to facilitate this chore? Emmanuelm (talk) 14:34, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Oups, just found it already exists as {{bebold}} :

Thank you for your suggestion. When you feel an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the edit this page link at the top. The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes — they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to).

[edit] sprot

Why is this page, of all, semiprotected? 78.34.145.215 (talk) 18:23, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Edit warring in the past, and constant vandalism all the time. Ironic, but true. Grutness...wha? 20:23, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

[edit] {{Bold}}

I have nominated the following template, which is peripherally connected to this guideline, for deletion. The TfD nomination was initially invalidly closed by the creator iof the template, citing that the nomination was "disruptive" as it was a "policy or guideline template" - IMO a misinterpretation of the meeaning of that term (and at odds with the example given). In any case, in an attempt to keep him happy I am notifying editors who view this page that the template is on TfD again, and viewers of this page are invited to participatee in the debate. Grutness...wha? 23:21, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

[edit] How do you improve articles when you can't?

Improving articles with valuable info that isn't found anywhere else (and thus the absence of it leaves many people confused) isn't possible here. I tried, but they deleted it calling it "original research". How does one improve articles when they delete stuff that wasn't taken from a citable resource? Isn't this the place where people look things up? Isn't this a site where people get information from? It's injustice, plain and simple.

And btw I do have an account on this site but I don't want to show my face here under that name anymore cause I once created an asinine article (even though it wuz deleted) 24.65.118.20 (talk) 03:55, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia places a greater emphasis on verifiability than on being right; my next-door neighbor may be a producer of Heroes and got drunk and told me about what will happen in the second half of the season, but I can't verify any of it, so I can't add it. We don't break news; we document it. EVula // talk // ☯ // 04:30, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Updating this article's audio

I had begun recording an updated spoken version of this article because the last audio recording of this article reflects a version now two years old. I had begun recording but then noticed that a number of things could have been worded better. I edited the article for this reason. Are there any more suggestions for the article before I attempt to record it? -- PicklePower (talk) 04:04, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Your copy-edits to the article were well-done and were badly needed, nice job. There probably are other things that could be added and changed, but it overall reads very well at this point. It in fact seems to be a rather good place to be bold! Record a new version anyway, this is a wiki and there will always be more things to add and improve. Even if someone comes along and improves it two minutes after you finish your recording, a slightly-outdated recording will still be far better than a two-year-old one. Go for it. ~ mazca ^t|c 17:09, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

[edit] First appearance of its modern name Bratislava

Today's official name of the city first appeared in 1837, when Slovak historian, archaeologist P.J.Šafárik, was trying to reenact the old name of the city and he thought it wasn't coming from the name Braslav but Bratislav. Before 1837, Slavic (Slovak) name of the city was Prešporok/Prešporek. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Szellajos (talk • contribs) 14:36, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia Guidelines

"Do not use overly lengthy quotes" is incorrect. "Do not use overly lengthy quotations" is correct.

So...be bold and fix it! Grutness...wha? 01:45, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism, nonsense, test edits, etc.

I think we should warn vandals not to do any of the above. This page may motivate potential vandals who don't know the personal attack rules or other related rules in Wikipeia and think that they are just following some wonderful Be Bold guildline. Kayau Wuthering Heights VANITY FAIR paradise lost 11:43, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

We already do in the first sub-section of the page. (See the section titled ...but please be careful.) We don't particularly call out vandalism and other malicious edits since we are trying very hard to assume good faith but it should be obvious to any well-intentioned reader that "not editing recklessly" would include avoiding those sorts of inappropriate acts.
Vandals, I think, are neither encouraged nor discouraged by this page. They are simply a problem we have to deal with. Rossami (talk) 13:23, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

It won’t hurt to warn them here anyway, since they might see that they can be bold here and make personal attacks because they believe those attacks are good. Kayau Wuthering Heights VANITY FAIR paradise lost 08:41, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Speed vs. accuracy

I've been looking for a section or essay on the merits and drawbacks of working quickly, particularly with the aid of gadgets. It seems there is a certain kind of editor who's an "edit collector" and tries to make as many edits as possible, at the distinct cost of accuracy. Twice in two days, I was wrongfully reverted/warned (by their admission) by editors on "rollback duty," who seemed too interested in clicking and moving on than in taking two seconds to make sure they were doing the right thing. A new editor could be really confused, turned off, or scared away when they go to the trouble (for them) of making a fix, only to get wrongly reverted and warned. So I thought it might be nice to remind people somewhere that while efficiency is great, if your drive for speed results in sloppiness, you might be hurting the project more than helping it. Thoughts? -Jordgette (talk) 23:33, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like the sort of thing that would make a good user essay, and anyone can write one of them - yourself included - on a subpage of their user page. If you do and it seems relevant to this page, then adding a link to that essay from WP:BOLD would be a reasonable move. Grutness...wha? 00:25, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Existing relevant pages include: WP:PRESERVE (policy), and many of the essays collected in Template:Civility and Template:Essays on building Wikipedia. Hopethathelps. -- Quiddity (talk) 18:25, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I like this term "edit collector", it is much less pejorative than what I was thinking (WikiNazi).

I have noticed lately that there are some folks here who have taken it upon themselves to jump on new and revised pages, in one case a page I was working on was reverted before I had even finished doing the Fair Use page for an image I was in the process of adding. When I had a look at that person's user page, it was set up as a shrine to all of the Good Works he had done here, including a counter that said he had made over 40,000 edits in the last four years.

Although it is important to keep the trash out of Wikipedia, it is also important to hold on to worthwhile contributions and the people making them. If I devote the time and effort to make a contribution to an article, I do not expect it to be reverted by some "edit collector" who has not even taken the time to understand what has been done.

I have neither the time or the inclination to get into a pissing contest with these folks. I would suggest, however, that the powers-that-be have a look at finding some way to deal with this, since these problems from within will be far more detrimental to the project than the vandals from without. Kid Bugs (talk) 02:30, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

That certainly is an issue, but it's not really an issue of BOLDness. I think it is certainly unhealthy for contributors to spend long periods monitoring recent changes and new pages (especially using automated tools) without also participating in other areas, particularly content creation. That's hard to enforce, but we could think about how to raise the issue more prominently, and perhaps find some way to identify people who've got into a sort of "click-rage", and encourage them to take a break. Perhaps raise this at the Village Pump? Rd232 ^talk 09:34, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Reverted to earlier version

Hi Kotniski. I'm sorry I had to revert so much work you did in the Non-Article Namespaces. In my opinion, you were too bold. I had to put it back the old way because I saw no discussion before you made scores of changes.

• You removed an entire paragraph about discussion. You should have discussed it first.
• It is "acceptable" as it was, not "encouraged" as you made it, to edit all pages. (first sentence)
• You changed "spelling and grammatical errors" to "mistakes and factual errors". In doing so you turned two specifics into two generalities. If we want to decide to make it more general, OK, lets just say "errors". Shall we?
• I want to keep discussion and links concerning transclusion or templates to the minimum (for Lucy). You expanded them. I mean, I like the way categories and templates were in one paragraph because they both are dangerous. You turned one link to categorization into three. I'd cry "overlinking".
• You removed a paragraph about "protected pages", effectively eliminating an idea. Discuss first before removing an idea. OK? That same paragraph mentioned proposing changes on a discussion page (which you removed).
• You removed a link to wikiprojects, effectively cutting out an idea that might have taken 100 man hours of debate. (Well, I did not check the discussion pages. Did you?)
• You removed the "but please be careful" phrase where it served as a repetitive lucidity.
• The original said project pages "do" reflects consensus, you made it say "intend to". Wikipedia consensus decrees concerning phraseology and ideology are (a form of "do" as implied in the original) implicitly stored in the document, and explicitly in the discussions resolutions. Granted, is not (yet) clear which parts of the guideline or policy are such decrees, but that's why it is (yet) imperative to use the browser to open each archive and the browser's own search mechanism to search them for any discussion concerning the context you changed. Consensus is not stored by footnoting or page watching. It is therefore important to either scrub-search all discussions or discuss phraseology or ideology changes to documents produced largely by consensus. As archives pile up we must develop annotation or search improvements.

Oops. I see where the original also had "intended to reflect consensus", like you made the earlier mention say. But I still think it's better to say that they "do". My, don't we learn a lot about the BB policy? I've had enough for one evening. It is very difficult to remain neutral about your edits after such a showing. Please understand my need to just go ahead and take them all out.

This is a short article, and every word and idea counts. Let's discuss your changes one at time on the discussion page. There might have been a coherent order in the ideology and an organic change in the phraseology that you did not sense. I think the spirit of "be bold" is directed toward frightened people, you know, the old folks with click-o-phobia who are themselves walking encyclopedias. You seem to think it could be directed toward curious hackers when you say "Therefore be sure that you know what you are doing..."

—CpiralCpiral 03:56, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, I restored my changes but adapted them to address the issues you raise. (Most of the things you say I removed are actually still there, but in slightly different words - the rest I have put back how they were.) I reduced the discussion about templates and categories a bit, but it has to be changed somehow from what it was before - I don't see how the issues with templates (that a change on one page automatically promulgates to many pages) can be said to apply to categories. In fact I don't know what the issues with categories are supposed to be; I tried to hint at them at my first attempt, but this time I just said "similar" issues (though they're not really that similar as far as I can tell). --Kotniski (talk) 12:09, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Are these changes related to your proposal at Wikipedia talk:Discuss and draft graphical layout overhauls#Need this page? to merge here, or is that coming later?

Perhaps a merge in the opposite direction would be preferable - we could keep this page very short, and concentrate just on article-space. Put the information about other namespaces at that other page (and possibly rename it). -- Quiddity (talk) 18:42, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

No, these changes aren't related to that other proposal. Your suggestion sounds interesting - maybe it would work (is the idea that the page on article space would be addressed mainly to beginner editors, and the other page to more experienced ones?) --Kotniski (talk) 18:53, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Not based on a skill-level division, though that does tie in - simply because we direct newcomers here in many of the welcome-templates. Hopefully/ideally the majority of editors are primarily concerned with editing the articles, and that is the area we are encouraging everyone to Be Bold in. -- Quiddity (talk) 19:18, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Again, I had to revert all twenty or so excellent changes and improvements for one bad reason: the generalization of specifics concerning the removal of the mention of the three core policies, and for one good reason: you changed half the article. I am excited that we are having a discussion about an interesting merging and making such massive changes, but please be patient, good editors, while this discussion comes to fruition.

For further reasoning about my decision to temporarily remove all the improvements, please see the five large paragraphs I have offered the instigator. I'll return to this discussion all in good time, OK? — CpiralCpiral 19:12, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Replied to Cpiral at my talk page.--Kotniski (talk) 19:17, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I know this wasn't meant as a parody of how "Be bold" actually gets implemented... but it seemed that way on first reading. And I was glad for the giggle. This made my day. 76.22.25.102 (talk) 03:56, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

[edit] This article is not balance about BOLD, instead it lists how to not be bold

The article is focused upon when not to be bold. This is fine, but the weight puts this article out of balance. It needs a strong section on when we MUST be bold. Original research, does it require discussion for deletion? 24.23.60.221 (talk) 02:15, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Be Bold without Consensus

The article properly stresses when to work hard for consensus. Material that clearly violates policies however MUST be removed. 24.23.60.221 (talk) 02:15, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Well... no-one "must" do anything on WP, I don't think we want to terify new editors into thinking they'll be reprimanded if they've been found to have looked at some page and failed to spot and remove some policy violation. Or do you mean something else? I'm not sure exactly what you're proposing.--Kotniski (talk) 19:41, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Discuss the changes

Well, I made some changes which I thought made the "non-article namespaces" section clearer, but they've been reverted twice, apparently not because of any concrete objection any more, but just because we're supposed to discuss them. This is all rather ironic, considering the message of this page, but anyway, here goes: the proposed changes are the ones made in this edit. Can people please say what they object to in them?--Kotniski (talk) 19:41, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I thought it was clearer before. I've added some badly-needed structure; perhaps you could clarify what you're trying to do and how that might work with the current version. Rd232 ^talk 20:11, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I thought it was clearer before as well. Though I think I understand most of the changes you were trying to make, K, several of them look to be gojng into too much cluttering detail as to the whys and wherefores. It's far simpler to say "be careful with templates because they affect multiple pages" and leave it at that than to then explain why they affect multiple pages, for instance - the fact that they do should be enough. It's also important to retain the section on discussing changes on talk pages. Rd232's structural changes do make a considerable improvement, though - some form of organisation of that section has been needed for a while. Grutness...wha? 23:39, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Well OK, but there are some changes that just have to be made, since there are simply factual errors. I also don't see why you're saying we need less explanation and then adding more explanation yourself. Oh well, I've made a few more changes piecewise and explained them in edit summaries. Now there should be no excuse for reverting the whole lot because you have some problem with one of them.--Kotniski (talk) 07:16, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

OK, good - particularly separating out Categories. I've made some additional changes. Rd232 ^talk 08:58, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Merge another guideline in

As hinted above, there's a guideline called Wikipedia:Discuss and draft graphical layout overhauls, which really has no need to be out on its own, so I'd propose merging it into this one (for now - there was also a suggestion above that all the stuff about non-articles be moved to a different page, which could still be done later). Please see that page's talk page and possibly discuss there.--Kotniski (talk) 08:41, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

In the interests of clarity and newbie-friendliness it would probably be best to separate out non-article namespaces from WP:BOLD, and merge the graphical thing into that (it affects mostly non-article space, doesn't it?). For newbies it would be best to say very clearly "Be Bold In Updating Articles", and then in WP:Summary style "but less so on non-article pages, see here for details". Rd232 ^talk 09:02, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, Quiddity basically proposed the same thing above. To avoid multiplying the number of pages, perhaps the non-article stuff could go into WP:Editing policy? That would give us two well-purposed pages - a comprehensive one and a newbie-oriented one.--Kotniski (talk) 09:11, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Possibly; not sure about how that would affect WP:Editing policy - WP:Be less bold in non-article namespaces is easier to picture. But as long as clarity isn't sacrificed, fewer pages are better. You could try drafting something for a merger with EP. Rd232 ^talk 09:36, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I'd be very, very careful in moving the non-article stuff to a different page. More than enough editors cite "I was just being bold" when editing templates and categories, without ever having read the page and seen that it doesn't apply as strongly there; moving the non-article stuff to a separate page will only make that worse. In any case, taking that out will basically make this page into "Be bold when editing articles" - something which was roundly and soundly defeated (sadly) when proposed a couple of years back (see earlier on this talk page). There'd also be problems moving it into WP:Editing policy: WP:Bold is a guideline, not a policy, so it can't go there without considerably more discussiopn, and if it's rejected as policy it would be lost to both pages. In any case, the present page isn't so long as to be a problem - the only real problem with it is that (as mentioned by others above) it seems to stress when not to be bold more than when to be bold. As to the potential merge candidate mentioned, it is so short that it should be very easy to merge it here without causing any problems, especially since some of it (re: portals), is simply an extra short section for the "non-article" section. Grutness...wha? 11:15, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Fair points, though the "but" section is longer than "be bold" because the latter point is basically simple (expanding/explaining more just weakens the point). Maybe (especially if more is merged here), it's time to remove the NOTOC tag, and make the "But..." section a section rather than a subsection. A bit better layout could make the Be Bold point more visible. Rd232 ^talk 11:50, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Looking at WP:Editing policy again, it actually seems to be covering a lot of the same ground as this page (the two nutshells says virtually the same thing, in fact), although it also contains other stuff about preserving information, for example. I'm sure we don't need two pages going over the same points with somewhat different words. Or if we do, then it's because we want a short, clear (perhaps more chatty) page that we can link newcomers to. I don't think there's anything here that isn't compatible with being included in the editing policy page (that page already contains a lot of waffle; it certainly isn't the kind of crisp policy that would become "impure" if points from this page were included in it). So my ideal solution would still be: make the editing policy comprehensive, including all the aspects of when and how to be bold (or not), and make this page a short and inspiring missive to new editors that we can link to when they seem to need it. It doesn't have to be marked as a guideline.--Kotniski (talk) 12:28, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

As Kotinski mentioned this at WT:EP, I'll chime in to say that I'd have to generally agree with Grutness, that this is a guideline, not a policy, and a merge-over shouldn't be willy-nilly. WP:EP, while having a somewhat generic title as a relatively ancient policy, shouldn't become a sort of policy "WP:COATRACK" for new ideas wishing to become new policy. That said, I'm not actually familiar with all the issues going on here. -- 209.6.238.201 (talk) 07:45, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't think there are any new ideas - indeed these ideas are already featured at WP:EP, so this is basically just about tidying the presentation (to remove duplication, while also removing distracting information from a page that new users are linked to from all over the place). A more precise title for WP:EP would be a benefit, though, so we have some idea of what its scope is supposed to be (because "editing policy" could mean pretty much anything). It seems to me the intended scope is something like "guidance on editing in situations of potential or actual disagreement", but somehow I don't see that as a title... --Kotniski (talk) 11:36, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I merged in WP:DDGGLO, anyway, as proposed. This page is definitely looking bottom-heavy now though, so I think we need to start thinking about applying some of the solutions suggested above.--Kotniski (talk) 11:38, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Still applies?

I've been a wikipedian for quite a long time, but not been here for a while. I've seen in a few places people say things like "It's best for all concerned if you discuss non-minor changes here before you make them" in Talk:Analytic Hierarchy Process which I believe to be the opposite of the spirit of the "Be bold" principle. Is it still something wikipedia believes in, or is the "discuss, agree then change" model more common now? --Khendon (talk) 09:04, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I hope we still believe in being bold - of course there are some people who don't (at least, in as much as it applies to editors other than themselves), and since those people make their presence felt with their pesky unreasoned reverts ("no consensus for this change" is the typical non-explanation that they give), they might seem to be more numerous than they actually are.--Kotniski (talk) 11:40, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I think the key word here is "non-minor". Being bold is definitely acceptable in general terms and is in general a good thing, but where an edit is big enough to significantly change an article, it's still worthwhile to discuss it - especially if the article is a fairly thorough/high quality one or has had numerous editors. Grutness...wha? 22:14, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

It's worth discussing it, just not first. I change it (and explain my reasons in the talk page), you change it (in a way that makes a compromise between my change and the original), and we circle round until we reach a working consensus - that's "being bold" and how wikipedia should work, in my opinion. Requiring consensus first gives a strong preference for the status quo, leads to stagnation, and encourages people to think of themselves as the "owners" of a page. --Khendon (talk) 07:17, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I agree - the main reason for not being bold I think is self-interest - if you put a lot of work into something and it ends up being reverted wholesale, and you can't convince people to accept it, then you've wasted a lot of your time, whereas outlining your ideas first might give you an idea of whether it's worth doing the work or not. And in general, big changes are probably more likely to run into opposition than small ones. So I don't think it's ever socially unacceptable to be bold (except perhaps in some of the special cases we've discussed, like templates and categories, though even there it's OK if you really know what you're doing), but it might not always be the most time-effective strategy.--Kotniski (talk) 10:42, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

You're talking about the Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle, and as far as articles are concerned, then yes, that's fine, acceptable, and expected. As explained at WP:BOLD, though, there are problems which make this less attractive in some other namespaces (especially those where reverting takes considerable time, as in the creating of new categories). Basically, if reverting is easy - as it is with articles - there's no problem whatsoever with this approach. While "self-interest" may be one reason for not being bold, a greater one in my experience is the difficulty of undoing anything which may be problematic. Grutness...wha? 00:02, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Media Convergence

Media convergence is the adding of more than one medium into one to be using multiple mediums in one. For example the Iphone which has been a new technology that groups a mobile phone, an ipod, a web surfer, a video player and more applications in it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Heba shahid (talk • contribs) 20:53, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Citations of this Policy

There should be some guidelines about when the "Be Bold" policy should be cited in Talk pages. When someone makes a suggestion in an article talk page to improve an article, a frequent response is "Be Bold!" I can understand if you want to inform someone that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that anyone can edit, and if you want to encourage them to participate in Wikipedia by telling them to be bold.

But far too often that is not why the policy is cited. People will often say "Be Bold," in order to convey the meaning "If you think something will improve the article, do it yourself. If you're too lazy to do it yourself, then how dare you complain about this or that flaw in the article? If you're too lazy to do it, why do you expect us to do it for you?".

Isn't it allowed on Wikipedia to just point out a suggestion to improve an article in a talk page, without actually having the time or inclination to carry it out yourself? It seems like, due to excessive citation of the "Be bold" policy, that such activity is discouraged, even if it's not banned outright. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.248.123.28 (talk) 17:52, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't think so. I think that "be bold" emphasizes "feel free to fix it" aspects and in no way discourages people from making constructive comments without editing the article. I think that both are highly valued and the "be bold" does not affect that. Possibly you or some folks read more into such comments than was intended. North8000 (talk)

[edit] It would be nice to be able to be bold!

Here is a very interesting newspaper article I read recently www.guardian.co.uk/ suggests that actually there is an elitist group of editors who want to try and control wikipedia and do not try and include everyone contributions, notably the new or unregistered user! I have found this out the hard way recently when try to add information to a warship page, when I was simply shunned by the elitist editors, I can see this problem increasing rapidly over the near future! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Henry.pearson (talk • contribs) 08:27, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Seems kind of ironic...

That this page is semi-protected. :) (Of course, I'm sure there are good reasons for it - that it's been vandalised when it was open to anon editing in the past - but surely, if there's one page on Wikipedia which ought to be open for anyone to edit, it's this one?) Robofish (talk) 12:52, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

[edit] WP:SOFIXIT

I'd like to propose the removal (or at least a discussion) over the civility of the usage of the shortcut WP:SOFIXIT. Every time I see it used, it's used in a provocative and insulting manner, and gives the impression that a user simply wishes to ignore your comment. For example, an unfamiliar user asked whether or not an article would have been suitable for FA, and in good faith, I replied that there were many issues with prose and MoS, but that it was, in general, doable. Another editor replied later with a blatant "WP:SOFIXIT." I don't know if it's the all-CAPS, but the term simply makes me feel insulted and that my action was counter-productive.

I'm not going to lose sleep over it, obviously; but this type of wording is definitely detrimental in terms of civility in comparison to simply citing "WP:BOLD" or "WP:BEBOLD". I'm also positive that it deters new users when used. In a nutshell, the term shouldn't be available for usage. _EricLeb⁰¹ (Page | Talk) 01:53, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

It should actually point to Template:Uw-sofixit. I think that's the message that's intended. -- œ^™ 08:31, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

...what should actually point to that template? The message sent with the shortcut is very clear. _EricLeb⁰¹ (Page | Talk) 14:16, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Quote added

I added a quote at the beginning that really reminded me of this policy. It's since been removed, but should it be here? Another one of its merits is that it ties in to Wikiversity, a Foundation sister project which could be better promoted.

Here is the quote:

There was a certain man who had a pearl of inestimable value. It had not been pierced. He went with it from one great city to another searching for a master who could make a hole through it, promising to pay him for the work in advance, but only if he [the artisan] would assume the possibility of doing so without the least bit of damage...None of the greatest masters wanted to undertake the job. Finally the owner was offering 1000 zl for the work, but no one would dare do it. Being unable to think of what to do with this pearl the man went to a certain apprentice whose master was gone from home at the time, and without warning him of the danger of perforating a pearl, said, Take this pearl and drill me a hole through it and I will pay you well for it. The apprentice first took the pearl then drilled a hole through it fearlessly. The man paid him well and, fully satisfied, went on his way. It is just like that here. So many wise men wanted to drill but could not...but I...will drill through everything and will gain everything.

—Jacob Frank, official mascot of sister project Wikiversity, Collection of the Words of the Lord 57. Edited, translated, annotated and with an introduction by Harris Lenowitz

--La comadreja _{formerly AFriedman} RESEARCH (talk) 19:31, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

I've removed the quote, and copied it above (but then editconflicted). I don't believe that this particular quote is especially pertinent here; certainly no more so than many of the other quotes directly on "boldness". (Personally, I like "Whatever you can do or dream you can, begin it. Boldness has genius, power, and magic in it." – Johann Wolfgang von Goethe)

I particularly object to placing it at the top of the page, giving it implicit importance; however I don't think it would be appropriate anywhere in this guideline. You might have more success adding it to v:Wikiversity:Be bold, if he is their "official mascot". HTH. -- Quiddity (talk) 01:41, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

OK. --La comadreja _{formerly AFriedman} RESEARCH (talk) 02:03, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Just do it!

Don't worry, I WP:Bold put in, "Just do it!", BEFORE discussing it on the talk page. But I did notice someone had already made a redirect for WP:Just do it. Maybe someone can help out making the WP:quote at the top larger. I dont know how yet.HkFnsNGA (talk) 20:33, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Redundant

I think this rule is redundant now that this encyclopedia has so many articles. It was useful when this policy meant that many articles would be created and much more content added. But I think that after 10 years of editing, wikipedia has enough boldness as it is. It will only mean more vandalism. I think this gideline should be changed to be careful. Lately i've noticed people have taken boldness to mean recklessness. Someone65 (talk) 08:52, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Damn the torpedoes, or cry havoc?

Which better characterizes WP:BOLD, “Damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead”, or “Cry havoc, and let loose the dogs of war”? PPdd (talk) 07:47, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Wrong title

This page should totally be called 'Be Bald' —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.139.245.45 (talk) 08:24, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Paved with good intentions

Boldly expressing my personal opinion: It's past time for this nominal policy, and this page, to be retired. New editors who aren't familiar with how Wikipedia actually works may follow this advice, to their detriment.

Look at the number of "buts" on this page itself. Look at the arguments here for why "Be bold" really means "Be bold in correcting typos, but ask permission for anything else." Look at the fact that experienced editors' instinctive reaction to a new editor complaining is "You must have done something wrong." Look at how often this is cited as a cute "civil" way of telling someone to shut up when they raise an argument for why something is wrong on a talk page, as embodied in the condescending pejorative SOFIXIT (and I challenge anyone to come up with a constructive rather than derogatory reason to address someone with SOFIXIT). Hell, look at the fact that editors ~are~ well-advised to first raise arguments for why something is wrong - because otherwise, they'll simply be reverted out of hand by the page owner(s) and told to "discuss non-minor changes first."

This page served a genuinely noble purpose when Wikipedia wasn't a bureaucratic monolith. Now, it's only a relic that leads to new editors getting bitten out of hand if they try to follow its advice. 98.237.211.114 (talk) 15:30, 21 March 2011 (UTC)