Wikipedia talk:Be bold/Archive 2

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

I take issue with the header quotation of "Amateurs built the Ark, and professionals built the Titanic". First off, it has no relevance to the topic of this article. The article is talking about taking initiative in editing existing articles not creating new articles. Secondly, the quotation is misleading in that it compares fiction to fact. Just because a fictional person successfully designed and built a fictional boat that allegedly transported 2 of animal to a hilltop and some real engineers built a boat which sank does not imply that an average joe on the street can acomplish a difficult task. If people feel a quotation is necessary, it should be replaced with something like "Your opionion counts too!" to let people know that, if they disagree with the spelling, phrasing, or POV of an article, they should feel empowered enough to fix or comment of the topic. Beakerboy 21:22, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I reverted the edit, but that was before I saw that you had posted this (next time, please add a mention to your summary that there will be discussion on the talk page).

I think it should remain as it embodies the spirit of the guideline: just because you aren't a professional doesn't mean you have no chance (in this case, successfully adding to the encyclopedia). The fact that it compares fiction to reality is irrelevant, especially given the fact that, to many, the Ark is not fiction. EVula 21:41, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Regardless of the Ark's tangibility, I agree with Beakerboy's comments. It is a nice quote, but inappropriate in this context. BigNate37_(T) 22:00, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Titanic quote

What is the purpose of this quote? Its removal is apparently contested, but I think its existence has yet to be justified. It is a rather odd quote, in my opinion. Who's it by? What POV is it trying to project? I, for example, do not believe in the mythology of the Ark and don't find the point being made about amateurs particularly deep. I am sure policies and guidelines can be illustrated better than with parables. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 23:18, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

This is actually being discussed right now at the top of the talk page, under #Header Quotation. Looks like I'm being overridden on this one, which is a damn shame, but c'est la vie. EVula 23:37, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Ah, missed that. I'll move this section up there. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 23:43, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I think 'don't be shy' sounds better than 'be bold.' To me, be bold sounds a little funny and people may think of it kind of awkwardly. But don't be shy to make contributions sounds more understandable and is used in our daily lives more. don't be shy to get something to drink people will say a lot for instance. But they don't say BE BOLD, get something to drink. Just a suggestion on how to make wikipedia a more lucid environment.

Since it's an interesting idea to also have

Wikipedia:Don't be shy we now do! ;) LinaMishima

15:51, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Be timid!

And I'm only half joking.

I understand the thought behind this guideline. In an ideal world, no, even in a pretty good world, it would be wonderful advice for all. It's excellent advice for a great number of people — perhaps even myself, though to claim this would be arrogant in view of my gut feeling that it's the wrong advice to hand out too eagerly.

Glasgow, which I believe was once a pretty good article, is now a mess. It's not as bad as it might be partly because it was pretty good, and partly because a number of people have been busily patching up after moderately bold attempts to "improve" it by at least one well-intentioned but underprepared person. I'm only glad that he's not bolder. True, he hasn't been bold in the sense of refactoring the whole thing, but he's been bold in saying what he, as a Glaswegian (I think), knows to be true.

I didn't write this to knock the guy. He's just one case among many. In principle, yes, one could say that by pointing out that boldness must go hand in hand with NPoV, sourcing, etc., one avoids these risks. In practice, though, a significant number of people may read and digest what they want to, and no more; this can lead to a great amount of time being wasted by others.

I don't suggest that this guideline should be scrapped. But I do suggest that people should think thrice before urging it on a brand new editor. It does not belong in a welcome message. — Hoary 11:07, 2005 May 25 (UTC)

Well, it does say "be bold but not reckless". What it should really say is "be bold, but stop being bold if everyone disagrees with you." it's a matter of not being afraid of screwing up the page because it can always be reverted. It's not a matter of pushing your viewpoint on everyone. — Omegatron 13:56, May 25, 2005 (UTC)

Yes, but what I'd like is "Stop, think, consider; remember that (i) this is an encyclopedia, not your soapbox even for what you may think is self-evident, and (ii) even what you're sure of could be wrong. Make few, tiny changes of which you are as confident as possible. Then make slightly more changes, or slightly bigger ones. Work only very slowly toward boldness." But that would be silly, really. After all, the people whose work suggests that they need such advice probably wouldn't read it. Much simpler: just don't go out of your way to urge people to be bold. — Hoary 14:51, 2005 May 25 (UTC)

I actually thought "but don't be reckless" should have covered this. Not listening to other viewpoints and ignoring other editors' edits is a form of recklessness. This advice helps most newcomers out there, I was a newbie once myself, started back half a year ago was still rather "timid".

For the Glaswegian editor, try sitting down with him, explain the problem of his edits and find a way to fix and go around with the article would be good. Learning and understanding from mistakes would enable him to come out as a better editor. —

Mailer Diablo

20:37, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Yes, yes, all true . . . but oh so time-consuming. I'll attempt to muster the necessary courage for doing some more thinking about a "Be timid!" campaign — which, of course, I would start only very timidly, if at all. — Hoary 01:22, 2005 May 26 (UTC)

I would like to register an objection to the promotion of this "Be Bold" policy as it stands. In general it's a worthy sentiment, but I believe it has more of a negative than a positive influence over disputes that involve Wikipedia's best articles. These articles, most but not all of which are enshrined as "Featured Articles", are often the result of long and careful collaboration, after which they have arrived at a high level of prose quality, detail, balance and optimal thematic progression. More and more we see editors, often new editors who tend to overestimate their current research and writing skills, leaping into Featured Articles (and other high quality pieces) and carrying out major overhauls. When challenged, their most frequent response is something like "I thought we were supposed to be bold!". And typically they go on to resist all efforts to scale back their overhauls, and not infrequently they are defended by Admins who perhaps have not given enough thought to the ramifications here. First, we have a serious downgrading of article quality. Second, and maybe as important, we have many topnotch editors who see their careful, recognized work thus scrambled and who then scale back their participation or leave the project altogether. Over time this will tend to make the pool of editors topheavy with bold but mediocre contributors, while the mature talents have moved on to less frustrating pastures. I implore Wikipedia Administrators and leading editors to take this problem seriously and to propose steps to counteract it. At a minimum, there should be forceful language on this page regarding major overhauls of Featured Articles. Discussion on Talk pages before such overhauls should be policy, and where there is a dispute there should be a presumption in favor of reversion. Other possibilities: an interstitial page that appears whenever the Save button is hit on a FA and the edit is anything other than an addition, with language urging conservatism in changes to FA; template language on FA Talk pages containing a specific caveat to "Be Bold" for FA pages, and similar… Perhaps this comment should have been made on the Talk page of this guideline page, but I opted to place it here because I believe the problem is quite pressing. I have no objection to moving this to Talk, but I would like to see proposed changes to this page straight off. JDG 21:56, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Just point them to the

Wikipedia:Be_bold_in_updating_pages#…but don't be reckless! section. Also, follow the same guideline when editing this page. :-) - Omegatron

15:21, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)

Unfortunately, no one cares if you relegate that part to the lower parts of the article. The best way is to change article title to Be Bold (…not Reckless) in updating pages. Mandel 13:41, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Boldly update, where noman has updated before! —Aperculum 18:23, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Whose version should stand? The one Monicasdude keeps reverting to or the one I keep reverting to? I've asked for assistance at

19:24, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

What are you talking about? I've never heard of either of you before until this war showed up on my watchlist. If you want to change a guideline that's been unchanged for a year, you need to get a consensus on the talk page first. Revert warring, especially a guideline, extra especially when changing it to a version that supports your position in another dispute, will get you nowhere.

Show respect for

Guidelines, as they already carry the weight of consensus and almost always embody careful, finely tuned writing. — Omegatron

20:17, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

This, on my end anyway, is most emphatically not about the Dylan article. It is about respect for Featured Articles and finding ways to moderate major, undiscussed changes to them. Notwithstanding Mdude's assertions to the contrary, I have been advocating this long before the Dylan controversy. In any event, I will take your musings as 1 vote for Mdude's version. JDG 21:57, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Count them as one vote against your behavior (and apparent conspiracy theory attitude). I have no affiliation with either person's version.

So you're saying that users should not be bold when editing featured articles? Why not? I don't see how it applies any less or more to them. — Omegatron 22:28, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

No, you apparently don't see why. Let's try a trite analogy, Otron. Let's travel back many years and posit a gradeschool age Otron happily playing on the beach. Nearby, a gradeschool age Mdude, unacquainted with young master Otron, runs in and out of the surf. Just a few minutes back, young Mdude had been weeping from the effects of parental discipline: he had been running up the shoreline de-implanting people's sun umbrellas and flinging them into the tide. When the lifeguards returned him to his parents he yelled "But the umbrellas looked so pretty in the water! It's, it's a better ocean!" His punishment was to sit still on a beach chair for five minutes. At three minutes his mother was so moved, she gave him a snow cone to regale the remaining two minutes. It was about then that young Otron, a future engineer, began his sand castle. A minute later young Mdude was back zig-zagging along the surf, eventually zagging into the immediate vicinity of Otron. At this point Otron hadn't completed even one round tower. This was fortunate because at that moment Mdude said to himself "I will help him!". Help, to Mdude, meant he would demolish the existing structure, then sit beside Otron and construct the main castle while overseeing Otron's work on a few outbuildings. To Mdude, this was self-evidently the way it was to be done if a superior sand castle were to have any hope of rising. So Mdude halted next to Otron, said "Hi!", and drew back his foot to throw it through the one nascent sand tower. Otron, a quick boy, thought about seizing Mdude's ankle but said to himself "Achhh, I've hardly done anything yet. Why risk a fight over this?" (Otron felt confident he would prevail in such a contest, but maybe not without some contact, and he was prone to long nosebleeds). So flew Mdude's foot… Now fast rewind to the end of Mdude's ocean-improvement punishment. He's lapping up the last of his snow cone. But this time Otron had been at work for close to two hours already on his sand castle, nay, sand village. The castle was at the center, its tallest turret closer to the sun than Otron could jump. Eighteen windows, elongated arches with ledges, graced this turret alone. I could go on. The detail was stunning. It was a vista unto itself. It seemed a shame no sand people could be animated there, it was such a beautifully made place to live, complete with reflecting pools and a zoo with elephants and giraffes. Now up steps Mdude. He says "Hi!" and draws back his foot. Otron barely thinks about seizing the ankle before he does!

Omegatron: WHY? JDG 06:33, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I've read this three times and I still don't know what the hell you're talking about.

You should be bold in editing articles whether in the main namespace or the Wikipedia: namespace, including guidelines and featured articles, but not reckless. If someone reverts your changes you need to discuss it with them on the talk page and get a consensus going instead of revert warring. Please read

Three-revert rule

.

(How did you know I'm prone to nosebleeds?) — Omegatron 23:04, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

Jeeeeesh. Nevermind. JDG 01:10, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I removed the listing from Wikipedia:Third opinion because as I understand it, in the dispute between JDG and Monicasdude, a third opinion has already been given on this page. Once a third opinion is given, the listing should be removed, as per Wikipedia:Third opinion. JYolkowski gave his above, as has Omegatron. If you want another third opinion, you can have mine. I don't think a guidleine page should be edited to make a point in a dispute. If you seek to protect featured articles from the being bold guideline then you should make a proposal and list it on RFC and the village pump. I will now remove this listing from third opinion's once again, as I have given a third opinion.

If you want to amend the content of

, then we can put together a proposal and get it listed and build consensus.

JDG, is this a fair summary of what you would like to have added to the page?

Featured Articles are articles which have been edited to such an extent that the wikipedia community believe they are of the highest standard. Therefore major edits to these pages should be discussed on the featured article's talk page before being enacted. However, this should not stop you correcting minor mistakes. Hiding 09:04, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hiding, I did not consider the statements by JYolkowski and Omegatron to be "third opinions" as such, because they centered on a procedural point (whether my changes to the guideline were prudent while a relevant article dispute was ongoing), rather than centering on the merits of the changes themselves. Your own statement also centers on this procedural point (personally I see nothing wrong with editing a guideline during a dispute– that's when the issues are freshest in the mind and every edit to guidelines and policies is a form of advocacy anyway, does it matter so much how close in time they are to related disputes?).

So, you can consider these "third opinions" if you like, but it would be much more satisfying to see opinions on the merits… Also, your summary is a good one. What do you plan to do with it? JDG 09:36, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Well, if everyone else in the dispute feels it accurately sums up the position, it could be made into a proposal. Until that point, do not edit the

Wikipedia:Be bold in updating pages to prove a point, and third opinions weighed in on that point. No-one discussed the merits of your changes because you never gave them an opportunity. Please note, you should not discount or disregard third opinions that you have sought simply because they do not reflect your position. Hiding

10:41, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

"As for the third opinions, the point in dispute was whether you were right to edit Wikipedia:Be bold in updating pages to prove a point, and third opinions weighed in on that point. No-one discussed the merits of your changes because you never gave them an opportunity." How's that? I'm the one who called for a third opinion, and I asked the opinion to be on which version should stand, Mdude's or mine. I said nothing about whether I ought to have made any edit because I firmly believe there's nothing wrong with someone in a dispute working on relevant guidelines and poilicies. How did I not give an opportunity? That's the only opportunity I thought I was giving... Anyway, I won't edit

Wikipedia:Be bold in updating pages for the nonce and, yes, I would like to see your summation made into a proposal. Who takes what step from here? JDG

16:02, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• But Mdude's version is the original version, so you were basically asking if you were right in altering it, which is what you were given an opinion on. As for turning the summation into a proposal, you can propose it if you so wish. Hiding 18:24, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Well it seems I have an objection to everything you say. Sorry 'bout that, but I can only say what I think. I don't believe my edit of Be Bold at all equates to the sorts of edits I am saying one should not make lightly and without discussion. For one thing, the Be Bold page isn't a FA. More importantly, my edit to it was very limited– basically an expansion of two sentences and a small additional sentence to another paragraph. This can in no way be called an "overhaul", and my main beef is with people who trundle in and perform all-at-once, undiscussed overhauls to FAs. Plus, I did discuss proposed changes on this Talk page first. So, no, I was not basically asking if I was right to alter Be Bold. It's totally separate from the issue of massive, undiscussed changes to FAs. I was asking if my alteration should stand on its own merits. The only person who had a problem with it for upwards of a week was Mdude, who, it should be clear by now, was pressing his own agenda at least as much as any I was pressing... Also, you had been saying "we" can put together a proposal, list it and build consensus. Now you seem to be backing off from involvement, saying I can go ahead if I wish. I would appreciate your help and support with it, if you still feel you can give it. JDG 18:39, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Nevermind, I've just gone past that line. Good luck with the project. That inevitable handoff to the second generation has come. JDG 01:20, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I think saying that large changes to sensitive articles isn't a great idea without research (same as it says deletions aren't) is ok. (Really that advice is good for such changes to any pages.) I don't think FAs need singling out in particular though. Dan100 (Talk) 16:25, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

I would like to suggest the following clarification to the policy:

"Be Bold" is encouragement to be creative in finding new, untried solutions. It is not permission to persist with things that have already been tried and failed to gain consensus support.

I think this clarification might help minimize the abuse of the policy by people who want to claim that "Be bold" means they get to do anything they want. — Antaeus Feldspar 22:41, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

This is a page for newcomers. We don't need to hit them over the head. Dan100 (Talk) 11:26, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

This is a page intended for newcomers. There's a difference. — Antaeus Feldspar 11:45, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

I support Antaeus's addition to the guideline. Please add it.JDG 06:20, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

I am considering adding a sentence or so more or less that the "Be bold" principle applies to articles, but less so to the Wikipedia namespace. Thoughts? Maurreen (talk) 19:46, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

I have again restored the long-existing guideline. As user:Omegatron said not so long ago in an earlier round of this dispute, " If you want to change a guideline that's been unchanged for a year, you need to get a consensus on the talk page first. Revert warring, especially a guideline, extra especially when changing it to a version that supports your position in another dispute, will get you nowhere. Show respect for Guidelines, as they already carry the weight of consensus and almost always embody careful, finely tuned writing." Monicasdude 09:32, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

I do not recognize you or Omegatron as authorities. My changes have merit to me. Those who dispute that merit may do so, and if the consensus is against me I will relent. You are simply another editor, not a one-person project-wide consensus, as you seem to see yourself as. Guidelines are not FA, and my simple one-sentence addition is not at all comparable to the radical all-at-once overhauls you try to equate it with. Also, your anon reversions are becoming too numerous to keep pawning off as "inadvertent". Instead, they are looking like intentional acts to subvert the 3RR. Any more anon reversions from this point will be considered grounds for new formal mediation. JDG 15:08, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

You propose this over and over; each time there's no consensus for your version. You keep bringing it back without complying with the specifically applicable guideline calling for prior talk activity and consensus before altering the page. Stop posting personal abuse, don't post threats, and comply with Wikipedia standards. Monicasdude 15:19, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

There is no greater consensus for "your" version. That a guideline sat idle for months is no consensus. Please cite the "specifically applicable guideline" you refer to. Stop pleading "personal abuse" as editors go about their business. I am tired of feeling embarrassed for you. Above all, engage on the merits. JDG 15:41, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

The specifically applicable guideline is at the top of the project page. You should comply with it. Monicasdude 15:44, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Ah,that is what you mean by "specifically applicable guideline": " Feel free to update the page as needed, but please use the discussion page to propose major changes." It does not apply to my small, decidedly non-major edit. Sorry. My edit doesn't even change or delete anything, it is a tiny addition that can in no sense be called a "major change". Now, please, engage on the merits or master your itchy-revert-finger. JDG 15:51, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

We have a standoff. I believe the guideline should contain these sentences:

Finally, as a general rule, think twice or thrice before making major, undiscussed changes to Featured Articles, as they usually carry a significant weight of consensus and almost always embody careful, finely tuned writing. Additions to these articles can be made with the same level of care used for any article, but changes to existing text and deletions should not be made lightly nor without Talk page activity.

Monicasdude doesn't. Please sign with ~~~~.

For the sentences in question:

1. JDG 08:57, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
2. Breathstealer 09:14, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
3. --Coolcaesar 09:43, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
4. support a call to be careful with major undiscussed changes in FA's. --Irpen 05:34, September 6, 2005 (UTC)

Against the sentences in question:

1. Be Bold and saw that it was under dispute. I think that this proposed addition doesn't add any more clarity than the "...but don't be reckless!" section. The extant text seems explanatory enough. [NightMonkey, I ask you to reconsider. The "don't be reckless" section as it exists now limits itself to long articles on controversial topics. A top-notch Featured Article on a non-controversial topic should also be radically changed only after discussion, don't you think? My sentences address this. JDG
   00:14, 6 September 2005 (UTC)]
2. I can empathize with the sentiment, but the proposal is too strong for my taste. And by the way, that's actually two sentences. Maurreen (talk) [Maureen, I would be interested in the way you would express the sentiment for this guideline. Would you oblige? JDG 00:14, 6 September 2005 (UTC)]
3. jguk 11:08, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
4. Not necessary. Such articles are very visible anyway. Radiant_>|< 14:43, September 4, 2005 (UTC) [Radiant, I fail to see what "visibility" has to do with it. We are talking about slowing down people who jump into FAs and radically change them, with no discussion. JDG 00:14, 6 September 2005 (UTC)]
5. Monicasdude 16:27, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
6. Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 17:47, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
7. While I agree with JDG's sentiment (that making big changes to a featured article is usually a bad thing to do), I agree with Nightmonkey that it's already covered by the "don't be reckless" part of this rule. →Raul654 00:04, September 6, 2005 (UTC) [But, Raul, as I note in my comment to Nightmonkey, the "don't be reckless" section specifically limits itself to controversial topics! JDG 00:14, 6 September 2005 (UTC)]

   I've gone ahead and included in the reckless section a comment about featured articles. Is that satisfactory? →Raul654 00:20, September 6, 2005 (UTC)

   Yes! Excellent. Would you consider amending your comment to include a mention of the need to discuss changes to FA beforehand? Something like "In addition, making large-scale, undiscussed changes to Featured articles, which are recognized as Wikipedia's best articles for their completeness, accuracy, and neutrality, is often a bad idea." Even if you decline to add this, your addition to the guideline is sufficient for me and if the editor who was revert warring will now desist I think the editing block may as well be lifted. JDG 00:37, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

   I don't agree that there's a need to proscribe discussion in advance - IMHO, it's fine as-is. →Raul654 00:39, September 6, 2005 (UTC)

8. I agree that prior discussion is an unreasonable requirement to impose. I have seen reasonable and productive changes made to featured articles without prior discussion and to the benefit of the article. As a matter of policy, I'd rather not add mandatory overhead to that, which may preclude such edits. Just as is the case anywhere else in wikipedia, people should undertake the good faith efforts on both sides to hash out issues and improve the article collaboratively. Prior consent or discussion does not itself guarantee that good faith will be established with the new members of the editing community for a particular article, who are essential to the viability of Wikipedia. If, on the other hand, people quickly step up and clearly state the substance of their objections, then you're much more likely to keep the article intact and its editing community healthy. Buffyg 10:48, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

   I strongly disagree, especially in cases where another Wikipedian is asking to discuss. Obviously it would be different on a low-traffic article where a potential overhauler cannot even flag down anybody's attention. Raul654's proposed addition is a good start, and I plan to press this in other policies and perhaps its own policy, including a strong recommendation to talk beforehand when there are other active editors. JDG 13:17, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

   As is the case with any other article if you end up with a dispute, you take it to the talk page. If you don't see a response on the article talk page, go to the user's talk page. If that fails, you ask for page protection. What I think would be useful would be some additional mechanisms within wikipedia to help mediate contentious editing. Specifically:

• The entry cannot be directly edited.
• A parallel page exists for editing purposes.
• Changes made to body of the parallel page are automatically propagated to the article after one day. Tag changes and interwiki links to the parallel page are propagated after one hour.
• The edit button on the entry takes you to the parallel page, which allows you to edit but explains the editing process.
• The parallel page has a cumulative diff view that lets you see all pending changes (the last twenty-four hours), the editors for the changes, and when they were committed to the parallel page.
• A revert viewer in the same diff view that shows you where you've have diffs reverted, who's done the reverts, and when (including repeated reverts).
• The entry and the parallel page share a talk page.
• Two reverts to the parallel page without citing vandalism or an accompanying entry on the talk page, referenced in the edit comments results in a 36 hour ban from editing the parallel page, including reverts. Three misidentifications of vandalism (i.e. calling content disputes vandalism) in a month, and you're banned from reverting the page for a week. (No gaming the system!)
• You should get this automatically if you're an FA or after or in lieu of a page protection request.
• Expedited resolution process by way of "lesser" mediation, along the lines of a third opinion pool, managed by a pool of admins. You are free to appeal, but the caveat would be that appeals over user conduct can be contested and blocked by the handler of the third opinion if they believe you have outstanding issues of good faith or civility (i.e. you must go to Canossa first; no gaming the system over these conduct fundamentals, whether you are the accused or the accuser). In cases of bad faith editing (i.e. unsupported changes), the lesser mediator can refer you to can refer you to "lesser" arbitration, which can ban you from editing an entry for up to one month, with one week being the preferred restriction. All of these mechanisms are for behaviour or content issues specific to a single entry. Other dispute mechanisms that believe that conduct or content entries are effectively specific to an entry can require disputing parties to use these mechanisms first. It would be nice if we had a capacity for private exchange pages between mediators and disputings parties so that we didn't have to resort to IRC.

1. The results I would anticipate are: no one can opt out of discussion, vandalism does not immediately propagate to articles, people can make changes with or without having to give prior justification, watching articles becomes easier because you can pop in daily and see at a stroke all activity for an entry you're watching, and some of the stress on the dispute resolution process (which I find overloaded and unclear, often allowing problems to fester). This would, of course, require a non-zero chunk of developer time. Buffyg 14:33, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Wow, some great ideas in there Buffy. I'm considering scaling my wikiactivity way back (all this fussing and fighting is of very questionable value-- if people like Mdude are going to run rampant, so be it…the project will self-heal eventually). If I decide to stay active, though, I'll be studying ways to get your proposals enacted. JDG 15:13, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

I didn't notice that this was a protected page. Ok, so to everyone here - does anyone disagree with this change? If not, I'm going to add it back in 24 hours. →Raul654 01:12, September 6, 2005 (UTC)

Would you consider not adding this change in light of its potential for abuse in the hands of a stubborn editor like user:JDG, who wants to use it to "claim ownership" over articles and deter others from contributing? I'm not the only editor he's been trying to push out of his "territory"; e.g., "The primary author of this long-Featured article is GWO. I have been the secondary author. We will need more than the whim of Zoso Jade and TacoDeposit to overturn this long accepted intro paragraph. Reinstating references. JDG 00:04, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)." Monicasdude 01:23, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Mdude, someday you'll understand the difference between a longtime contributing editor exercising a balanced care for the ongoing quality of an article and a truly antisocial editor who "claims ownership". An example of the former addresses you this moment; an example of the latter is as close as the nearest mirror. JDG 02:36, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

I believe you should review the "no personal attacks" policy and the "no ownership" policy." Monicasdude 00:22, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

You accuse me of being an editor who "claims ownership". I accuse you of being an editor who "claims ownership". But somehow I am the only one making a "personal attack". More MLogic^tm. JDG 03:11, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

I don't see the same potential for abuse that you do. To use the example you cite, changing a paragraph does not really qualify as "large-scale changes" in my opinion. For that matter, as you point out, there's already a policy specifically that covers this sort ouf situation (the no ownership policy) that prohibits that sort of not-made-here mentality. →Raul654 01:47, September 6, 2005 (UTC)

I still disagree with the change, which I don't think will surprise anybody. As the editing disputes that I and others have had with the editor who's repeatedly pushed for a change (never coming close to consensus support) of this sort show, it's, unfortunately, more likely to be used to abuse the editing process than to improve articles. I also think it doesn't take into account the way an FA can change after the initial designation, and an underlying process -- would, necessarily, an article still have been accepted by consensus as an FAif the designation carried more constrictive criteria about future editing? Monicasdude 00:22, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

There's nothing "constrictive" (btw, though "constrictive" is a word, "constricting" is probably what you wanted-- I don't note this just to be a wiseguy: it's an example of the kind of thing you do to articles). Raul's addition urges care. It would only be constricting to ego-driven self-proclaimed experts who want to barge in and totally overhaul an existing FA in one undiscussed shot. Sound familiar? JDG 03:41, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

I agree with JDG on this one. We're not restricting anyone, just letting them know that making massive changes on articles we have already cited for their qualities is often [but not always] a detrimental thing. →Raul654 02:43, September 8, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks Raul (Mark). Sorry about all the bickering connected with this. Hopefully it's over now. JDG 04:29, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Does anyone know if there is some sort of group or official Association that has this policy as it's base? Something analogous to a Wikipedia:JETFA Association (Just Edit the [Pick the "F-ing" of your choice] Article Association)? It would serve to let people know the preference of editing an article instead of simply tagging it with {{wikify}} or {{cleanup}}. Hopefully this would cut down on the number of tagged articles (which is thousands and thousands at this point). Thoughts? —Lord Voldemort ^{(Dark Mark)} 20:44, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Everyone says be bold (litterally) but I often find my edits reversed. Yeah, I'm fairly new, and everyone's polite, but there still is a bit of descrpeency, or so it seems. As i get better, this may stop. Anyone else got this sensation? HereToHelp 01:28, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

That's because if your edits are not clearly an improvement, or worse, a "de-provement", obviously your edits will get reverted. People are allergic to poor edits. Temper your edit with be bold but only if you know what you are doing. Mandel 13:16, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Although I have experience with wikis in general, I have little experience with wikipedia, so take this with a grain of salt. That being said, I disagree with Mandel that "be bold but only if you know what you are doing" is an optimal policy for wiki. Many people new to wiki are too timid to make many or even any edits at all, because they are unsure if they know what they are doing, and countering that fear is one of the purposes of "Be Bold".

In your specific case, I think it is possible that the be bold policy is not in conflict with the fact that your edits are often reverted. That is, yes, you were bold, and yes, the edits were reverted -- and that is exactly what was supposed to happen. Most newcomers get reverted a few times. In doing so, you learned more about how to write the kind of content that the wikipedia community wants. Eventually you will become a seasoned wikipedian and will contribute content that will not get reverted. This makes it worth it to you to spend the time on those first few edits, even knowing that they may get reverted, and it makes it worth it for others to spend the time reverting your content. Bayle Shanks 00:34, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

That's my question: what happened with the Status Quo? Why has been removed from the page (See [1])? Was there a discussion or something that permited that to be done? I would like to tell you that the Status Quo guideline has been used with some good results in many edit wars, why does it no longer exist? I'm not going to put it again, so don't be afraid, but I'm still curious about it. Maybe, after some discussion we could reinsert the Status Quo paragraph, but only after discussing it. —Neigel von Teighen 20:04, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

The Be Bold policy has been used so often, I think now is the time for a "Verify your facts before you update" policy. Reason? So many articles on literature, sports, music etc. that I have seen have so much controversial stuffs going on that seemed just added impromptu. People use the "Be Bold" policy for being lazy. It's not a matter of NPOV, but a matter of how much you bother to confirm something before you update. For instance, there are many people who added controversial entries of stream of consciousness works (even Bob Dylan). If you are not sure at all, it's better to make a mention in the talk page rather than "be bold" and contribute garbage to Wikipedia. Mandel 09:36, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Half a month, and no reply?

As a newby here, it strikes me that all of the various opportunities to contribute - article, discussion/talk, etc. - provide a swirl of interaction. Like a variation of the entropy in Brownian movement, we reach a steady state of discussion intensity on a subject, if only for a given time. Interest wanes, the more vigorous or persuasive or authoritative prevail, and on we go to another area of interest. Different levels of mental and emotional discipline are seen: some use the talk page well, asking others to vet their contribution, and then they move it into the article. Others do not. But wikipedia is not a zero-sum game, nor is its rest entropy level zero: it achieves a non-zero steady state, fueled by the interests and passions of its contributors, and that is its charm and achievement.

Some interesting aspects are the attribution that accompanies each contribution, and the tone of the instructions for the site. Both sponsor civility and accountability. That may be the greatest contribution to wikipedia's vitality.BillBlask 15:19, 13 December 2005 (UTC)BillBlask

I am not a wikipedia old-timer but I'd like to say I agree strongly with Mandel, and I think something along the lines which he suggests should be added to this page. This is an encyclopaedia, of sorts. It is important not to write something in an encyclopaedia which has not been verified. Since there are "talk" pages available, there is no reason not to put your contribution on a talk page until someone has the time to verify it and promote it into the encyclopaedia. Bayle Shanks 00:41, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I see an edit war in which both sides are claiming consensus for the version they are reverting to, and no discussion on the talk page. I've protected the page. With no discussion, where does this "consensus" both sides are claiming come from? —Carnildo 22:17, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

There's been an ongoing dispute on this guideline, over the extent to which what sort of changes should call for talk page activity before the changes can be implemented, and which set of articles such a standard should apply to. Proposals to change the existing guideline, brought forward under the existing policy/practice of requiring Talk activity and consensus before making any significant alteration to the guideline have failed. Most recently, in September, a proposal requiring Talk activity/consensus before major changes to Featured Articles failed by roughly a 2:1 margin. The change under dispute was first added on October 20 by user:Mandel, without complying with the page guideline calling for prior discussion. The change would apply a requirement for prior Talk activity before major changes to any article. I think it is fair to say that the resolution of the September proposal, with a clear majority of editors finding such a requirement too drastic to apply to Featured Articles, also shows a consensus against applying a similar requirement to the entire universe of Wikipedia articles. With that background, I don't believe the guideline should be changed without the sort of notice, discussion and opportunities to participate in discussion that accompanied previous proposals. This change was initially made without even an edit summary. [For background, see in particular section 9 ("Poll") on this talk page as well as sections 3, 4, 5, and 8. Monicasdude 22:58, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Carnildo. Both sides keep saying(I paraphrase slightly), "There's no consensus against what I'm doing. Stop reverting me." However, there was no consensus to make the change they keep arguing either. There was no consensus either way. This means we default to the version before the change. For policies and guidelines, (quite in contrast to the spirit of "Be bold", which is for articles), there must be consensus before adding something major. It is not acceptable to add something then try to keep it there, which is what happened here. As far as I can tell, no changes following this revision have been proposed on talk. The change being argued about was first made here, I believe. As you can see, there is not even an edit summary. Therefore, I think we should revert to the aforementioned revision. Then, changes can be proposed on talk, and if they gain broad consensus(not 2-1), then they can be implemented.

Talk

03:28, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree with this 100%. In the heat of the argument, I lost what should have been a central point, that I'm supporting an existing guideline, not proposing any change. Thank you for stating this argument so much more clearly than I did. Monicasdude 03:37, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm probably rehashing arguments above, but it seems to me that if an article is reasonably complete (and I don't mean only FA's) and has stabilized over a long period of time (let's say six months), major reworks should be cleared in the discussion area first. It's hurtful to the craft of an article's earlier drafters to have all the work drastically changed without a discussion of the proposed changes first. I think the Wikipedia will drive away many of its best editors if in cases of major, stabilized work, it can be drastically changed without involving the previous editors. In law, we have precedent, and in an encyclopedia, it seems to me, we should have some sort of respect for longstanding material. This is not to say that article upheavals should not take place, but only that those who want to make such major changes should do so in a civil, respectful manner. —

20:35, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

I've encountered this problem on RC patrol stevie. I see a page that has been well established, and looking at the history I see many contributors have combined to make a good article. Then, an anonymous editor rewrites the whole thing in an apparently NPOV manner. The question is, its such a big upheaval, and I am faced with the question - do I revert? Usually I would, and explain to the anon that big changes to an article that is considered good, need to be discussed on the talk page first, as the anon's edit may not appear to be in consensus with anything that the previous editors agreed on. Yours and anyone elses thoughts on this? --Knucmo2 08:47, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

In its current form, it is about being cautious in making edits to the policy pages in the user space. You may want to join in at Wikipedia talk:Be cautious. --Gurubrahma 09:05, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

I was just reading this page and noticed the line, "If someone writes an inferior article, a merely humorous article, an article stub, or outright patent nonsense, don't worry about his/her feelings." Don't worry about his/her feelings? What? What about

) 02:47, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree this sentence should be reformulated; a majority of people do understand, but lots don't read each and every gideline published. Marf3 21:37, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

• I reworded it to say "don't worry that editing it might hurt their feelings". Obviously we have to follow
  WP:BITE et. al. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS
  ) 08:10, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

No no no i dont belive any of this junk no way all lies i looked it up in 100 different sourses dont belive it no no no

Should I be bold?…

…because whenever I have been "bold", I got f—ed over by the Government fiends here. Isn't that what should not happen? -Alex, 12.220.157.93 20:01, 14 February 2006 (UTC).

True. Whenever I make bold edits, they are reverted by administrators. Maybe it's because of my name... The Republican 02:16, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

If you really want to be bold, you can revert vandalism yourself. That's what I do nowadays, since I don't have anymore articles to edit. Funnybunny 02:54, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Eh, how could I be bold if some admin is as bold to delete an innocent stub I make? --Arny 10:25, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Sue sue sue just sue the dam goverment god —by unsigned

Being bold can help get things done quicker, but there's no guarantee that anyone else, including the admins, will agree with you and not revert your edit. If you're bold, you would continue to be bold and keep contributing. However, you can always discuss with the admin if you think you have a point. Shawnc 15:28, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

I have some experience with wikis, but little with wikipedia, so take my opinion with a grain of salt. I have basically the same answer here as I had above, in "Practice and Preach". I'll copy it (see next paragraph), but first, to give a straightforward answer to your question "whenever I have been "bold", I got f—ed over by the Government fiends here. Isn't that what should not happen?": no, that actually is what should happen -- "be bold" means don't be afraid to make a suggestion initially -- but ultimately, you are supposed to defer to the consensus of more experienced community members.

Yes, you were bold, and yes, the edits were reverted -- and that is exactly what was supposed to happen. Most newcomers get reverted a few times. In doing so, you learned more about how to write the kind of content that the wikipedia community wants. Eventually you will become a seasoned wikipedian and will contribute content that will not get reverted. This makes it worth it to you to spend the time on those first few edits, even knowing that they may get reverted, and it makes it worth it for others to spend the time reverting your content. Bayle Shanks 00:47, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Ok, BUT, I got reverted twice, before what I wanted on the article page was worked out, consensually. This caused me bad feeling, as a new person. Isnt the 3RR rule something to be considered? Or do I misunderstand the 3RR. If I as a new person make a section addition, and it has some value to the page, shouldn't some of what I added, remain? I mean it all worked out great, I am just wondering about in general. I am just trying to understand the bounds of adding to a front page and discussing it first. --Liaison1 23:44, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

16:16, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

OK, but I've seen several articles get into a right mess because people pile into general topics adding stuff which is has already been covered much better in more focused articles elsewhere. Maybe the point is that adding a well-chosen link may be better than adding a lot more text. Myopic Bookworm 16:47, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

PS My sentence is back in again after I reverted some deletion-vandalism: if Superm401 actually edited the article, then I don't know where that version went. Myopic Bookworm 23:10, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I didn't edit the article (or say I did :) ). I do think that addition should be removed, but I wanted to discuss it first. This is really general editing advice beyond the scope of BOLD. Your concern is covered well at

Talk

20:10, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the pointer: I hadn't stumbled across that page yet. Myopic Bookworm 10:11, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

...But not too bold. Maybe there should be another article under that title, "but not too bold"; as some people tend to get over excited or over "bold" and just start deleting or reverting things. Basically, an article on what you should know, before you go bold. Or, you could just link to the wikipedia guidelines / first-article tutorials. That would work. —This

) .

User:Kim Bruning, you removed the following section added by me:

BOLD, revert, discuss

Bold edits often result in a

WP:NOTABILITY

.

The reason given was: rm section which actually runs counter to be bold. (that is "be timid"))

So let's discuss!

The section was not added as part of being bold but offered as reasons to be not quite that bold in order to maximize the chance of an edit succeeding. Just like the preceding section (...but not too bold). This is not about being timid, it's about making stronger edits.

If you remove the new section as targeting whimps, you should also remove the equally timid ...but not too bold section.

This page is intended to instruct new users. IMO new users should be alerted to this method. Being bold is not as special as your rv seems to suggest. Being bold is just standard garden variety editing. The new section

1. Alerts new users who have just read about being bold to bold-revert-discuss (I'm reverting this part straight away since your edit summary only applies to #2)

   I'd rather not alert people to bold-revert-discuss, which is basically a method that was discovered for finding people opposed to controversial policy changes. <looks worried> Kim Bruning

2. Alerts those who have read this far to the other favorite method: cite your sources. It is offered as an alternative for editors who are not all that enthousiastic about bold-revert-discuss.

   I'm certainly not enthusiastic about it. Kim Bruning 19:21, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

22:25, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

PS In fact, it's about making bolder edits in the sense that they may intimidate opponents <g>. Such edits suggest that the editor is anything but timid. The new section tells newbies they have muscles they can flex and use. Real NPOV-grade muscles.

09:29, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, alright, well, let's see how it looks when you apply

WP:WOTTA ;-) Try to refactor to keep the entire page short and simple though! Kim Bruning

19:21, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Just logged in for a sec to see if everybody's behaving. You'll be glad to know you're the only one who isn't. Don't you know it is dangerous to make a serious editor laugh when he's doing his serious things? Now my face hurts and I can't think straight. Even worse, you've halfway convinced me and that's just not possible.

I'll be back tomorrow to see how this all looks by the light of day.

talk

23:43, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi Kim, you there? Four days later and I haven't even reached consensus with myself. Perhaps you can help - I seem to be getting mixed signals from you as regards your POV. You sound very positive about being bold, and very hesitant about bold-revert-discuss. It would help if you could give me a brief summary of your thoughts. My point is that an alternative to my changes to Be Bold may be to edit the introduction of bold-revert-discuss in order to put some emphasis on its deadlock-breaking properties as opposed to advertizing it as a general approach.

talk

11:15, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Bold revert discuss deliberately uses the "pure wiki" concepts to undermine whatever people have put on top. This is useful when folks get too tangled in their own spaghetti. Maybe it sounds pretty innocent in theory, but I've managed to get people yelling at me more than once. :-/

Fortunately the great majority of normal wikipages are not very entangled or spaghetti-like at all really. (I did some statistics together with NullC :-) ) Normally, if you're BOLD and make even a halfway sane edit, it's quite likely to go through with no contest at all. :-)

I'd be quite interested to see what you have to add to the bold revert discuss page, if that's what you decide to do. Have fun! Kim Bruning 20:04, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Be bold is a very good idea. It helped wikipedia a lot. Of course, people should not write without thinking, but we should not criticize this guideline so much. Expecially for newcomers, beeing bold can help to make them feel full wikipidians. I also have a question. Has be bold ever been an official policy? Thanks (if you answer). gala.martin (what?) 03:09, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

IMHO Wikipedia has far more problems with people not being bold enough, than being too bold. For that reason, I believe it has been "policy" (or at least strongly recommended guideline). Perhaps we could rephrase it however: "Be bold, not obnoxious". The guideline should go as follows:

• Fix or improve anything without asking first (several minor exceptions for very heavily edited pages)
• If anyone reverts any change you make, you're probably in the wrong - discuss it with them. Stevage 08:24, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

How about, "Be bold, not reckless" --Knucmo2 10:08, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, you are perfectly right. I was just pointing out the fact that (on this page) many comments are against be bold. I reckon it is one of our best guidelines. Thanks. gala.martin (what?) 21:30, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

The thing is, a lot of wikipedia guidelines were written before some silly person decided that we needed "TEH OFFISSIOL POLISY" thing. :-P So oddly enough, a large number of our essays and guidelines are actually more binding than most of our policies. This is not the official written line, for sure, but in practice that's how it is. Be Bold is in fact a key principle in the use of a wiki. Without it, we could just go back to nupedia. :-P Kim Bruning 13:18, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I've come up with a backronym for "Be BOLD": Brave, Original, Learning, Detailed.

B for Brave - speaks for itself. O or Original - try not to rip other people's work to put in the article. (ie from Google, etc) L for Learning - Learn stuff while you edit! D for Detailed - try to go into as much detail as possible.

What does everyone think? Should it be implemented?

In reading through the above, there is but 'one' editor (I may have missed one, but I was looking hard) that mentioned talk pages in the context of FA page changes...

• It strikes me that a guideline like this is the very place to inculcate the caution and habit and good practices of perusing an article talk and examining an articles history before making any changes besides the simplest copyedits. Bold can be good, but not if it puts your foot on a land mine.
• The burnt hand teaches best and I learned that important lesson by making a innocent logical seeming edit on Tsushima Island back last June, and hence suddenly found myself in the middle of an edit war. (I think it's listed in Lamest Edit Wars Ever, but that inclusion was over and about (a 'sub-war') the renaming/move issue and debate—the real edit war was far nastier.) That article is still unsettled the last time I checked three weeks back just now. User:Mr Tan seems to have worn out all the other opponents from then and made it in his own image after all. (re: RFC/Mr Tan, June 05, iirc)
• Sorry for the digression—bad memories!

In summation, I think this page should have some strong advice on these two practices. It may not be the best place either, but similar instruction at least in link form is needed on edit summaries that are clear and track significant template additions such as any and all creating a banner 'box' in the article (e.g. the ubiquitous 'CLEAN'), but especially likely contentious one's like NPOV ( A case study). At least this way the injunction to be 'BOLD' is balanced by a note of caution and on professionalism. FrankB 06:26, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

How this page is interpreted by new Wikipedia users depends heavily on their preconceived notions about the project. Many new users assume that since anyone can edit, Wikipedia must be a free webspace provider. They think they can set up their own pages and publish anything they want. When their pages are proposed for deletion (or speedied), they often become very angry and feel that their "freedom of speech" has been violated. On the other hand, there are a lot of great potential contributors who read Wikipedia and might not ever consider editing an article unless someone encourages them to be bold. I know I would have never even tried to edit a page if I hadn't seen WP:BOLD. It gave me the confidence I needed to update some articles, and I was soon drawn into the Wikipedia community. Anyway, I think the page does a fairly good job of saying "...but don't be reckless." Of course, it is impossible to explain in such a short space exactly what is acceptable and what should be discussed first, partly because some new users have rather extreme preconceived notions. We might consider adding a couple tips about gauging the boldness of an edit to a contriversial or highly visible page, as you suggest. But we don't need to let this page grow too long. It needs to be kept prety short so that newcomers will take the time to read all of it. --TantalumTelluride 16:01, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

In the second paragraph of this page, it says that twelve ships were damaged. But this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pearl_harbor says that 21 ships were damaged. Which is it?

BE BOLD and fix it! :-) Kim Bruning 23:51, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I think the consensus opinion here is that 16.5 ships were damaged. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 18:55, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

After watching the A&E presentation of The Bible Codes, I was in awe that no one mentioned the possibility of human time travel. Either the goverment/military has or is about to invent a working prototype of a machine that is capable of transporting living matter through space and time in either direction, this is probable fact based on unclassified military experiments and basic human nature. What if the number one best selling book of all time was created by a small team of experts ie. one special ops decoding officer, Sir Isaac Newton for wisdom and maybe even Shakespere to dictate to an ancient rabbi prehaps John the baptist...who knows? The point is that if we had the means at our disposal...would'nt it make perfect sence to try to ensure the preservation of man by re-working the Bible in hopes that the codes are discovered in time to save us from ourselves?

Thanks,

MrE

I'm sorry; I'm not sure I understand what you mean. You may want to redirect your request to

WP:RD/H. --M1ss1ontomars2k4 ^{(T | C | @}

) 21:57, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia

Does anyone know a easy Wikipedia manual? I'm a little bit confused. Pulga 09:02, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

An easy Wikipedia manual? Have you tried navigating the help pages carefuly? Or are you having trouble understanding the content which is being posted there? If you need help, you can visit my talk page or ask one of the admins for help. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 19:50, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, could't find how to make a new entry. On the "This day in history" it reads "Operation Overlord, code named D-Day" Operation Overload was the code name, not D-Day

Just noticing how the Be Bold guideline basically says "Be Bold" and then goes on to explain how slow, careful, deliberate and moderate editing is the best method... when you're being bold that is. The whole guideline really doesn't sit well with the title, in my opinion. If I were to be bold on this one, I'd slap a "This article seems to contradict itself" template on it. BigNate37 20:56, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Be bold. Unless you're bucking the status quo. Now, that's a pretty bold statement, isn't it? How about this: We should have different criteria for those pages that are factual issues (history of russia) versus those that are based upon something else (best tasting type of tomato). Or even more bold: Anything in an encyclopedia that has anything to do with current events, politics, science, religion, public policy or similiar opinion-based articles is going to be hammered if you don't agree with the clique that controls the direction of those pages. But that's such a slippery slope. So I'll go back to slow careful deliberate moderate editing. --Sln3412 03:44, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I wholeheartedly agree with the page—as far as it goes: Be bold in making initial edits. But what if you are reverted? The page touches on this in the paragraph beginning “If you expect or see a disagreement with your version of the article….” But I think it needs to be clearer. Some editors (particularly newbies) take it as an open invitation to be bold in conducting a revert war. I propose the addition of a few words to following effect:

If someone reverts your change, do not revert back. Instead discuss your change on the talk page. Try to understand and accommodate the objections.

I’m not sure what to advise in the event of an impasse—certainly not be bold. --

02:00, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

It is a rather contradictory title. See the previous section for my rant as such. BigNate37_T·C 02:34, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Currently, the end of the page says, "Such edits will not survive. The "correctness" or "truthfulness" of the edit is irrelevant at this point.". I think that is misspoken. It is not the case that Wikipedia's goal is anything other than for the encyclopaedia to contain correct and truthful information. Perhaps the writer meant that, as a practical matter, if a participant is stubborn in a revert war, they are decreasing the chance of their edits surviving -- and that, rather than relying on the truth of one's edits and praying that truthfulness will magically protect them even if you are being stubborn, a better strategy is not to be stubborn.

Also, it is the case that, as a practical matter stemming from the fact that different people disagree about what is correct, the best way to achieve the ultimate goal of maximizing truth is to compromise.

To put it another way, it is not rational for each participant to enforce their viewpoint via a revert war -- you may think that this is ok for you to do because you are correct and your opponent is incorrect, and you want the correct content to be on the page -- however, you must realize that your opponent may believe that you are incorrect and they are correct. In this case, if both of you follow the revert strategy, you can see that there will be trouble. However, if both of you follow the compromise strategy, there is less trouble. Therefore, it is rational for the community to force all participants to talk to each other and try to come to a consensus.

Also, it is certainly not the case that Wikipedia aspires to decide which content goes on which page based on the popularity of the submitter rather than the truth of the content (although, being fallible beings, certainly this will happen from time to time). It needs to be clear that, should there be a disagreement over content, it is perfectly okay for one participant to argue for a particular edit on the grounds that it is true --- as long as that participant ultimately compromises if others disagree.

But I think it is important for the original text to be removed -- it must always be clear that Wikipedia's goal is, in fact, correct and truthful content. Bayle Shanks 01:02, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Since I thought it was an interesting idea to also have a

15:53, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Suggested Amendment

I can't find a notice here that people with administrator privileges shouldn't be bold in cases when it is only them who have the ability to be bold. The only pages that are admin only tend to be the most important and visible of pages/templates/etc. and, ImhO, having this amendment will stop a lot of possible conflicts in the future - especially with regards to accusations of Wikipedia being in any way elitist, favouring the few, etc..

Any comments? -- drrngrvy ^tlk @ 17:34, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I think that any admin who is guilty of being "too bold" on protected pages won't be helped by an ammendment to

WP:BOLD. BigNate37_(T)

18:04, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Maybe so, but I don't think that admins shouldn't have the right to be bold at all on protected pages. If a page is important enough to be fully protected, then nothing should be allowed to be done to it without prior consensus, surely? -- drrngrvy ^tlk @ 16:22, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

We really need more admins, so that admins don't *find* themselves in the sticky situation where they are the One Person But For God on the scene with the ability to be bold. ^^;; Kim Bruning 09:03, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I totally agree that admins shouldn't be bold on protected pages, but this should be adequately covered in

WP:PPOL already. JYolkowski // talk

00:01, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

don't be reckless is an exception

Yes true, but this only applies for maybe about 1000 of our pages (not articles, *PAGES*) out of something like ~2 000 000, so say 0.05%. Maybe we need to split off the don't be reckless part and stress that this is for exceptional circumstances only?. Kim Bruning 09:03, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree, I'm not entirely sure that this really needs to be there. Looking over the page history section appears to be somewhat controversial anyway. JYolkowski // talk 00:18, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

This was random SPAM. 129.110.197.24 21:30, 28 October 2006 (UTC)Josh

<img src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/0/05/Chicago_from_Adler_Planetarium.jpg">

Chicago from Adler

Yesterday I took a series of shots from Adler Planetarium and composited them into one panoramic image. I uploaded it but have not added it to Chicago's Wiki. I would love for the image to be added but didn't want to step on any toes. I noticed that the panorama from Adler that is currently up is a little hazy. Mine is crisp and I would like to submit it for Wiki picture of the day but have no idea how. Any help would be great!!!

Buphoff 07:26, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I encourage everyone from here on to be bold!

01:49, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Factual error in speed of light article!! Speed of light registered incorrectly

dear wiki community,

i am new to this, but whilst reading the excellent speed of light article, noticed that the speed of light is written incorrectly.

in the first definition, where it says the speed of light is exactly 300....km per sec, there is a comma where there should be a full stop and so the definition is 300 million rather than 300 thousand km per second ...... regards, harry white

many apologies, the speed of light is correct in metres per second ...... harry white

Nutshell

The nutshell summary needs centralising but I have no idea how to do it ...

Abtract

08:58, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Quote, revisited

The old quote

was removed, but how about this one?

"You must be the change you wish to see in the world." -- Mahatma Gandhi [2]

As much as I personally liked the old one, I think this one is pretty damn perfect for this guideline. EVula // talk // ☯ // 18:20, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I notice multiple vandals by IP edits recently on this page. Should we request protection? Draconins 13:26, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm deleting the reference to Myers' homosexuality and the quotes about him loving "cock" and particularly "black dick." If I am wrong in doing so, feel free to revert, but this sounds like vandalism. Scunning 17:27, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Would anyone be interested in starting a wiki for dealing with California government? A wiki for the people, by the people?

In 1974, Cat Stevens released the album "Buddah and the Chocolate Box", featuring the hit song "Oh Very Young". —The preceding

) 14:48, 6 March 2007 (UTC).

That was quite bold of him. --Xyzzyplugh 15:22, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Roughly 75% of the text in the Be Bold article is instructions on how not to be bold. If we want people to be bold, then we should have an actual essay on that, with a few caveats. Not an article full of caveats, with a brief paragraph on being bold. Perhaps the "don't be reckless" section could become its own essay, if we don't already have one on that topic, with a link to it here and a mere paragraph on that remaining here. I'd make such a change myself, but per this article, that would be far, far too bold. --Xyzzyplugh 04:49, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I saw what you meant. I tried to shake things a little bit... it's definitely time that the page got remodeled a bit. Good call...

Talk?

) 05:05, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I would prefer the heading to say "Be Cautious", which is essentially what the paragraph is about. There are users who aren't so much interested in building a better wikipedia, as in making sure an opposing viewpoint isn't expressed. Encouragement to "Be bold" gives these users exactly the green light they need to avoid collaboration and revise and delete content as they feel necessary. Chrisbak 19:52, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

One says: when in doubt, discuss; the other says: when in doubt, fix it. Sancho (talk) 18:58, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I condensed the ridiculously long "but don't be reckless" section, which I had already worked hard on editing, for the simple reason that it's destroying Wikipedia to show new users "hey, be bold!"... and then load them down with the message, basically, of "don't edit if people who are already here know better than you, which they do".

I like it better now, I have to say. How about you?

) 21:37, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

It is much worse. The examples of reckless edits that disrupted Wikipedia are narrow enough and are extremely important. That's why they've been here for I don't even know how long. I've seen misapplied boldness that turned excellent or, at least, reasonable articles into a mess. Such radical change to one of the main policies of WP cannot be made lightly. --Irpen 05:39, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Which is why the page still very much proclaims: "Don't be reckless". I do get what you're saying, but it's important, I think, to realize and remember that "anything you end up doing that turns out badly can be reverted, often quite painlessly". If misapplied boldness ruins an article (and I've been around long enough to see it happen), a single bold revert to an earlier version can fix it back (and I've been here long enough to see that happen too, quite a bit). The Wikipedia wouldn't be here if it weren't for boldness in editing. Trust me, I did not make the change flippantly... but reading the comments against timidity echoed over and over on this talk page, I decided that one paragraph about boldness and seven on caution was not acceptable. Being bold is too important to put such heavy restraints on. I hope you agree. (I apologize for reverting just now; if you wish to revert back for now I will not do so again until a discussion is completed.)

Talk?

) 21:07, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Technically, yes, any edit can be reverted, but realistically, no, at least in certain articles. Most controversial articles that are stable at where they are have both (or more than two) sides somewhat unhappy about the articles' current shape. Amazingly, some of such articles are featured, a rare demonstration that Wikipedia may work. The two (or more) sides are still watching and wanting to move the article to a more (up to theirs) shape. And boom!, one side gets a "helping hand" due to the newbie's boldness. "Painlessly reverted"? No way! This may provoke a fierce war with each side using the disruption of balance to turn the article overall direction "their" way. The comparison with the stirring the hornet's nest is quite apt.

Secondly, there was a diagram somewhere that overall article's quality gaining on the average with more edits up to a certain stage. But as the article is getting better, its improvement from further edits becomes less and less of an improvement until at certain stage it almost saturates. Our ultimate goal here is good articles through giving most everyone the chance to edit, but the giving everyone the chance to edit in itself is not the goal, it's the means. FA's are less likely to gain from bold edits of the newbies but can easily loose and end up at FAR (and delisted, i've seen that too.) So, we also tell the editors, when you see a FA, just pull your horses a little. Read talk, be more careful. You still can be bold but do not loose your head over it.

Finally, moves and redirects have sparked more bad blood than most articles conflicts. It is just a common sense that any move proposal must be floated at talk even if the formal

is not always needed. A good advise, IMO. Playing with redirects may make an article unmovable without WP:RM and that sometimes, bringing editors with no clue, produces worse results than when concerned editors agree at the talk page.

Thus, all warning are necessary. As for disproportionate number of space devoted to the main message and its caveats, there is nothing we can do. Takes just one sentence to explain that anyone can edit. Takes more to explain when and why extra care is needed. --Irpen 18:38, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Is it just me, or does anyone else find it ironic that this page (of all pages!) is semi-protected? 217.34.39.123 15:25, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't find it "ironic" at all ... it cuts down on the

vandalism by anonynous nuggets. :-) —68.239.79.82

05:35, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Misleading

This page is misleading and the "In a Nutshell" version even more so. First of all, the "In a Nutshell" should state "If it's broke, fix it, so long as it's not a Template or Category or ..." For God's sake, the "Be Bold!" section is a single paragraph telling you to boldly edit, yadda-yadda. The other 80% of the page tells you *NOT* to be bold. This is misleading as well. This thing should be switched around so that the really important aspects -- what you SHOULDN'T DO -- leads off. The fact that what you SHOULDN'T DO takes up 80% of the article is a pretty good indicator that it might just be a lot more important than that single "Be Bold!" paragraph. Reorganizing this thing would be a little more honest and helpful to people who don't understand the underlying Wikipedia Bureaucracy, and don't want to aggravate 1,000 self-appointed Wiktators by mistakenly "Being Bold!" SqlPac 18:27, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Be Afraid! SqlPac 02:49, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

It's simple common sense. Being bold about editing a page is good and easy - if a mistake is made, it can be very simply reverted with one click. Categories and templates often cannot be simply reverted in the same way - category redirects don't work too well,to start with, and by their very nature templates and categories are placed on multiple pages, requiring a lot of work to fix any mistakes. Note that the title of the page is "be bold in updating pages", and the paragraph you mention repeatedly refers to it as applying to articles. Categories and templates are not articles. As to 80% of the page telling you what you shouldn't do, that's because boldness is only good up to a certain point. Beyond that point, it can be a hazard. An analogy would be a racing driver having to go as fast as possible to win a race, but not so fast as to crash. The only really misleading thing about this page is that many people only know the shortcut

00:37, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Note

The threads below come from

WT:Discuss and draft graphical layout overhauls

.

Comments

User:Quiddity and I have drafted this page out of what we have found "in the field": pages with graphical designs tend to deteriorate over time because of uncoordinated edits. We are applying for status as a guideline. Not a style guideline: this proposal, though it deals with style, is actually directed at user conduct. Note that while it is still proposed, it refers to itself as a guideline for simplicity, and less work to rewrite it later if and when it is ratified. --HereToHelp 20:16, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

This proposal was initally mentioned at Village Pump(policy) where it has received full support. --Quiddity 21:37, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

For the record, it was developed in my sandbox before being "transplanted" here.--HereToHelp 22:26, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Let's not include Portals in this. I've come across portals that seemingly nobody maintains, that are badly outdated, badly formatted, etc. Among these were Technology (box-header) with ugly colors and rounded corners, that I just boldly went in and changed. Though, I think all the portals linked from the main page are now in acceptable condition, in terms of colors and layout. Still not sure if they all have regular caretakers, though. Beyond these main portals, I'm much less certain that other portals have regular caretakers. If anything, this policy might be suitable for only the portals linked from the main page. --Aude (talk | contribs) 20:33, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree, and even mention in the policy that they are slippery slopes. Yeah, I'll adjust that.--HereToHelp 21:51, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I have one question- is this policy meant to restrict editors from making major stylistic changes or is meant to simply encourage users to discuss? B/c if it is meant to restrict, I strongly disagree, and if is meant to encourage, then it shouldn't be a policy. --Osbus 21:15, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

It is meant to be guideline strongly discouraging, but not restricting, such edits without prior consensus.--HereToHelp 21:50, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

maybe we could add another diff example from the community portal's last 2 months, after the help:contents example in the intro (and clarify that diff link sentence). --Quiddity 22:17, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Or a whole example subsection. What sort of diff do you have in mind, just one to show how much it's been through?--HereToHelp 22:21, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Use the Community Portal design that had the yellow background, blue borders, and solid green sections. That was horrible. --Osbus 22:46, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Osbus, do you have a response to my response to your initial query?--HereToHelp 22:51, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Only if it is accepted as a guideline, not a policy, will I support. Right now, it seems to be a policy. --Osbus 00:37, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

I think it's definitely not a policy, but a guideline for user conduct. --Aude (talk | contribs) 00:44, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

If you look at my first post, I say that we are indeed going for guideline status. When I get a chance, I'll tone down the absoluteness of the wording.--HereToHelp 02:39, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

While I appreciate the concepts presented here, it looks like an attempt to legislate what should be common sense. I'd like to think this is unnecessary (though maybe it is). As a result, I fear that more and more arbitrary guidelines are on the way. ProfMoriarty 22:43, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I thought it was common sense too, until the recent ordeal on the

Wikipedia:Community Portal, as well as sweeping changes on Help:Contents. --Aude (talk | contribs

) 00:55, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Agree. Common sense is not common.--HereToHelp 02:36, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

So that's it? Just like that, we have consensus?--HereToHelp 00:06, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Your guideline doesn't warrant for much opposition...it's just, well, common sense. --Osbus 13:32, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Maybe it's just codifying common sense, rather than establishing anything new.--HereToHelp 13:34, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

So can we change the template at the top from proposed to accepted? --Quiddity 05:07, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the policy of course, but could this be moved into some other more all-encompassing policy, or have the name changed, it's purely an aesthetic problem I have, and not that important, but that policy name is a mouthful :) - cohesion 08:21, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

I know that, but it's shorter then some of the other names we came up with. You can call it DDGLO and everyone will (or should) know what you mean. If you can give me a better idea, I'll take it. As far as being more encompassing, that's the pont: we encourage work on articles, but not on pages with graphical layout.--HereToHelp 11:48, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

You could cut out overhauls. --Osbus 14:28, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, "Overhauls" seems bad not because of of length but becausewe're talking little things too. "Draft" could go, too. Wikipedia:Discuss graphical layout changes? Although, if we could leave "draft" in, I'd like to.--HereToHelp 15:11, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Changing "overhaul" to "changes" works for me, but only if we must. I'd like to leave "and draft" in there too. --Quiddity 18:33, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Okay, but then we lose our acronym (DDGLO) for the less-pronouncible DDGLC. We could do Wikipedia:Discuss and draft graphical layout alterations, but that seems unecessarily wordy. Also, I'm going to be out for a few days, but before I do I'm going to say, "If nobody objects by the time I'm back, we're making this guideline!" (essentially) on the CBB.--HereToHelp 18:52, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

I'll copy here the title suggestions we had played with on my talk page, so that anyone can potentially brainstorm us up an acronymable title ;) --Quiddity 23:35, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

potential titles – please help us brainstorm something acronym-friendly

• Don't make changes to graphical layout without prior discussion
• Graphical redesigns should be discussed.
• Always draft layout-overhauls.
• Draft and discuss layout redesigns.
• Discuss, before redesigning major pages.
• Discuss design changes before making them
• Discuss graphical design changes before making them
• Discuss and draft graphical layout alterations
• ?

(or keep the current)

• Discuss and draft graphical layout overhauls

I'm strongly in favour of keeping the current title (as is HereToHelp). It seems to best cover the context and content of the guideline. (though i suppose the word "graphical" is debatably redundant..) --Quiddity 23:43, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Graphical separates the pages we're talking about from the articles.--HereToHelp 00:26, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Very true, ok, striking out. --Quiddity 01:00, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Okay. See you Friday-ish.--HereToHelp 01:13, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Wait, do you two know each other or something? :) --Osbus 20:34, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Only since March, when i joined the MainPage redesign where he was very active. (not in RL, no) ;) --Quiddity 20:39, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Cool, I've never met any Wikipedians in real life. That is, the really active ones. --Osbus 21:48, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Me neither. That's why i proselytize wikipedia to all aquaintances and friends ;) --Quiddity 22:35, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Maybe when a Wikipedia meeting comes to New York I'll meet others...I think I'd be surprised to see what people looked like. --Osbus 22:39, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Could it have an easier shortcut though? WP:GRAPH or WP:DISCUSS or something... the current DDGLO is a bit clumsy. Maybe even WP:GLO BigBlueFish 08:37, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

WP:DISCUSS sounds simple and easy to remember. --Aude (talk | contribs) 14:11, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I meant that I would be inactive until Friday. And yeah,

WP:DISCUSS sounds good.--HereToHelp

19:44, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Changed. --Quiddity 21:03, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

No one seems to have objected, so I will take some advice I got at the village pump: If no one objects to this in a week, we make this guideline. There's been an overwhelming sense of support, and I don't think that's going to disappear. Note that I will be out for a few days, however.--HereToHelp 23:19, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Good stuff. Well done Heretohelp :) -Quiddity 18:04, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

All in a day's work.--HereToHelp 18:15, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

This is an anti-wiki proposal. It is wrong to select examples of edits one or two people thing were bad and use them as an excuse to ban Wikipedians from showing initiative. Golfcam 03:48, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

We're absolutely not trying to stifle initiative, but to prevent edit wars and the related-confusion at the indicated top-level pages. Hence, "Draft and discuss ...". --Quiddity 20:34, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

This isn't anti-wiki b/c its a guideline. If it was a policy, then that'd be different. --Osbus 20:35, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Agree completely. Trust us, we have experience "in the trenches" of page design. And of course, take it with a a grain of salt (it's only guideline).--HereToHelp 19:42, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

True this is only a guideline and NOT a official policy of Wikipedia. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 19:54, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

So—just checking—you support this as long as it remains guideline? (I might oppose it if it was to be policy).--HereToHelp 19:56, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Do we really need this page as a separate guideline (which hardly anyone will ever find or read)? Can it not be reduced to a short paragraph and incorporated into WP:Be bold as an example of constraints on boldness?--Kotniski (talk) 14:50, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

This is a relic from a few years ago, when page redesigns were more common. We tried to redesign the Main Page this summer and it fell through; now such work seems to be focused on the interface itself. So that might not be a bad idea.--HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 20:34, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

So I've reduced it - if nothing important has been left out, then I'd propose merging it with WP:Be bold.--Kotniski (talk) 08:37, 9 November 2009 (UTC)