Wikipedia talk:Be bold/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

"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)

"Be bold in updating pages"

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

For:

Against:

"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)

"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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Wikipedia namespace

Added new para per Jimbo's comments here. Uniplex (talk) 06:58, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Fact: bears love beets.

Why can't I ask stupid/unrelated questions on this page? They seem reasonable at first... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.97.163.183 (talk) 21:41, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Indented line This page is only for the page in question. All questions must be related to that page. 64.251.53.165 (talk) 18:29, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Please unprotect

This page has been semi-protected since 2009, which is excessive per WP:ROUGH etc. Can it be unprotected for a while? If problems recur, it can be semi'd again.

I was planning to add some sentences to the page saying BRD only applies to edits that are straightforwardly revertible (the R in BRD). It should never apply to difficult-to-revert actions such as irreversible disclosures or large clusters of edits (particularly using bots). Several times I've seen BOLD used to justify actions that affected 1000's of pages that were difficult to undo, and that seems to me to be misuse of BOLD.

Thanks. 67.122.210.96 (talk) 19:50, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Make a page unprotection request at WP:RPP or follow WP:EDITREQ for making a formal editing request of this page. --SMS ^Talk 19:55, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Per WP:RPP I've asked the protecting admin to unprotect. 67.122.210.96 (talk) 23:30, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

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)

At the same time, we must be aware that sometimes Wikipedians blatantly undo others' edits without any good explanation. In such situations, the protective user may actually be the person who is having his/her edits reverted. It's coming at us from all directions! –Cup o' Java 05:04, 9 January 2013

Do not be bold the last time I went Bold, I was rewarded by countless warnings. If you be bold, please count the seconds before your account is blocked.--WOLfan112 (talk) 16:49, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Just try to be careful. If your edits are reverted nevertheless without a good explanation, post a note on an administrator's talk page. He/she'll probably spare the time to help you out, and if he/she can't he/she may enlist a few of his/her talk page stalkers. –Cup o' Java 05:04, 9 January 2013

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)

I've noticed that the audio track on this article is incredibly quiet when played back on my laptop. I'm sure it's not a problem on my end since I can hear YouTube clips, the standard Windows beeps and alerts and other audio files normally. The OGG file on the page can't be heard at all unless both the Windows volume control is at it's maximum and the Flash Player applet's volume is also maxed out - at which point I can just about hear the voice if I put my ear right next to my speakers. Pobatti (talk) 07:09, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

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)

The first time I saw WP:SOFIXIT, the initial impression I got was "So? Fix it!" which can also be taken as "quit bothering me and do it youself", which isn't a nice thing for new users to experience, especially if the reply consists of that link and nothing else. While there will always be folks who just don't realise they can help improve Wikipedia themselves, there are others who simply lack the confidence to do so or are limited in some other way (for example lacking sound or image editing software in certain circumstances). Although I tend to assume good faith when I see this, it's hard to not see such a reply as that of frustrated editors who are forever being badgered by the newbie or those otherwise lacking in confidence who forever seem to post about seemingly inane little problems on the talk pages. Maybe rewording the link to something like Uw-feelfreetoedit or similar would get the point across without any negative connotations or the newbie feeling under any pressure to make changes that the user doesn't feel comfortable in making. Pobatti (talk) 08:38, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't think it's used so much with obvious newbies. I think you'll find that particular shortcut aimed at people who know that they ought to have just fixed whatever they're complaining about, but instead chose to waste everyone's time with pointless whinging.

Messages placed on user talk (like uw-sofixit) are subst'd, so the user never sees the name of the template. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:13, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

If they read the HTML comments generated by {{sofixit}}, they'll find out the name of the template. Graham87 07:30, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

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)

Some articles really are quite good already (e.g., common law and floating point), and most edits are just entropy. Changing punctuation (usually to something less clear?), adding "urban myth" (that turns out to be incorrect?), etc. is just not helpful to keeping the article correct.

The question is -- what are the symptoms of an article where "be bold" is not good advice? I listed the ones I can think of -- stabilty for years, an edit history that shows logn attention by someone that cares, a "good article" rating, etc.

Some warning against "be bold" is worthwhile here.

Boundlessly (talk) 18:25, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Suggested amendment - WP:TESTCASES

In the section Wikipedia:Be bold#Template namespace, second paragraph, I would like to append one sentence so that it reads:

... announcing the proposed change on pages of appropriate WikiProjects. Templates often have associated sandbox and testcases pages; respectively these are a place for the proposed modified template, and a place where the proposal may be trialled in comparison with the existing version.

I could be WP:BOLD and simply add it, but there again... --Redrose64 (talk) 15:39, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't see anyone objecting to this change. In fact it will be a valuable edit, directing editors to a common testing ground. --SMS ^Talk 18:16, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Sofixit again...

Hey, sorry for posting on this topic again, but I doubt people will notice any further discussion on the stale section up there.

I don't think anything Pobatti or I have said has been sufficiently addressed with regards to the usage of WP:SOFIXIT (or its variant, the non-substituted {{Sofixit}}). I'm still seeing people use the shortcut as a derogatory response to someone pointing out a flaw or something wrong on an article. It is used especially on newbies that certainly don't partake in much editing of their own, and while it's true that we should be nudging them to do so, I don't think basically telling them "So? Fix it!" is going to help the situation (especially seeing that, most of the time, those editors could have done it themselves, but simply didn't want to). Especially since tonality isn't always well transmitted over the internet.

These are some examples of what I mean: [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9]

And some examples of people who think the same thing: [10][11]

I'd like to discuss the possibility of abbreviating the shortcut to WP:SFI or even eliminating it altogether (instead encouraging people to just WP:BOLD). Because I've seen it way too many times used as an insult, purposefully or not. _EricLeb⁰¹ (Page | Talk) 01:30, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Deleting the shortcut would break a couple thousand links in discussions, AFDs, etc. I don't think that we really want to do that.

We could consider taking the shortcut out of the list at the top of the page, and thus not 'advertising' it to people. That would probably reduce the number of times it gets cited in the future. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:07, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

I see what you mean, but the shortcut is already in such common usage that it's being self-promoted. Although that's certainly a good start. _EricLeb⁰¹ (Page | Talk) 18:17, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

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)

I'll add here that I've had a similar experience. In February of 2012 four individuals (Three unsigned and one signed) discussed some articles I had written and the one signed member decided, without either bothering to invite me to take part in the discussion, or contacting me afterward to explain why to delete the articles after cutting and pasting the contents to a new article he felt was "better". When I did query his actions he replied that WP:BOLD justified his rudeness. As a consequence I feel that I can no longer trust this editor. And the spreading of mistrust is not something Wikipedia needs.Graham1973 (talk) 15:41, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Being bold matters

I am being bold at this instant because i am editing a page for the very first time, and I'm very comfortable doing it. Tons if times i wanted to take my first step into editing (when browsing in some songs wikis) but sincerely i was afraid, now i see is not that hard so.. be bold people! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kool Wolf (talk • contribs) 18:46, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

No, I'm afraid that you are wrong Neil

This user has a VERY valid point. Jim Wales founded Wikipedia as a free encyclopedia, to which anyone could add well-founded information, in order to further human knowledge. Yet though the website was founded on this simple principle, Wikipedia has fallen short of this objective. I too am new to Wikipedia, and I have expert knowledge on the legend of Robin Hood, amassed through studying a two-year postgraduate Masters research degree at the University of Leeds. Yet my attempts to provide information on this theme to Wikipedia have consistently been reedited by administrators, whom, I can only conclude, have a God complex. It has been my regular experience to find small groups of editors sitting in control of articles, reverting all changes, and replying dismissively, even rudely, to "outside" proposals for change. When asked on what authority deletions or reversions are made, a small group of editors appear, identified not by a general review system that would provide broad, unbiased comment, but rather, seemingly, by private communication between editors. After this, the change is denied because of a lack of consensus. Group size for this consensus decision has at times has been as small as 2-3. Wikipedia currently employs 1408 volunteer administrators, has 76, 000 active contributors and 21,821,300 global users. Yet, repeatedly, it is the same few administrators who feel the need to admonish me and alter my publications. Despite having repeatedly tried to amend the issues that have been raised by administrators, there has not been anything near to what one might call a just or professional adjudication of a disputed matter. Sadly, these negative situations have taken over in shaping my impression of Wikipedia, and lead me to say, I am at a loss. In consequence, Wikipedia’s leadership can say what it likes, externally. But in my experience, and despite its founding principles, Wikipedia is not truly the fundamentally egalitarian organisation it likes to depict itself as being. Instead, at its core resides a patchwork of editors with personal interests and agendas, many of whom band together as need be to function in a control-conscious manner. Just as important, at that level and steadily progressing higher in the organization, there seem to be few paths for constructive oversight/review or for real systematic change. To coin a phrase, it is simply the case that all animals are created equal, but some are more equal than others, and the farm is doing just fine as it is, thank you. So while those in charge seem to have a view of the organization largely constructed by its more equal participants, I regret to say that this is simply not true. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Siggasonswein (talk • contribs)

@Siggasonswein: Spamming irrelevant self-promotion like this throughout a swath of articles is going to get reverted. Simple as that. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:38, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

@NeilN: How rude. This is an obvious well-meaning newcomer, frustrated with non-acceptance. I am sure they can pass their knowledge without problems with WP:COI, after gaining some experience. This is not like some snake oil peddler or fringe theory kookery. Give a guy a chance without biting. Staszek Lem (talk) 23:38, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

@Staszek Lem: Before jumping to conclusions, take a look at the history of his talk page (including what they've deleted). --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:43, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

@NeilN:<sigh> this is a typical reaction of a fresh PhD who thinks (may be justly) that he knows it all in his small area of research, didn't take part in any real fight among polarized academics, and thinks that wikipedians are the worst :-). However I believe he starts learning the ropes. Staszek Lem (talk) 23:55, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

@Staszek Lem: Not a PhD (unless I'm missing something) but a Masters. Less scrutiny for the thesis, I believe? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:13, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

@Siggasonswein: There is no cabal. Rather than whining you may want to ask politely what exactly was wrong with your contributions. Most people in wikipedia may seem rude at their first reaction, simply because they have no time, and the %% of vandals and other drive-by editors is surprisingly large and annoying. However if you engage them in a discussion and demonstrate your good will, you will be surprized with the level of collegiality. Staszek Lem (talk) 23:38, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

This flies in the face of everything said elsewhere.

I'm sorry, but this is the most confusing "WP:" page yet. Elsewhere: "use discussion", here: "be bold", elsewhere "achieve consensus", here: "go for it", elsewhere it's emphasized that collaboration improves the quality of the wikipedia and here it's emphasized that a better wikipedia is achieved by people just making changes and not being surprised when they're reverted.

You have GOT to be kidding. Seriously, take your meds people. Wikipedia is laughed at enough already.Tgm1024 (talk) 01:46, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Did you really understand the second paragraph of the opening section? It doesn't seem like it. Thousands and thousands of undiscussed edits are made every day without being reverted. That's what being bold is. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:15, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

I can read what was written, and as it stands, this being bold nonsense is precisely what is frowned upon everywhere at wikipedia. Heck, I might mention this in the article body. And then have it reverted. What a consistent theme here.Tgm1024 (talk) 01:39, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, probably you had bad experience. You may have run into WP:OWNed article or tried to edit a policy page, where any non-discussed change is frowned upon for a reason. But otherwise WP:BOLD works pretty well, if one does not forget that being bold does not exclude that you may be wrong. Anyway, we may continue this pointless "yes it is / no it is not" for a long time. Which exactly specific case you have in mind? Staszek Lem (talk) 17:00, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Mixed use of hyphens

Some of you may have seen my small suggestion for changing the "Wikipedia space" to be consistent in hyphenation, as I saw it as a typo. However Johnuniq pointed to Compound modifier, and as a non-native speaker I can willingly admit that I didn't know a lot about that. However, as a non-native speaker, I can also attest that for me it looked strange to first use a hyphen and then to not use one. My suggestion is thus to rewrite the "Wikipedia-space pages" to a post-modifier, "pages in Wikipedia space", as indicated below.

Current

Discussing changes to other Wikipedia-space pages on the talk page is also a good idea.

Proposal

Discussing changes to other pages in Wikipedia space on the talk page is also a good idea.

--Max Nordlund (talk) 19:34, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Wagner influence on Puccini

I am not a Puccini expert. I do consider myself a Wagner cognoscento. So I was surprised to see no mention of Puccini's great regard for Wagner in the Wikipedia Puccini page.

All his professional life Puccini envied and even adored Wagner, and he kept a portrait of Wagner on his piano. Seems that should have been mentioned somewhere.

Having said that, I wouldn't even be writing this had I not stumbled on one of the most stunningly beautiful arias I ever heard, the "Senza MmRdankwort (talk) 03:26, 13 August 2014 (UTC)ma" from Puccini's "Suor Angelica". I was more than a little surprised that the article did not even mention this overwhelmingly overpowering aria in the discussion of the 'Trittico'.

@Rdankwort: You have posted to a page intended for discussion of a Wikipedia policy. May I suggest two courses you could take: (1) express your opinion at the article's talk page, (2) make an appropriate addition directly to the Puccini article, though that would be better supported by a reference to an outside source, e.g. a published book or journal article: Noyster (talk), 14:13, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Ridiculous article

Taking into consideration that people who supervise wiki projects (administrators) are not bound by any rules, they can do whatever they like and there are lots of people not suitable for the role, this article is really ridiculous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.51.238.41 (talk) 12:53, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Be Bold applies to everyone. It's the way to make certain that an edit you propose will be at least considered-- the alternative would have to be "ask permission first' which is worse. As an admin, I feel under a somewhat greater constraint on my boldness than if I were not: I want to make sure I do not try to dominate by the effect of my mere presence. No experienced editor is likely to give me any deference because I'm an admin, but beginners might, and it make me particularly careful. But perhaps there is something particularly you're complaining about. Any admin can make a mistake, & most of them will admit it. If you think you're being unfairly treated, ask someone else to look at the situation. DGG ( talk ) 07:19, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Can we stop the ongoing vandalism on this page?

I noticed that a significant amount of vandalism has occurred on this page in the last few months. Would it be possible to protect this page against vandalism? Jarble (talk) 20:33, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

It's newbies taking its advice to "be bold" literally. It's not as if there's so much that we can't stay on top of it. There are almost 400 watchers, myself included, and one of us normally reverts within a few minutes. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:55, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Cockatoo, Breeding, nesting

Being new to this, may I put my contribution in the form of a question? On New Year's Day 2 friends, my wife and I travelled the Murray River upstream from Swan Reach, SA. We observed a large flock of white cockatoos sitting in crevices on the left-hand side of sandstone cliffs along the way, about 8 - 9 meters above the water level. Could they be nesting there instead of hollow logs in trees? BirdBozo (talk) 10:23, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, this isn't the place for your question. You could try the reference desk. But if you are thinking of contributing to a Wikipedia article, please remember that anything you add needs to be supported by references to published work; you couldn't add your own observations, unless they had first been published in a "reliable source". Here is a guide that will tell you much more. Thank you: Noyster (talk), 13:25, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Possible Error in Text?

On Page 5 it reads "...3d region, usually the surface is oriented such that the influx is counted as positive; the opposite is the outflux."

Is this accurate? Should outflux be positive? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.82.79.144 (talk) 23:35, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

We cannot tell which article you are concerned about. Please raise your question at that article's talk page: Noyster (talk), 08:35, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

You are referring to some text at Flux#Flux as a surface integral (which a quick look suggests is correct), so Talk:Flux would be the place to suggest there is a problem. Or, ask a question at WP:RD/S. Johnuniq (talk) 08:50, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Frequent Wind!

Operation Frequent Wind was the evacuation of the American Embassy in Pennon Penn Cambodia which happened in March of 1975 days before Operation Eagle Pull. I know because I was a technical rep for HMH-462 aboard the U.S.S. Okinawa LPH-3Marine Corps 007 (talk) 17:27, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Hello and thank you for your interest in Wikipedia. Our article on Operation Frequent Wind says it took place in Saigon in April 1975. If you wish to challenge this, the place to do so is the article's talk page. Unfortunately, information based only on your personal memories would not be accepted; any new content would have to be supported by published sources: Noyster (talk), 18:10, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

St. Peter's Basilica

Regarding another editor

[[12]] I am a good stewart of Wikipedia and ask anyone with influence to please stop the undoing of the edits I and countless others have made to St. Peter's Basilica [[13]] by Alessandro57, an editor seems fit to start an edit and undo war with me for no reason. I have made efforts to add facts of the size, dimentions and add citations to the page, all of which were arbitrarily reversed by Alessandro57. Please intervene on my behalf. I am relativly new, but have a lot to offer to the Wikipedia family. It seems that no matter what I do, I am railroaded by this editor. Please help. Thank you- Cpetty9979 Cpetty9979 (talk) 23:42, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Editors' motivation

They, like all of us, just wish to make Wikipedia as good an encyclopedia as it can possibly be.

This motherhood and apple pie statement says nothing useful. Currently, there is no evidence provided here to support this sentiment. How can any person presume to know what does, or does not, motivate each contributor to include information, or to undo an edit made by another editor? The assumption that humans act in good faith unless there is evidence to the contrary, which underpins the Wikipedia WP:AGF policy, has little evidence to support it. It is simply an assumption that may or may not be correct. In fact, the evidence is that each of has an agenda (which will change depending upon our circumstances) that motivates us to act [1,2]. Our agenda is a function of our bias, which in turn depends upon our desire to maintain or to challenge the status quo [3]. Each of has an agenda at any moment that we choose to act, whether we recognise it as such as or not, and whether or not our agenda is apparent (even to us). Our bias (that underpins our agenda), is also not necessarily fixed - along with our agenda, our bias may change depending on our circumstances, on our experiences and on new information that we have accepted. Nevertheless, at any given time, each of us has a bias. Note, however, that the term bias currently does not appear anywhere in this article. I suggest that this is an omission that needs to be rectified. In conclusion, my view is that recognising in this Wikipedia article that each of us has a bias, would be more useful than blandly stating that we all want to make Wikipedia as good an encyclopaedia as it can possibly be.
1) Kruglanski, Arie W., and Icek Ajzen. Bias and error in human judgment. European Journal of Social Psychology 13.1 (1983): 1-44.
2) Evans, Jonathan St BT. Bias in human reasoning: Causes and consequences. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc, 1989.
3) Samuelson, William, and Richard Zeckhauser. Status quo bias in decision making. Journal of risk and uncertainty 1.1 (1988): 7-59.
121.222.12.14 (talk) 23:34, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Whatever you say and read, colleague, your logic doesn't disprove the quoted quote. Yes, I am not free of my weltanschauung, but I do wish to make a better encyclopedia. And my opponent, a hardliner POV pusher, just as well, wants to make a better one, but in his view. And this is how wikipedia works. Why don't all haters of wikipedia join Citizendium and make it model All-Stars-Expert encyclopedia #4 in google search? But it looks like it is much more fun to whine and pester wikipedia. Staszek Lem (talk) 00:59, 28 April 2015 (UTC)