Wikipedia talk:Be bold

Proposal: Discourage editors from moving an article and then editing the redirect as a WP:BOLD action.

Recently, an editor moved Gas van to Nazi gas van as part of a WP:BOLD split, then immediately edited the redirect into a DAB page between that and a new Soviet gas van page they'd created. There was no prior discussion (and no hint that anyone was even contemplating this.) Because of how moves work, it's impossible to reverse this action without involving an admin (and reasonably speaking many admins are likely to demur from deleting a redirect if there's no clear consensus backing them.) This is clearly undesirable and goes outside the realm of what WP:BOLD is meant for - the whole purpose of this policy is that bold actions can be reverted if someone finds them objectionable (so for normal edits, you don't need to worry too much about hypothetical objections and can just be bold, then revert and talk things out if there's an objection.) Using it to justify an edit that can't be easily reverted doesn't make sense. I think it was an honest mistake (it's possible the editor was even unaware that editing the redirect made their WP:BOLD action irreversible to normal users), but either way, I feel that this policy ought to specifically discourage this and warn people against it; it's fairly silly, and against the principle of WP:BRD, for a move that had no consensus at the time to then have to go to WP:RM to get reverted, even if someone objects immediately. --Aquillion (talk) 08:39, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Aquillion clearly hasn't been following the discussion on the article talk page. There has been a long running dispute which has resulted an editor topic banned and numerous reports to WP:AE. The split was done during an open case at WP:AE, and I annouced the split to the admins there[1]. I sought to short circuit this spiral of conflict and the split resulted in the resolution of yet another AE case[2]. Aquillion appears more concerned with the application of WP:BOLD, which is an editing guideline, while the exceptional circumstance of this content dispute merited WP:IGNORE, which is policy. --Nug (talk) 12:17, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

The details of the specific precipitating case are not so important (I specifically didn't go into detail on it because it doesn't matter.) The important question is whether we want people to cite WP:BOLD when moving an article and then editing the redirect - I think that (even if you feel your edits were justified or had some consensus somewhere which I didn't see) we definitely don't want to encourage that. Even if WP:BOLD is just a guideline, it should be a guideline that encourages people to do reasonable and not unreasonable things. --Aquillion (talk) 17:46, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Aquillion, I'm not convinced. I've done this myself quite often (see e.g. the history of Wapel) and my opinion is that such edits should not be discouraged. My argument is that there exists a larger amount of cases where such edits (even without prior discussion) are an improvement of Wikipedia, than the amount of cases where a revert (with admin involment) is preferable. --Cyfal (talk) 16:45, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

James Gandolfini played Jessie in American Story-The Battle for Athens, 1946 Athens, Tennessee

Just finished watching American Story-The Battle of Athens. Playing the role of a disabled WW2 veteran, Jessie, just back from the European front. Jessie is James Gandolfini(of Soprano's fame). Nowhere on his wikipedia page does it list his role in this film. His name also wasn't in the final credits, which is quite strange as he played a significant role in the film. Here is a YouTube video of the film: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6c-Dsg4X4Dk&feature=youtu.be — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.209.166.175 (talk) 04:25, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

The correct place to post this comment is Talk:James Gandolfini. I have copied it there for you. – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:50, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Bolder nutshell

I re-read the nutshell, Please feel free to make improvements to Wikipedia in a fair and accurate manner., and I was sure I remembered it being more inspiring than that and so I looked at the page history and saw Moxy changed it in February 2018 with this edit. It used to just read: Please feel free to make improvements to Wikipedia. A while before that we actually said Go for it!. This was changed to Don't let bureaucracy stop you making improvements to the encyclopedia by Pigsonthewing in January 2016 in this edit. Long ago we also had If you see something that can be improved, improve it! So far as I can see, there was no discussion leading to these changes or other edits in relation to it (feel free to point me to any context I missed).

I think the nutshell iterations have actually gone from best to worst. The page "Be bold" shouldn't open with the text "fair and accurate manner". The purpose of the page as I see it is to encourage readers to become editors, or to encourage new editors to just start editing things rather than overthinking it. You don't have to know all the rules to make an edit—if it's a net positive then someone else can help with the details. This is the message we should be pushing, not "if you're 100% certain that your changes are fair and accurate then you are permitted ..."

I like If you see something that can be improved, improve it! It's the message of the page. The site is already so daunting for newcomers, with our obtuse referencing requirements, incomprehensible wikitext and plethora of required policies and guidelines. If someone's being linked to this page then it's probably to encourage them to... well... be bold. So it should tell them to do so. The later parts of the page tells them when this isn't a good idea. I also like Go for it! as clear and simple. My third option would be Please feel free to make improvements to Wikipedia. Unfortunately, I actively prefer nothing to the current nutshell and I feel the "bureacuracy" wording is well-intended but isn't quite as general as the others.

I suspect this page has a very eclectic list of watchers so I might start an RfC if we can draw up some plausible options (including, of course, the current version if it's what the community prefer). New suggestions and all other feedback would be helpful. — Bilorv (talk) 22:40, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Hello Bilorv great to see someone concerned with what potential editors will see. Don't think you will find a talk on the changes as they evolved over time by good standing long term editors all done in good faith. For my addition it was simply to complete and overall thought/summary of the pages content and what is seen at pages like Wikipedia:Purpose. I would have no problem with it removed or your suggestion of simply doing the "go for it" approach. Be bold lets see what happens..--Moxy 🍁 23:00, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

"Go for it!" is both trite, and an idiom whose meaning is likely to not be clear to a number of our readers (and potential editors), especially those whose first language is not English. As I said in the summary of the edit quoted: "nutshell is for a concise, clear summary - not a slogan". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:14, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

== Change-add lead Content to:

, cite&ref ==

History of Motivation: Philosophy of desire internalism and externalism. Arnlodg (talk) 17:53, 22 June 2020 (UTC)