Wikipedia talk:Be bold/Archive 2

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  Suggestion 

message: 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)
thread_title: But don't be reckless

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: The specifically applicable guideline is at the top of the project page. You should comply with it. Monicasdude 15:44, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Guideline change re:FA 

message: 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  or . 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)
thread_title:  Does anyone know… 

message: That's my question: what happened with the Status Quo? Why has been removed from the page (See )? 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)
thread_title:  What happened to the Status Quo?? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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.  Superm401 | Talk 03:28, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Page protection

message: 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. — Stevie is the man! Talk | Work</span> 20:35, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Does "don't be reckless" cover article upheavals?

message: 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)
thread_title:  Be Cautious - a new proposed policy 

message: 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 civility?  What about wikiquette? What about no personal attacks?  I understand what this line is supposed to mean in context (don't hang back from editing an article because you're afraid that just by editing another person's words you'll be hurting his/her feelings), but I am concerned at how it could undermine our attempts to maintain a polite and civil atmosphere.  I'm wondering if anyone else is bothered by this. - AdelaMae (talk - contribs) 02:47, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Don't worry about his/her feelings"? 

message: Myopic Bookworm added "It's also worth reading around some related articles, as what you thought was a problem or omission may vanish after you have followed a few links."  However, I would argue that if following links is necessary for understanding, there is an omission.  Thus, being bold wouldn't usually hurt. Superm401 - Talk 16:16, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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 Wikipedia:Summary style.  Superm401 - Talk 20:10, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the pointer: I hadn't stumbled across that page yet. Myopic Bookworm 10:11, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reading Around

message: 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  <Small>(what?)</Small> 03:09, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: How about, "Be bold, not reckless" --Knucmo2 10:08, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

text: 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  <Small>(what?)</Small> 21:30, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Be bold!! 

message: 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. <B>Fra</B>nkB 06:26, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  I'm Struck by an obvious lack 

message: 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)
replies: text: I think the consensus opinion here is that 16.5 ships were damaged. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 18:55, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A mistake in numbers? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Another possibility! 

message: Does anyone know a easy Wikipedia manual? I'm a little bit confused. Pulga 09:02, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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. --Siva1979Talk to me 19:50, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Be Bold... interesting title for this guideline 

message: 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. --teb728 02:00, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is a rather contradictory title. See the previous section for my rant as such. BigNate37T·C 02:34, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  And if you are reverted? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Truth is irrelevant? 

message: Since I thought it was an interesting idea to also have a Don't be shy essay, I've created one. Whilst be Bold is good for articles, hopefully don't be shy will be good for the community aspects, and act to encourage new users to become editors (whereas I feel Be bold is more useful once someone has begun to get stuck in). Let me know what you think, and help out on improving the essay up to proposed guideline status LinaMishima 15:53, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Don't be shy]] 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Suggested Amendment 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  don't be reckless is an exception 

message: <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)
thread_title:  New Panorama

message: I encourage everyone from here on to be bold! <FONT COLOR="blue">'FLaRN'</FONT> (talk) 01:49, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Be bold! 

message: The nutshell summary needs centralising but I have no idea how to do it ... Abtract 08:58, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Nutshell

message: The old quote was removed, but how about this one?
:"You must be the change you wish to see in the world." -- Mahatma Gandhi 
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)
thread_title:  Quote, revisited 

message: I notice multiple vandals by IP edits recently on this page. Should we request protection? Draconins 13:26, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Do we need a semi-protect? 

message: In 1974, Cat Stevens released the album "Buddah and the Chocolate Box", featuring the hit song "Oh Very Young". —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.231.40.51 (talk) 14:48, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That was quite bold of him.  --Xyzzyplugh 15:22, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cat Stevens:  Success 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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... Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 05:05, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Be Bold, but really don't be bold, because that would be too bold, but maybe be a little bold, perhaps

message: One says: when in doubt, discuss; the other says: when in doubt, fix it. Sancho (talk) 18:58, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nutshell and summary contradict each other 

message: 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? Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 21:37, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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.) Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 21:07, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: But don't be reckless

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Ironic 

message: 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)
replies: text: Be Afraid!    SqlPac 02:49, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Misleading 

message: 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)
replies: text: This proposal was initally mentioned at Village Pump(policy) where it has received full support. --Quiddity 21:37, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: For the record, it was developed in my sandbox before being "transplanted" here.--HereToHelp 22:26, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Portals

message: 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)
replies: text: It is meant to be guideline strongly discouraging, but not restricting, such edits without prior consensus.--HereToHelp 21:50, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Osbus, do you have a response to my response to your initial query?--HereToHelp 22:51, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: I think it's definitely not a policy, but a guideline for user conduct. --Aude (talk | contribs) 00:44, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Comment 

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

text: Your guideline doesn't warrant for much opposition...it's just, well, common sense. --Osbus 13:32, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe it's just codifying common sense, rather than establishing anything new.--HereToHelp 13:34, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

text: So can we change the template at the top from proposed to accepted? --Quiddity 05:07, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: You could cut out overhauls. --Osbus 14:28, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: Graphical separates the pages we're talking about from the articles.--HereToHelp 00:26, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Very true, ok, striking out. --Quiddity 01:00, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay. See you Friday-ish.--HereToHelp 01:13, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wait, do you two know each other or something? :) --Osbus 20:34, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Cool, I've never met any Wikipedians in real life. That is, the really active ones. --Osbus 21:48, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Me neither. That's why i proselytize wikipedia to all aquaintances and friends ;) --Quiddity 22:35, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: WP:DISCUSS sounds simple and easy to remember. --Aude (talk | contribs) 14:11, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I meant that I would be inactive until Friday. And yeah, WP:DISCUSS sounds good.--HereToHelp 19:44, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Changed. --Quiddity 21:03, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Concern 

message: * 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)
replies: text: Graphical separates the pages we're talking about from the articles.--HereToHelp 00:26, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Very true, ok, striking out. --Quiddity 01:00, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay. See you Friday-ish.--HereToHelp 01:13, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wait, do you two know each other or something? :) --Osbus 20:34, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Cool, I've never met any Wikipedians in real life. That is, the really active ones. --Osbus 21:48, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Me neither. That's why i proselytize wikipedia to all aquaintances and friends ;) --Quiddity 22:35, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: WP:DISCUSS sounds simple and easy to remember. --Aude (talk | contribs) 14:11, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I meant that I would be inactive until Friday. And yeah, WP:DISCUSS sounds good.--HereToHelp 19:44, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Changed. --Quiddity 21:03, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: potential titles &ndash; please help us brainstorm something acronym-friendly

message: 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)
replies: text: Good stuff. Well done Heretohelp :) -Quiddity 18:04, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: All in a day's work.--HereToHelp 18:15, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Pushing towards the finish

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: True this is only a guideline and NOT a official policy of Wikipedia. --Siva1979Talk to me 19:54, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Oppose

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Need this page?