Wikipedia talk:Be bold/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Proposed summary for lead re "Don't be offended if reverted"

The last paragraph of the lead has read thus for some time:

Don't get upset if your bold edits get reverted. The early advocate of trial and error followed by observation to gain knowledge, Francis Bacon, said, "For if absurdity be the subject of laughter, doubt you not but great boldness is seldom without some absurdity." Instead of getting upset, read WP:Assume good faith and WP:Civility, and be bold again, but after a reversion of a bold edit, you might want to be bold in an edit on the talk pages so as not to start an edit war.

In this edit [1] I tacked the following on at the end:

Think about it this way: if you don't find one of your edits being reverted now and then, perhaps you're not being bold enough.

If I do say so myself, I think it summarizes, perhaps more succinctly accessbily, Bacon's sentiment. But in the grand tradition, this insertion was reverted [2]. I'd be interested to know what others think. EEng (talk) 00:02, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

I sympathise and agree with you. Your edit was a good one and should not have been reverted. So why was it reverted? Further, why is it that twelve days after your post, nobody can be bothered to come here and justify the reversion? In my view, the board of the Wikimedia Foundation sticks its head in the ground on this contentious issue, and refuses to acknowledge that bloody-minded edit reversions are far too commonplace on Wikipedia. They are not made in good faith. Rather, they are made to maintain the status quo. In my view, based upon my experience of editing Wikipedia since its earliest days, Wikipedia is dominated by groups or cabals of editors that bully and browbeat individuals into complying with the cabal's agenda. This is known quaintly on Wikipedia as consensus.121.222.12.14 (talk) 23:56, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

There are plenty of wikipedia-hater websites and we read them often for fun. You say nothing new and nothing useful for improvement of wikipedia. Yes there are cabals. An you are in one of them. Staszek Lem (talk) 00:48, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

First, the insertion was reverted because it invites revert wars. In wikipedia, if you think you are too bold, then probably your thinking is correct, and you better to talk it out first, thus saving the hassle of reverting and starting the discussion with a taste of bad feeling. Despite the guideline preaches "instead of getting upset", it is in human nature to be upset when somebody reverts your bold and smart improvements. Second, your exegesis on Bacon is disagreed. Staszek Lem (talk) 00:48, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

How does the proposed addition invite revert wars? EEng (talk) 01:25, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

<bump> EEng (talk) 15:55, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

<bump> EEng (talk) 01:22, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

If I don't get any response soon I'm going to go ahead and restore my original edit. EEng (talk) 15:02, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

References

Discussion at WT:Drafts

This editing guideline is being discussed at Wikipedia talk:Drafts#Clarification over main-space to draft-space moves.  Unscintillating (talk) 00:07, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 February 2016

The page falsely claims that Nazism and National Socialism are ideals held by far-right groups. This assertion is factually incorrect. The Nazi party of Germany was a far-left group. Socialism is a leftist principle. "Far-right groups" do not advocate central government control, or Socialist principles in general. Please fix.

2602:306:3A0C:54A0:56EE:75FF:FE34:9F5 (talk) 17:34, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

(Replied on editor's talk page): Noyster (talk), 18:48, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Convention Benmarc for opening in a major suite

The Benmarc convention for opening the bridge auction in a major suite has recently been published in the Bridge Guide on the Use of Loser Trick Count to Reach the Optimal Bridge Contract.

To open in a major suit according to the Benmarc convention, each of the following 3 criteria must be present: 1- a minimum of 5 cards in the major suit 2- 7 losers or less 3- 8 to 21 HCP (High Card Point)

With a FIT in the opener suit, Responder will make on of the following response or pass:

1- with 9 losers, support at 2 level 2- with 8 losers, support at 3 level 3- with 4 losers, support at 4 level 4- with 6 losers , jump bid artificial 3 diamonds( must be alerted) 5- with 5 or less losers, jump bid at 4 diamonds (must be alerted)

reference: Bridge Guide on the Use of Loser Trick Count to Reach the Optimal Bridge Contract. --Bensam73 (talk) 18:19, 29 March 2016 (UTC)Benoit Samson

Benoit If you wish to suggest an addition to our article about contract bridge, please post on Talk:Contract bridge. However, the convention should be mentioned in the article only if it is verifiably in widespread use. If you devised this convention yourself, you would need to show that it is described in books or publications unrelated to you: Noyster (talk), 19:12, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

LING 101 Assignment Requirement

The "Be Bold" article provides adequate citations throughout the text, all of which seem to function properly. I felt the layout of the article was straightforward and the content appeared relevant. I'm not sure if this is appropriate for this Talk Page, but it was required for my class. Malien (talk) 22:38, 21 October 2016 (UTC).

Are you sure this is the right page? Wikipedia:Be bold is not an article, it's a guideline and as such does not need citations. Johnuniq (talk) 23:29, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

It any case I am not sure you quite understand what "adequate citations mean". Also, wikipedia talk pages are not your class assignments. It is for discussions of suggestions about improvements of wikipedia text. Staszek Lem (talk) 00:40, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Gamma rays from beta particles?

I will ask the question before I make any changes. As far as I am aware gamma rays are emitted from the nucleus and X-rays are emitted from electrons. The sentence below implies that gamma rays can be emitted from the beta particle which is an X-ray. I think the sentence should say 'beta electrons emit secondary X-rays, which..'.It should also say 'weight generates X-rays with lower energy' in the next sentence. The text in question is below.

"However, this does not mean that beta-emitting isotopes can be completely shielded by such thin shields: as they decelerate in matter, beta electrons emit secondary gamma rays, which are more penetrating than betas per se. Shielding composed of materials with lower atomic weight generates gammas with lower energy, making such shields somewhat more effective per unit mass than ones made of high-Z materials such as lead." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.33.175.26 (talk) 13:56, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

@217.33.175.26: You appear to be on the wrong page. Were you looking for Talk:Beta particle or similar? --Izno (talk) 13:59, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

@Izno: Just for future reference, you can't ping an IP. The echo system doesn't allow for that. Better off just posting the reponse on their talk page or using the {{talkback}} template. --Majora (talk) 03:47, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

@Majora: You can ping an IP:

C:\>ping 217.33.175.26

Pinging 217.33.175.26 with 32 bytes of data:

Request timed out.
Request timed out.
Request timed out.

Ping statistics for 217.33.175.26:
    Packets: Sent = 3, Received = 0, Lost = 3 (100% loss)

I suspect that you mean that you can't notify an IP address. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 18:20, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 February 2017

I want to edit this 76.187.196.230 (talk) 01:58, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Anything in particular? Johnuniq (talk) 03:03, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines

WP:PGBOLD needs to be prominently featured here. (my POV) Endercase (talk) 17:39, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

I can't agree... WP:PGBOLD has two parts, and the first part is fine, but the second -- "Or be bold" -- advises editor to make substantive changes to rules, and see if it flies. I think this is bad advice indeed, and I have seen substantive changes to rules occurring on the say-so of a single editor: nobody exactly notices (some rules pages are poorly watched, and watchers get busy or absent), or nobody really understands what happened, or people make objection-noises on the talk page but without reverting and the discussion peters out eventually with the change remaining in place. I almost always revert substantive changes to rules pages per WP:BRD even if I agree with them, on principle, because I think these should be discussed first.

And this page WP:BOLD is better on the issue, IMO. Herostratus (talk) 06:54, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

That seems all fine and dandy, but WP:PGBOLD is already policy. This page should cross-reference that section if that is the case. --Izno (talk) 12:14, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Proposal to add a sentence about page moves

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

There is no consensus for the proposed instruction. (non-admin closure) Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:27, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

---

Based on discussions at WP:Requested moves and elsewhere, I think the general feeling is that WP:BOLD should not apply to page moves... moves require incoming links to all be changed, and back-and-forth moves mess up the logs, and sometimes admin action is required to move pages. Therefore I propose adding the following two-sentence paragraph after the end of the second long paragraph in the "Be careful" section (the one that ends "...Always use your very best editorial judgment in these cases and be sure to read the talk page".)

Don't usually make bold page moves. Pages should only be moved without prior discussion if you think no reasonable objection could be made to the new name. See Wikipedia:Requested moves for instructions on initiating page move proposals.

What say you? Herostratus (talk) 07:32, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

• Support We at WT:UKRAIL have been plagued by a lot of undiscussed bold moves going back six months or more, many of which went against agreed naming conventions. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 09:04, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
• Don't usually make bold page moves. will be misinterpreted as Don't usually make bold page moves without some litany of discussion., so this sentence is objectionable to me (and in fact, what your second sentence proposes). moves require incoming links to all be changed Only double redirects--so this is either a misunderstanding or a mischaracterization. (I'll let the reader WP:AGF.) --Izno (talk) 12:19, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
  • If a move changes the WP:primary topic for a title, then it is possible, indeed perhaps likely, that incoming links will need to be changed. While "bold" changes in primary topic are allowed, these are more likely to be controversial than moves that do not change the primary topic. wbm1058 (talk) 14:48, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
    • And this is really only a concern for a "round robin" type situation, which can still be undone and fixed in a matter of a week (for a proper RM if you want to start it there; less if you want to move things back and then use an RM). --Izno (talk) 03:16, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
  • I've made a bolded comment below in case anyone wants to avoid double counting my intent. --Izno (talk) 03:16, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
• The criteria for "bold" moves is now stated in two places: WP:RM § Undiscussed moves (the positive version which states when you may) and WP:RM § Requesting controversial and potentially controversial moves (the negative version which states when you should not). Care should be taken not to create an instruction fork here. I'd either make a third copy of those precise instructions here, or make a direct link to WP:RM § Undiscussed moves. Perhaps we need supplemental clarification of "someone could reasonably disagree with the move". Someone could reasonably disagree with the move if it is in conflict with, or makes an exception to, an established WP:naming convention. – wbm1058 (talk) 15:00, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Someone could reasonably disagree with the move if it changes the primary topic. – wbm1058 (talk) 15:33, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

• Out-of-scope? This page documents an English Wikipedia editing guideline. Editing guidelines are one of the nine categories of Wikipedia guidelines:

1. Behavioral guidelines
2. Content guidelines
3. Project content guidelines
4. Deletion guidelines
5. Editing guidelines
6. Naming conventions
7. Notability guidelines
8. Style guidelines
9. Guidelines for templates

Page moves fall under naming conventions, not editing guidelines. We don't encourage "Bold" article deletions, nor do we encourage the "Bold" creation of an autobiography of an athlete who doesn't meet the notability guidelines for sports. Yes, an article may be speedily deleted if its content meets certain criteria, but we don't call that a "bold" deletion, we call it a "speedy" deletion. So, while pages may be moved, if their current and new titles meet certain criteria, perhaps we should avoid calling these moves "bold" moves. The standard terminology for this is "undiscussed moves". – wbm1058 (talk) 15:30, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

This needs to be clarified because many people, including the admin who just closed an ANI discussion related to this, Deryck Chan, apparently thinks at least "the spirit of [[WP:BOLD]]" does apply to page moves. --В²C ☎ 16:17, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

• Support the proposed wording, and any wording that adds similar clarifying wording. BOLD and its spirit apply to editing the content of articles, not to page moves or article deletions. --В²C ☎ 16:17, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
• Support, however the rationale must be added (eg what Herostratus wrote it his proposal.) Understanding the problem makes it easier to understand and remember the rule. Staszek Lem (talk) 17:46, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
• Comment - You do realize that there is a "move" button on our tool bar, specifically designed to make moves easy. I don't see how this idea could be enforced without removing that button. Blueboar (talk) 18:02, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Nobody suggests hurdles to the action must be added as a deterrent. As for enforcing, that's an easy one: a comment of caution on the "move" page. Staszek Lem (talk) 18:28, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
  • I agree with Staszek Lem. The impetus of the recent ANI was because a certain user did not pay heed to multiple comments of caution on their talk page from multiple users. Needless to say I'm disappointed in the "no consensus" result but am hoping it's enough to dissuade the user from continuing to engage in the problematic behavior. -_В²C ☎ 19:16, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose I remain unconvinced, I see no reason to exempt page moves from WP:BOLD, as not a single one of the reasons provided seems like a big deal at all. "Incoming links"? Redirects exist. Sometimes need an admin? So what? What happens when they don't? The vast majority of moves have been, are, and continue to be uncontroversial, and page moves should not be exempt because sometimes a person screws it up and it needs to be cleaned up. WP:BOLD is too vital a principle at Wikipedia, we need to encourage it more, not discourage it. --Jayron32 02:11, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Screw ups are fine. It's premeditated avoidance of scrutiny by those who know better (and have been warned accordingly) that's the problem. It's a subtle form of vandalism that can be much more difficult to undo than simple editing vandalism. Sometimes uncontroversial moves go unnoticed for months, perhaps longer, because the error is often not obvious. Consider Laeken, for example. If somebody moved that Laeken, Belgium, would anyone notice? After all, there is Haren, Belgium. Haren is disambiguated because there other Harens, but Laeken is unique so should not be disambiguated. But someone who prefers "more informative" titles and knows that a formal RM proposal to move Laeken is likely to fail, might try to move it "boldly" and hope nobody notices. After all, they've got nothing to lose by doing that, and they might get away with it. Failing to discourage this type of subtle vandalism is the problem that needs to be addressed. --В²C ☎ 02:31, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
    • It's vandalism for a page to be moved to another correct name? That's a new one. Regardless, a WP:RM to establish the name for what we should call it (per WP:AT and the applicable WP:NC) should be sufficient to return it to its supposedly "more"-correct name, if indeed such is required (and a technical request cannot be implemented). --Izno (talk) 03:13, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
    • 1) B2C has been here long enough to know that when someone does something they think is correct (even if they are disruptive) it should never be called vandalism. That doesn't mean it should be done, it's just not vandalism. Even subtle. 2) Disputes happen in all sorts of venues at Wikipedia; this is no different, we don't unnecessarily encumber the 99% of uncontroversial work just to deal with disputes that inevitably happen. --Jayron32 11:52, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
• I'm sorry, but I come down fully on the Hell No side (per Jayron's edit summary). I see no reason why I should be prevented from moving a page to a location which complies better with WP:AT and WP:NC, and I certainly don't want to get bogged down with some question of local consensus ("if it might be controversial"). All things might be controversial on Wikipedia--that should not stop us from making a change (as this guidelines espouses). (Obvious caveat: BLP.) I've tagged this for RFC because apparently this needs a larger audience. --Izno (talk) 03:13, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
• Caution is good, but this proposal's premise is flawed. Thanks B²C for pinging me about this discussion. I feel obliged to echo Jayron's analysis:
  • "moves require incoming links to all be changed" - No it doesn't because regular page moves always leave redirects.
  • "sometimes admin action is required to move pages" - The use of advanced permissions is already governed by the relevant policies (WP:PMR and WP:deletion policy).
  • "back-and-forth moves mess up the logs"... exactly as much as back-and-forth edit disputes. Hence this is not a reason to require one to be more cautious when editing page title than when editing page content.

  I welcome this suggestion to qualify boldness in page-moves just like we've already done with various aspects of Wikipedia editing, but I don't think the current proposal is well informed or appropriately worded for its intended purpose. Deryck C. 12:34, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Well, then, Jayron32, maybe I should start making unilateral moves of articles to titles that comply better with WP:AT and WP:D? --В²C ☎ 16:33, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

No, I'm not going to actually do that. That's the point. I respect that there are often differences of opinion about which title meets the relevant policies and guidelines better, and these need to get worked out in a discussion where consensus has to develop in favor of the move to move it. Nobody is talking about the obvious cases. We're talking only about the potentially controversial ones. This is longstanding guidance about article moves - we're just trying to have it clarified at BOLD. --В²C ☎ 17:01, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Hard cases make bad law. Controversial edits are controversial edits, and moves are not special in that regard. We don't demand that simple edits and spelling mistakes are required to go through a full RFC, and for the same reason we should not recommend that page moves (the vast majority of which will be for the same reason) do the same. We should recommend that people boldly move pages when they are at the wrong title for the same reason we recommend that people boldly fix mistakes when they find them. When it is controversial, we discuss, but not before it is controversial. --Jayron32 18:53, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Okay, but that's contrary to what policy has been with respect to title changes for as long as I can remember. For example, WP:TITLECHANGES states: "Any potentially controversial proposal to change a title should be advertised at Wikipedia:Requested moves, and consensus reached before any change is made.". And technical move requests at WP:RM that are considered to be merely potentially controversial have long been automatically moved to the discussion section. Also, consensus has to be established to change a title; the default when there is no consensus is to not move. With title changes we have never waited to avoid moves until there is actual controversy, which seems to be what you're suggesting. We avoid the move unless we're sure there won't be any controversy (and this is virtually never the case when primary topic or disambiguation is involved). --В²C ☎ 21:42, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Right, which among the total number of Wikipedia articles, and among the total number of moves that occur on a regular basis, amount for a tiny fraction, too small of a fraction to account for such a fundamental change of policy. The key thing here is that most moves are not controversial in any way. You don't change the way you tell people to do things for such a small issue. --Jayron32 11:20, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose - basically per Jayron. I don't see a compelling reason to exempt page moves from BOLD any more than any other type of edit. Parsecboy (talk) 17:57, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
  • I am shaking my head when I see "I don't see a compelling reason to exempt page moves from BOLD"... HELLO ... this editing guideline does not mention the concept of moving a page. You might as well be saying I don't see a compelling reason to exempt page deletions from BOLD... I don't see a compelling reason to exempt page protections from BOLD... are we to assume that any activity on Wikipedia, including blocking experienced users, may be done BOLDly, unless this page specifcally "EXEMPTS" that activity from the "BOLD" guideline? wbm1058 (talk) 23:31, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
    • C'mon now, are we really resorting to logical fallacies? In any event, moving a page is an edit - it's sorta why it ends up in the edit history of the article, not in a separate log like page deletions and user blocks do.
    • Do you really think a BOLD move like this one I did the other day ought to have gone through an RM first? Parsecboy (talk) 00:07, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

It's obviously a gray area in editors minds... page protections also are shown in the edit history... no, that wasn't a capital WP:BOLD move, it was a qualifying undiscussed so-called "bold" move, because it passes the criteria at WP:RMUM: the logs show no prior article at Commander of Ships of the Line, and the talk page is a red link, so there was obviously no prior discussion. This page does explain some constraints on boldness: "Being bold is not an excuse to, even temporarily, violate the policy on material about living persons." Likewise, being bold should not be an excuse to violate WP:RMUM. And just as you wouldn't debate changes to BLP policy here, you shouldn't discuss changes to the page moving guidelines here. – wbm1058 (talk) 00:36, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Now you're just splitting hairs. In any event, RMUM is not policy, so it's not exactly equivalent to BLP, now is it? Parsecboy (talk) 16:15, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Article titles is a policy, so care should be taken to not interpret the Be bold guideline in a manner that violates policy. The only use of the term "bold" in the titles policy is in the context of formatting text in bold type. The Wikipedia:Article titles § Considering title changes policy says: Changing one controversial title to another without a discussion that leads to consensus is strongly discouraged. If an article title has been stable for a long time, and there is no good reason to change it, it should not be changed. It's not advising editors to "be bold". I don't think I'm splitting hairs, but I think we're both opposing the proposal, albeit for different reasons. I don't think we should be introducing the concept of "bold page moves". Yes, many pages can be moved without discussion, but they should nonetheless be moved with caution – a due diligence check/assessment of the potential for disagreement with the move – caution, not boldness. – wbm1058 (talk) 14:32, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose per Jayron32 and Deryck C. Like others, I would welcome some clarification as to what constitutes a "potentially controversial move" (but not on this page) and when one should not be so bold, and I find Wbm1058 examples at the top of this section a good starting point, but moving a page in good faith and with the knowledge of followup work required should not be a big deal. No such user (talk) 11:36, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
• Explanation. Think of it like this. I want to add a fact to an article (I have a ref). I say to myself "I think this helps the reader. But I can certainly see how a lot of editors would object to it, and so its quite likely it'll get rolled back. But you never know, so here goes". Should editors take this approach to page moves? "I'm going to move this page to a title I like better, it's very likely that someone will object and roll it back, but maybe I'll get lucky, so here goes"? I can see the argument for that, but also the argument that page moves are a different thing than simple edits and ought to be approached a little more carefully. Herostratus (talk) 20:15, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Also, can someone explain about the links? I thought, say I have page "Foo" with 20 incoming links. I move it to "Bar". The 20 incoming links are now reach "Bar" through the redirect "Foo", a suboptimal condition -- they all should be changed to point directly to "Bar". Right? This means going to all the sources of the incoming links (sometimes there are scores) and editing each article to update the link. That's what I've been doing, and an annoying time consuming process it is. IIRC when you move a page it puts up a message telling you to fix the links. Am I missing something here? Herostratus (talk) 20:22, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

No, you are wrong. Please review WP:NOTBROKEN. The message displayed should probably be removed or amended. --Izno (talk) 20:45, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

No I don't think so. WP:NOTBROKEN says not to pipe links solely to avoid a redirect. Thus in the case above if, in context, it for some reason was better to continue to say "...he was foo..." (even though the article title is now Bar), its best to leave the it alone as "...he was [[foo]]..." , rather than change it to "...he was [[Bar|foo]]..." just to avoid the redirect. However, in most cases, when you change the article title, you want to change its appearance in text in articles also. If that's not an improvement in over 50% of instances, you probably shouldn't have changed the title.

The only non-piping guidance (keeping in mind that the target article is titled Franklin D. Roosevelt) is:

"That is, editors should not change, for instance, Franklin Roosevelt to Franklin D. Roosevelt... just to "fix a redirect". However, it is perfectly acceptable to change it to Franklin D. Roosevelt if for some reason it is preferred that "Franklin D. Roosevelt" actually appear in the visible text.

In the example "Franklin Roosevelt" and Franklin D. Roosevelt" are essentially identical, and in fact "Franklin Roosevelt" is a tiny bit quicker to read and equally clear -- possibly a better title, maybe. So in that rare case, fine. But a lot of moves are more substantial than that, and there is indeed "some reason" for the new title to appear in the visible text.

(For what it's worth, even the advice not to change to the actual title if the new name is no better is egregious nonsense and bad advice anyway. There's no harm. In fact there an (unmeasurably infintesimal) advantage in serving time, but more important it is slightly easier for editors to read the article source (and readers reading the article too too), and know at once to what article the link devolves. A redirect gives a slight surprise to the reader, a minor thing but not nothing. It is for this reason that piping is banned at dab pages, I believe. So it's actually a tiny improvement. The only argument against it is "don't waste your time", but its not for our rules to tell us how to spend our volunteered time thank you very much, and maybe some people like tidiness.)

Also many if not most moves are to or from "Fubar" to "Fubar (album)" etc. (with "Fubar" than typically becoming a dab page, or else a new primary topic), and you have to update the links. Herostratus (talk) 21:43, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

@Herostratus: To your question "when you move a page it puts up a message telling you to fix the links. Am I missing something here?" - yes, you are. The actual message asks you to "Check what links here to see whether the move has created any double redirects, and fix the most serious ones."

WP:NOTBROKEN is not just concerned with piped links: the section title is Do not "fix" links to redirects that are not broken. No mention of pipes here. The section text begins

There is usually nothing wrong with linking to redirects to articles. Some editors are tempted, upon finding a link to a redirect page, to bypass the redirect and point the link directly at the target page.

Again, no mention of pipes. The next sentence does mention piped links, but as you noted above, one of the examples in the next paragraph is

That is, editors should not change, for instance, [[Franklin Roosevelt]] to [[Franklin D. Roosevelt]] .. just to "fix a redirect".

Again, there is no pipe here. So WP:NOTBROKEN does apply to non-piped links. As for your claim "in fact there an (unmeasurably infintesimal) advantage in serving time" - the links are made when an edit is saved, and not when a page is served. So there is no difference to the time it takes to serve a page, but during the edit that you make to alter these links, any time that may seem to be saved is totally insignificant when compared to the time needed you save your edit. By making the edit, you are in fact taking up server time, so there is a net loss. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:04, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Right, all the technical stuff is of no import.

But I mean here's the situation. You want to move, let's say, Cannon to Artillery piece. (You suspect a lot of people won't like that, but per WP:BOLD you're entitled to give it a shot.). Maybe it's just a matter you just liking the sound of "Artillery piece" better (and per WP:BOLD that's an acceptable reason to make the move), but probably, if pressed, you'd say "Well this more clearly describes the entity" and you probably believe it. It that's not true why make the move. And if it is true, why leave the old, less-helpful label in place? It doesn't make sense, doesn't add up.

Again the example shows a spelling variation (Franklin Roosevelt / Franklin D. Roosevelt, essentially the same term just different adding an extra letter). This is a poor example because 1) its possibly rare, and 2) even it its not it's easy. There's really no difference betweeen the two terms, so don't worry about it. But many changes are not just spelling or typography corrections.

King of the battlefield redirects to Artillery. So does Gunnery Officer and several other terms. Does that mean they are interchangeable with "artillery" in article text. Of course not.

That is, editors should not change, for instance, Gunnery Officer to artillery... just to "fix a redirect". However, it is perfectly acceptable to change it to artillery if for some reason it is preferred that "artillery" actually appear in the visible text.

How's that? So to recap:

• In many moves, a disambiguation page or new primary topic creatred, such that the article is being moved from "Foo" to "Foo (X)", and you must fix the links, per WP:FIXDABLINKS etc.
• But even if not, in many cases, the new title describes the entity better (else why make the change?) and if that's true its appropriate to to change what appears in links in articles.
• But even if not, its good practice and good hygiene to update the links because

• 1) the Principle of least astonishment for user interface design tells us that, all things being equal, it is better if the user is taken to a page titled the same as the link pointing to it.
• 2) and if you don't, over the years fewer and fewer links will point to their actual target, and this slow degradation makes it that much harder for editors editing the page to know where a link actually goes. They have to check.
• 3) and who cares what WP:NOTBROKEN says? Its just some obscure bad advice somebody stuck in probably ten years ago. All good editors learn to shrug off bad advice sometimes (and since it says its "perfectly acceptable to change it" its not even breaking the rule to do so).

You can disagree with all this, but it is at least reasonable. Since its reasonable, its silly to pretend that there isn't more work involved in moving a page than changing "on the 4th of July" to "on Independence Day" or whatever in an article.

I mean you can say "the downside is not enough to prescribe against WP:BOLD for moves". That's not the same as "there is no downside". Herostratus (talk) 21:16, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

@Herostratus: - I should point out that changing internal links for the purpose of avoiding redirects has been discouraged since 2008 (although there were scripts to "straighten" links before then). See WP:NOPIPE. Deryck C. 11:39, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

@Deryck Chan: But WP:NOPIPE says quite literally nothing about changing (that is, rewriting) internal links for the purpose of avoiding redirects. Is is only about not piping internal links for the purpose of avoiding redirects. Everybody is on board with that. FWIW WP:NOPIPE starts out "First of all, keep links as simple as possible". Having links that point directly to the page they devolve to is as simple as possible. Herostratus (talk) 17:30, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

That's an argument for keeping link text simple when one writes new bits of prose in an article, but the guide still discourages changing links just because the target article has moved...! Deryck C. 19:29, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Does not. Herostratus (talk) 21:36, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose as instruction creep and as something that would be harmful to working with new pages, where BOLD moves are very frequently required, especially when working with new editors. Yes, it is worded ambiguously enough to allow it, but I don't want any additional reason for drama in new pages, and I think this has the possibility to add it. BOLD moves of stable established pages are easily enough reversed at WP:RM/TR, so I don't see what good this does. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:36, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Articles where WP:BOLD has been replaced with hidden comments that require one "ask first"

I made some edits to the Bach article, and they were reverted because a "hidden comment" says all additions must first be approved at talk (see talk page). Is this a common practice for articles that are not even considered GAs? I mean, I understand that GAs and FAs have established content, but should WP:BOLD be ignored at articles that are not considered good or featured? Kirk Leonard (talk) 19:50, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

@Kirk Leonard:, Being bold is often just the first step in a cycle called Bold, Revert, Discuss, which you are now experiencing. Even if an article is not GA or FA quality, there are oftentimes long-standing discussions that a new-to-that-page editor can trip over. Hidden comments are intended to warn such new editors that there are previous discussions that they may want to take into account when making changes. If the changes are made and then reverted, the best practice is to engage in the talk page discussion. This is an area where the "anyone can edit" pillar has to interact with the "treat each other with civility" pillar. Hope this helps. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:17, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. Yes it helps, and I did in fact start a talk page subject after being reverted. My question is more to the point that there are apparently articles where you cannot add anything without first asking at talk, which I find surprising. I mean, if the additions were obviously junk that would make sense, but I get the feeling the particular hidden comment pertains to any and all additions, including a mention of Bach's death, which seemed a glaring omission for a summary of an article devoted to his life. I don't think mentioning the circumstances surrounding his death are "unnecessary statements". I respect the BRD cycle, but I think I'll avoid putting in too much work at these articles, because 40-50 minutes of work was undone in an instant and I simply don't have time for that. Kirk Leonard (talk) 20:24, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Rewriting

Both WP:Rewrite and WP:Rewriting are redirects here, yet no word of this guideline matches. Although rewriting an article may be considered bold, there's probably room for more information on the subject (POV fork avoidance, necessity to first delete via consensus, or to merge new drafts)... Do we have something better about this already? Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 03:49, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Re Mike Trebilcock

What numpty suggested he is Black? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.47.47.52 (talk) 17:46, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

@80.47.47.52: I suggest moving this question to the article's talk page. Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 17:59, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

SOFIXIT redirect being discussed

See Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 December 3. – Jonesey95 (talk) 23:09, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Liable to be seen as a Personal Attack

• 1) The following line was added by me:

"and that using this guideline as an excuse to tell somebody else that they should have fixed something themselves is liable to be seen as a personal attack."

It was then removed by Izno with this edit description: (no, it may be inflammatory, but not a PA)

I have now restored it with a modification (and with the Edit Description Per Talk, which I'm giving here), as follows:

"and that using this guideline as an excuse to tell somebody else that they should have fixed something themselves is liable to be seen (at least by the criticized person, and perhaps also by others) as a personal attack."

• 2) There is no statement that it actually is a Personal Attack, merely that it is liable to be seen as such.
• 2a) This is almost self-evidently true in the sense that the criticized editor is liable to see it as a personal attack.
• 2b) Whether others, such as Admins and Arbcom, will see it as such, is unknowable in any particular case, and may vary on a case by case basis (and admin by admin, etc), and this very unknowability means they are liable to interpret it as such (but even if they never do, the statement remains true due 2a above).
• 3) Some relevant extracts from WP:NPA seem to be:

What is considered to be a personal attack?

There is no rule that is objective and not open to interpretation on what constitutes a personal attack as opposed to constructive discussion, but some types of comments are never acceptable:

...

(Examples of the never acceptable include ...) Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence.

...

These examples are not exhaustive. Insulting or disparaging an editor is a personal attack regardless of the manner in which it is done. When in doubt, comment on the article's content without referring to its contributor at all.

• 4) Given all of the above, I think editors need to be warned of the risks they may be runnng, and the restored statement gives them that warning.
• 5) That said, if somebody else can think of a better way of giving such a warning (perhaps including saying that it may be seen as inflammatory?), please do so.

Tlhslobus (talk) 21:58, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, no. Some people see any shred of criticism as personal attack. We cannot protect each ans every one's sensibilities. We have a policy about personal attacks. Common misinterpetations of this policy must be covered in there, not here nor anywhere else. Staszek Lem (talk) 22:11, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

P.S. Please do not edit the policy again without discussion, because your suggestion was reverted, therefore you have to gain consensus for any further modifications. We cannot flip policies back and forth lightly. Also, your edit summary "per talk" was misleading: it implies there was talk, but there was none, only your statement. Staszek Lem (talk) 22:11, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

1) Sorry, Staszek Lem, if my edit description was unintentionally misleading. In future I'll try to remember to say something like the longer 'See my reasons in Talk' (but I suspect I won't remember as it likely won't arise again for months or years).

2) Also I won't be editing the article again without consensus (even though I thought that 3RR applied here, as I don't see any 1RR rule indicated at the top of this page)

3) I've already said my bit about Personal Attacks above. I'm not aware that I am misinterpreting anything said at WP:NPA, nor in what way anybody who felt such criticism was a personal attack on them would be misinterpreting what is said there. So if I've missed something there, please point it out, provided that's not too much hassle.

3a) Alternatively there may be a need to add something there about saying 'So fix it' not being a PA, though I certainly won't be trying to do that myself - my own experience being that Wikipedia's problem is usually not too much sensitivity, but too little, thus at least contributing to problems such as editor retention, etc, probably compounded by the huge difficulty experienced if trying to do anything to change this.

3b) But I don't want to pursue the PA issue any further unless and until I get significant support from others, and perhaps not even then, given that it might well still be a lot of hassle that gets nowhere. In any case I'm not expecting such support.

4) I'd also be somewhat interested to know why you also reverted these 2 bits (which, incidentally, had at least appeared to be acceptable to Izno, as s/he didn't revert them):

But do remember that Wikipedia is not compulsory and that people may have many valid reasons for not wanting to edit something themselves.

and

(For more about that, see BOLD, revert, discuss cycle).

4b) But please don't bother if you feel giving such reasons is too much hassle, as (much like 3b above) I also won't pursue these 2 items any further unless and until I get significant support from others (and perhaps not even then), support which I'm not expecting.

5) Sorry for taking up your time. Regards, Tlhslobus (talk) 23:33, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

A generic answer to all non-trivial policy changes is similar to WP:NOTSTUPID : if we start anticipating all kinds of misunderstandings and misbehaviors, our policies will be unreadable (and some complain they already are :-). Therefore only if we observe a repeatable pattern of a particular problem with editors, we seek to update the policy. Staszek Lem (talk) 00:05, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply, Staszek Lem. Actually, except for the BRD bit (which was just some spur-of-the-moment thing that seemed like a good idea at the time), I made the changes (per WP:BOLD) because I had both experienced and observed it as a problem on about 3 occasions over perhaps 3 years, with one of the occasions being a complaint at WP:GGTF seemingly implying there were many other such occasions, and implying that Sofixit was a particular problem for women editors (though without mentioning PAs). (I also have no experience of seeing Sofixit used in a way that seemed unproblemmatic to me, though that is of course arguably just my subjective opinion). But I'm not sure anybody will be sufficiently interested for it to be worth my while trying to document this (especially as some of this documentation might risk being construed as a PA by me on some other people). So I won't bother unless somebody really wants to see it (and perhaps not even then), all the more so given that I now expect nothing useful to come from any of this. Indeed maybe I should think about asking for views at the GGTF rather than here (but that has proved unproductive and/or painful for me in the past, so I probably won't). Thanks again for your time. Regards, Tlhslobus (talk) 00:55, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Now I understand your intentions and the issue a bit better. Unfortunately you approached this IMO in a wrong way. A bit later I will write up an alternative suggestion to this end. Staszek Lem (talk) 18:03, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Staszek Lem, I feel that this piece by Tlhslobus, with Izno's tweak, was fine. There was no need to revert all the way back to my edit. Per what TonyBallioni argued at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 December 3#Wikipedia:SOFIXIT, it is true that people often use "WP:SOFIXIT" to shut down discussion. They do commonly use it to be snippy. And even if they don't mean it in a dismissive way, it often comes across that way. It being true that many matters need discussion beforehand is why I added "may be" in place of "usually" for "fixing it yourself" and noted alternative wording in a followup edit summary. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:50, 8 December 2017 (UTC) Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:54, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Yes, the idea itself is basically OK, but it is logically out of order and a bit harsh. See my proposal below. Staszek Lem (talk) 19:37, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Policy update proposal

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

No consensus May want to discuss at WP:VPP Galobtter (pingó mió) 19:11, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

---

"Be freaking BOLD, you moron!" - "Bug off!"

The WP:BOLD guideline is one of the earliest components of the groundbreaking approach to writing encyclopedia, according to the motto "Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit". Its intention was to clarify how wikis work: one does not have to wait for someone's approval in order to change the article and, as Lee Daniel Crocker was cited in this first draft, to break the traditional expectation that an article is "owned" by some author.

Therefore references to WP:BB are to be phrased as a gentle advice to a novice or as an "alphabetsoupy" way to say "go ahead", but never as a castigation for something someone should have done but didn't. The latter way basically implies that someone was lazy, and may cause an annoyance even if phrased politely; in the worst case this may even be perceived as a personal attack. The "accusative" usage has become surprisingly frequent. This is especially observable in WP:AFD discussions, when the "keep"-!voter points out that there are plenty of references, whereas the OP responds, "Why didn't you improve the article yourself, then?".

See also "#Liable to be seen as a Personal Attack" above. Staszek Lem (talk) 19:40, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Proposal

Therefore I would like to suggest two additions: The first one says how not to use WP:BB, the second one says that instead slapping someone with WP:BB, with possible subsequent further bickering, you better boldly edit yourself.

(shortcut: WP:NOTBOLD) Being bold is not compulsory: People may have valid reasons for not being bold: one may have not enough time or expertise, one may be unsure in their criticism and wanting more feedback, etc. Therefore a reference to this guideline should not be used as a reprimand for something not done.

[author's comment: I suppressed my urge to dwell more on the last statement: possible exceptions (e.g. when validly discussing someone's (mis)behavior) or consequences, such as hurt feelings of the criticized.]

(shortcut: WP:BOLDBACK) Being bold works both ways: If you meet with a non-boldness, just fix the article yourself, and readers will see a better article much sooner. After that you may write in the talk page something like: "Thank you for pointing the issue out. I fixed it. Next time please be bold and don't hesitate to fix the problem yourself".

[author's comment: I did this quite a few times as a follow-up when IP readers report in talk page some weirdness in an article.]

Since this is a non-trivial addition, I am askin for extra opinions. Staszek Lem (talk) 19:31, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Survey

Support either proposal, but especially the first. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:20, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

• Actually, I am suggesting both of them at the same time. Staszek Lem (talk) 00:53, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Switching to Weak Oppose: As BrightR has pointed out below, almost everything I wanted was already there and just needed a shortcut to highlight it and make it easier to refer to, so any other changes seem to be covered by usually sensible conservative advice like "if it ain't broke don't fix it" (as in, for instance, WP:NOTSTUPID).Tlhslobus (talk) 04:52, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Comment: Some of the other supports here might also have been different if the supporters had been aware of BrightR's very important point.Tlhslobus (talk) 05:04, 20 January 2018 (UTC) Switching to Temporary Weak Oppose: (I need more time to think through the implications of BrightR's very important point, and New Year's Eve is the wrong time for that). Tlhslobus (talk) 17:47, 31 December 2017 (UTC) Support first addition without reservation. Also support second addition, though ideally I'd prefer amending "Next time please be bold and don't hesitate to fix the problem yourself" to something a little less imperative such as "Next time please feel free to be bold and please feel free to try to fix the problem yourself." But if that's not to other people's liking or whatever, I'm happy enough with the current wording of the proposed addition. My main reasons for supporting both paragraphs were partly given in the previous section, but I also think they help implement our policies, guidelines and ideals in WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA, WP:CSB, WP:GGTF, WP:BIAS, and WP:WER, as explained in my Comment2 in the discussion section below. Tlhslobus (talk) 00:56, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

(And by the way, my thanks to both of you, Staszek Lem and Flyer22 Reborn).Tlhslobus (talk) 00:56, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

little less imperative -- Since I am not a native English speaker, I would not object rephrasing as long the idea remains the same. The suggestion of extra politeness is welcome, however your version is a wee too verbose IMO: "please feel free to be bold" vs. "please be bold" is sugary sugar to my tastes. Staszek Lem (talk) 01:10, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply, I'll respond soon in the discussion section below, as this section is really for votes.Tlhslobus (talk) 01:20, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Oppose Be a sinner, and let your sins be strong (sin boldly). I don't think this needs equivocation. WP:VOLUNTEER is a separate policy, and its peanut butter can stay out of this chocolate. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:40, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

• WP:VOLUNTEER is not a policy nor a guideline, neither it covers the proposed changes. Staszek Lem (talk) 17:22, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Support both. Thanks for suggesting them. SarahSV ^(talk) 05:44, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Oppose - adds nothing to WP:CAREFUL. Bright☀ 05:38, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm not at all sure that the proposed change really adds nothing (as it seems to spell out some things more clearly and/or explicitly), but regardless, I've now added 2 shortcuts to the last paragraph of WP:Careless to make it more visible and easier to refer to it, as this may go at least some of the way towards addressing my concerns. Tlhslobus (talk) 18:31, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

See also my above switch to Temporary Weak Oppose. Tlhslobus (talk) 17:48, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Discussion

• I intentionally did not include the proposal voiced in #Liable to be seen as a Personal Attack, because the issue discussed there may happen with each and every policy or guideline: if you tell someone they are not following the rules, especially behavioral ones, many people take it rather personally and feel an urge to resist. Therefore this is a generic issue of "Discuss the article not the editor", and therefore I see no reason to bring it here, in an individual guideline. Staszek Lem (talk) 20:10, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

I take it you are not arguing to delete WP:SOFIXIT. I mean, it has been through deletion discussions before, including a recent one. So it seems you are arguing to retain it, and to add another paragraph underneath with a redirect pointing to it. To me, the text could simply be combined with the "Fix it yourself instead of just talking about it." paragraph, but I can understand having a separate paragraph for it. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:20, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Adding two paragraphs, covering objectionable use of "SOFIXIT" as explained, I believe, in detail. One paragraph is "what not to" and another is "what to". My first "amendment" seems to contradict "SOFIXIT", when in fact it is not. A "benign" use of "sofixit" is a conclusion of the discussion as "good idea; go ahead, do it". The objectionable use is of type: "You could have done it yourself instead of bugging us. We are just as busy as you." or "If you are so smart, do it, we are good with what we have". Staszek Lem (talk) 22:57, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, Staszek Lem, I have no problem with your current approach rather than my now discarded previous one, apart from my minor quibble about part of the wording of the second addition (see my above Support vote for details).Tlhslobus (talk) 01:08, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

• (continuing discussion with Staszek Lem started at my above (now former) support vote). Thanks for your reply, Staszek Lem. You may well be right that my suggested amendment is a bit verbose and sugary sugar. Personally I tend to prefer that risk to the risk of not being sugary enough. The problem is that however we say it, it risks being interpreted as a 'polite' order rather than a mere request, and/or as a 'polite' criticism rather than mere encouragement. I may be wrong, but on the whole I tend to think that more sugary wording tends to reduce that risk (it's probably impossible to eliminate it entirely). At least in my experience, all 'polite' orders begin 'Please ...', whereas 'Please feel free to ...' is normally not seen as an order (except when used sarcastically, which would not be the case here). But this may well be something that varies from culture to culture and/or from person to person (I'm Irish, and my culture and/or I may well be inclined to sugary verbosity). So I'm happy for somebody else to suggest something better, or to go along with your wording if you and/or others feel unable to accept mine (Above all I would hate to see your excellent overall amendments fail over this relatively minor issue).Tlhslobus (talk) 01:41, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

• Comment2: Besides other arguments already given above, the changes also help implement our policies, guidelines and ideals in WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA, WP:CSB, WP:GGTF, WP:BIAS, and WP:WER. In line with WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA, they give clearer guidelines as to how Sofixit should be used in a way that reduces the risk of inflaming the situation, and reduces the risk that any editor will feel they have been under personal attack. As previously mentioned, they also respond to complaints made in the WP:GGTF about the use (or abuse) of Sofixit disproportionately harming women, contrary to the aims of WP:CSB, WP:GGTF and WP:BIAS. All of these measures should thus also help with Editor Retention, in line with the aims of WP:WER. Although it could be argued that GGTF, CSB and WER are irrelevant here as projects rather than policies, the projects exist to improve Wikipedia, and to avoid damage to it, so any claim that they should somehow be ignored here should itself be ignored per the 5th Pillar of Wikipedia (WP:5P5) and the related (WP:IAR), which definitely is a policy. (Note: I'm giving these reasons here partly due to having being on the losing side in my first Afd not too long ago, partly because our side was held not to have based our case sufficiently on Wikipedia policies and guidelines, etc).Tlhslobus (talk) 11:32, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

• Not yet time to close (If nothing else, I want more time to think about BrightR's important point above, and New Year's Eve is the wrong time for that).Tlhslobus (talk) 17:53, 31 December 2017 (UTC) Time to Close? I think it's time for somebody uninvolved to close this. I make it 3 to 1 in favour, or 4 to 1 including the nominator (2 to 1 is normally seen as consensus), with the only oppose being 12 days ago (and with a 10-day-old unanswered reply to that oppose), but I think I can't close it as I'm involved. The rules on closing are at Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment#Ending_RfCs. We could post a request at the indicated noticeboard, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure, but that seems like a bad idea (it all depends on the definition of 'contentious', I guess, but I don't really think this is 'contentious', and in such cases we're told not to post at the noticeboard, which is only meant for the most contentious stuff, but instead to close it ourselves as soon as is reasonable, and preferably before a bot deletes it automatically around January 7th). Tlhslobus (talk) 14:44, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Closing a discussion of a core Wikipedia policy with four participants and less than 30 days to respond is hasty. Bright☀ 05:40, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Change title?

Why not use {{DISPLAYTITLE}} to make the bold in "be bold" bold? I would do this, but I don't know how. Thanks, qwerty6811 :-) Chat Ping me 18:08, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Boldly  Done: Noyster (talk), 21:43, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

And unboldly done. I don't see the emphasis as either necessary or desirable. --Izno (talk) 04:30, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Userbox

Here is a userbox for bold editors.

"BeBold"This User is Bold.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 20thtryer (talk • contribs) 21:52, 29 March 2012

Why is it so important to be hiding? Is this something to be afraid to be a part of?

Odaparantly 3711 (talk) 06:28, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Confusing tutorials on this site but I'll keep trying. Someone had created a page using my USPTO registered Service Mark name Ava Victoria (talk) 17:59, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 January 2019

I believe the home town of Rasputin given in this article three times as Prokovskoye should actually be spelled POKROVSKOYE Tobias Leviticus (talk) 15:18, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: this is the talk page for discussing improvements to the page Wikipedia:Be bold. Please make your request at the talk page for the article concerned. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:21, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Sandbox

Is there somewhere to make suggested editions to a article other that on the talk page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.76.232.129 (talk) 09:01, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

The talk page is the best place to suggest changes to an article. – Jonesey95 (talk) 11:14, 28 March 2019 (UTC)