Wikipedia talk:Be bold/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Responsibility

The link WP:SOFIXIT directs to this article, but it doesn't mention WP:BURDEN in its prose. Would it be fair to add the following to the end of this article?
== Responsibility for providing citations ==
{{main article|Wikipedia:Verifiability#Responsibility_for_providing_citations}}
The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and it is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source[1] that directly supports the contribution.[2]
[1]A source "directly supports" a given piece of material if that information is [[wikt:directly|directly]] present in the source, so that using this source to support this material is not a violation of [[Wikipedia:No original research]]. The location of any citation – including whether one is present in the article at all – is unrelated to whether a source directly supports the material. For questions about where and how to place citations, see [[WP:CITE]], [[WP:CITELEAD]], etc.
[2]Once an editor has provided any source that he or she believes, in good faith, to be sufficient, then any editor who later removes the material has an obligation to articulate specific problems that would justify its exclusion from Wikipedia (e.g., why the source is unreliable; the source does not support the claim; [[WP:DUE|undue emphasis]]; [[WP:NOT|unencyclopedic content]]; etc.). If necessary, all editors are then expected to help achieve [[WP:CONSENSUS|consensus]], and any problems with the text or sourcing should be fixed before the material is added back.
A145GI15I95 (talk) 21:08, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bolder nutshell

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

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

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

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

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

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

WP:SOFIXIT

wp:SOFIXIT links to this article. I think that is inappropriate, or rather, encourages inappropriate behaviour.

It is (I believe) absolutely appropriate to write on a talk page that an article would benefit from being expanded to cover a certain aspect, even if the person commenting is not able to add that aspect her/himself - whether that is due to lack of competency, time, sources, or for other reasons.

It is (I believe) inappropriate and denigrating to reply to such a request with wp:SOFIXIT.--Nø (talk) 13:15, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

I disagree. I've used that particular shortcut for users who make edit requests to change a single word or phrase repeatedly on articles that have no protection... Or for users who demand things to be changed a certain way. It's not the shortcut that is wrong - just sometimes the usage. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:39, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Wouldn't wp:BEBOLD be absolutely adequate in those cases? (Yes; same thing, different alias.)--Nø (talk) 15:27, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

A tweak...

I'm not sure if this is covered somewhere in the article, so I'm suggesting it here. I'd like to see something like this added:

"BOLD is fine when one first comes to an article and sees the need to improve the article. After that, if any other editors show signs that the edit is unapproved or controversial, BOLD no longer applies. Then caution is recommended."

Valjean (talk) 02:38, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 November 2020

There's a wonderful picture of Princess Alice in the upper right corner of the page which has in incorrect sub-heeader that gies the name of her husband instead of her own.

Please change the subheader that States:

<text>Princess Andrew of Greece and Denmark</text>

to

<text>Princess Alice of Battenberg</text>

THANK YOu! 24.16.34.193 (talk) 23:34, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

This isn't the right place for this message, but if you read the article's introduction you will see this is not an error: "she adopted the style of her husband, becoming Princess Andrew of Greece and Denmark". – Thjarkur (talk) 23:57, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

"Wikipedia:Curiosity killed the cat" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Wikipedia:Curiosity killed the cat. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 December 29#Wikipedia:Curiosity killed the cat until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. JJP...MASTER!_{[talk to] JJP... master?} 02:44, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Can you edit the main page?

To say "can not" instead of "can't" — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Master of Hedgehogs (talk • contribs) 20:40, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

This talk page is not for talking about the main page. Do not ask general questions on this page. Do not talk about articles on this page. This page is for discussing the Wikipedia page Wikipedia:Be bold. ALso, you cannot just ask to edit the main page like that. The page changes every day, and there is no way for the admins to know where the exact spot that you want to be corrected is. Anyways, there is no reason to change "can't" to "can not", because they mean the same thing, "can't" is just short for it. HenryOmarCCCmango' (talk) 17:27, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

mans writing an essay on someone suggesting a word being corrected Cranloa12n (talk) 23:18, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia

I use to donate to you(Wikipedia)all the time, then you became infected with a disease with no cure. It is just a shame that you started off for the good of the people then you become the the virus that spreads through the ignorance of people. So sad. You could of been formative for the world, now you are just another hack. 98.144.34.142 (talk) 01:00, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Law of attraction / Potential wiki pages consecutively

Here is how this subject currently reads:

     In the New Thought spiritual movement, the Law of Attraction is a pseudoscience based on the belief that positive or negative thoughts bring positive or negative experiences into a person's life.[1][2]

Here is my suggested edit:

    In the New Thought spiritual movement, the Law of Attraction is a pseudoscience based on the belief that potentially opposing thoughts bring potentially opposing experiences into a person's life.[1][2]

My concern being that delegation of positive or negative thoughts shall be something that is defined by the reader and NOT the author. 174.253.193.64 (talk) 18:25, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

My thoughts about bold editing

While it is completely normal for bold edits to be reverted, there have been several people who went to my talk page to express their concerns about my editing and present me with the possibility of getting blocked, as one of them said that my edits are becoming disruptive. There also have been several people who tells me that I should hold a discussion and seek consensus. Therefore, bold edits are not as welcoming as many editors think. You can look into my talk page and see for yourself.

As you can notice in the 'Welcome!' section of my talkpage, it is also difficult for editors to be highly aware of Wikipedia guidelines and policies because they do not get notified of them. They only get reminded of these whenever they make mistakes or violate them.

In the project page, there is a section telling editors to be careful. However, this sections lacks attention as the reader is more attracted to the bold text from the overview and is likely to not understand the full message in the end, so I am considering making a few updates to the page. zsteve21 (talk) 20:23, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

zsteve21: Editors have been helpful to you by linking to various policies and guidelines, some of them with legal ramifications. It is your job as an editor to follow these policies and guidelines. Being unaware of them is possible when you first start editing, but when you have been explicitly told about them, failure to follow them can lead to consequences. It's just like real life. Being bold, as this guideline explains, is about fixing unambiguous errors and problems. Some of your edits have created problems, so you need to be more careful. If you're still feeling confused, you might benefit from reading Wikipedia:Competence is required, which is the guidance that other editors are following in advising you about how to become a better Wikipedia editor, and think about the areas in which you are strong and the areas that you might want to avoid when editing. – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:08, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

boldness is not accepted

you invite bold edits. Without exception all my bold and less bold edits were reverted. Please don't invite for bold edits if you don't want them in the first place. Theking2 (talk) 19:14, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

Please also see Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. Your bold edits are certainly welcome, but if someone else disagrees with them then it's standard for the edits to be reverted, after which you can discuss the changes on the talk page. ―Jochem van Hees (talk) 11:51, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

That is completely normal. As the guideline said; "Of course, others here will edit what you write. Do not take it personally! They, like all of us, just wish to make Wikipedia as good an encyclopedia as it can possibly be." HenryOmarCCCmango' (talk) 17:24, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

fynny !!!! Quiet2 (talk) 00:06, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

In my experience bold or any edits are frequently and laughingly reverted by editors or admins who think they are wikipedia gods that just don't like them or don't want to improve on them.

I suggest this article to be toned down a bit and reflect the current 2022 situation. Things are not the same as they were in the advent of wikipedia.org for obvious reasons (revert-war, Vandalism_on_Wikipedia etc.). It would be truer to current situations.

Theking2 (talk) 22:02, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Hey guys Ntlonko (talk) 12:10, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

Be bold! But be punished!

This page seems to address nicely the issue of whether or not one should be bold enough to edit, but it seems to lack any and all warnings regarding the negative social harassment you might encounter being bold with your edits. Wikipdians are being harmed because of this oversight, which means it hurts the project over all. Hyacinth (talk) 00:31, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

….maybe do a cover of that Cat Stevens song with different lyrics? yikes Blu Moon (talk) 03:14, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Three words is more than two words

The very first sentence of this page is:

Be bold can be explained in three words: "Go for it."

But it was already explained in two words. What about simply:

Be bold means "Go for it."

GuineaPig_C77 (𒅗𒌤) ☕ 11:36, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

I like it. Go for it, GuineaPigC77! Bishonen | tålk 11:40, 17 September 2022 (UTC).

New lead

Our current be bold page has a very terrible intro. Here's my attempt to rewrite it:

Be bold means 'go for it'.

Do you want that article to have correct spelling, proper grammar, or a better layout? Be bold and fix it – Wikipedia is made just for that. fact, "be bold" philosophy is right in Wikipedia's name; wiki in Hawaiian means 'fast'. Do you want your voice to be heard? Be bold and drop your opinion on the article's talk page. And if your bold edits get reverted, that's ok – in fact, it is somewhat expected. Obviously, being bold is not an excuse to be uncivil or not assuming good faith.

What do you think? CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 17:37, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

I think the above is poorly written, with multiple grammatical and MOS errors. I am happy with the current lead section. What is terrible about it? – Jonesey95 (talk) 23:41, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Age of Mr. Chapman

Steven Curtis Chapman was born on November 21, 1962. As of this past Monday, I believe he would be 60 years of age but the website says he is 59 years old. I don’t know how to correct this myself but I hope you can make the correction. 2600:1700:A140:6530:E09D:DA0:CD5:3623 (talk) 03:57, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

Steven Curtis Chapman shows "60" when I look at it now. That calculation is performed automatically and then the article is cached, so unless you force the article to refresh with a WP:PURGE, the calculation may be stale. – Jonesey95 (talk) 06:00, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

So why exactly is this being discussed here? I'm utterly confused now...

— Gwyneth Llewelyn (talk) 01:33, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Notability criteria

Prof. C.S. Unnikrishnan's proposal of a new theory, that is "Cosmic Relativity" is a pathbreaking new discovery and many mention may not be available on this topic. So, it may please be exempted from Wikipedia's "General notability guidelines". We hereby request you remove that note stating it "doesn't meet Wikipedia's general notability criteria". We wish it to reach to more people from the Physics community and discussed widely and thoroughly. Please note that, Professor C.S. Unnikrishnan could get his 2 books published by noted publishers states that it is a valid proposal. Ranimenon (talk) 18:50, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

The correct page for this message is Talk:C.S. Unnikrishnan. – Jonesey95 (talk) 02:34, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Political Spectrum

This is coming from a kid who wants to be a politician one day. There is something which would require LOTS of people due to the sheer scale of how widespread this issue is, but a fix is badly needed and I cannot do it by myself since it would require the changing of Wikipedia's standards for a Political Position. Wikipedia currently uses a simple left-right divide under the "Political Position" For a Party or Faction, but this causes a lot of problems and we need a more detailed section for the political position. I am going to write this on other talk pages just so more people can see it. Anyone wanna help? Petjayso (talk) 02:33, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

It is best to choose a single, relevant location for a conversation. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Politics would be a good place to start a discussion about this issue. – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:31, 13 May 2023 (UTC)