Wikipedia talk:Be bold/Archive 1

For the most part, the instinctive desire of an author to "own" what he has written is counterproductive here, and it is good to shake up that emotional attachment by making sweeping changes at will when it improves the result. But there's an important exception to keep in mind: Commentary written by and specifically credited to one person should not be edited for content without correctly identifying all the changes. It's OK to fix obvious spelling and grammar bugs, but changing content is tantamount to making a false quotation claim. For example, the Wiki is not paper page contained a quote from Jimbo about something that would "grow gracefully old", and someone changed it into the cliche "grow old gracefully". That's not what Jimbo said, and it has a different meaning. It was also not an improvement on the original; in fact it was much worse. --LDC

---

Another comment: There are times when I have edited a page originally written in British English. Since my native language is American English, I do not consider myself competent to edit British text without accidentally throwing in a "realize" or "the team is..." or something else I'm not familiar with, so I simply "translated" the page into American English in its entirety so that I can be sure it's correct. This in no way implies that I think one is better than the other; only that I'm more competent to edit one. Of course, if a British person later comes along to edit it and wants to translate it back, that's fine too if he or she feels more competent editing that. --LDC

Perhaps this debate doesn't really belong here, but do you really find British English so different that you feel you can't piecemeal edit it correctly? I certainly feel competent to edit pages obviously written by Americans :) As far as ending up with a mixture of British and American (and, what the hell, let's throw in some Australian, New Zealand, and South African English as well), I can't see it as a huge problem. If somebody finds the spelling and vocabulary inconsistencies too annoying, they'll get cleaned up IMHO. --user:Robert Merkel

I don't need to edit other people's text to get a mishmash of American and British English -- my writing is a mishmash already! I switch willy-nilly from -ise to -ize and back again... :) --user:Simon J Kissane

Or consider Canadian English. Just read anything written in standard Canadian English (whatever that is), or peruse the Canadian Oxford English Dictionary, and you'll find that using a mishmash of British and American English is the norm in Canada. So rewriting an entire article is probably not worth the bother. --AJM

---

So, this page should link to a new one, called, Wikipedia:Avoid edit wars, maybe? Graft

This seems to be duplicated on meta: m:Be bold in updating pages. Is it better placed here or there?

---

Isn't the first line "Wikis don't work if people aren't bold." too definitive (and misleading ?) ? It suggests that boldness is the only way to live in wikipedia. Better ways of rephrasing the line can be found at Wikipedia:Editing_policy, section:On editing styles. It talks about different approaches to take while editing, boldness being one of them. Wikis work with other approaches too. Perhaps the line could be "Wikis develop faster when people are bold." as the speed element is the biggest advantage. Jay 22:45, Sep 16, 2003 (UTC)

"Don't mass edit without asking first...

... If you think that particular information should be added to, restructured or reformated in many articles, please ask first at the wikipedia:Village pump."

This should be written in many places, maybe there should be a {msg:} for it, so we can put it on users' talk pages. All of this provoked by a recent mass edit of articles on Holy Roman emperors, which made the first sentences unreadable. (anon user added german/czech/slovak/hungarian names, which is appropriate, but not in the first sentence like that. Also unwikified. I have work to do now, so I can't but if anybody wishes to correct all of it, please go ahead. Zocky 18:22, 15 Dec 2003 (UTC)

That goes against the advice to be bold though. :) Angela. 19:43, 15 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Probably the be bold guideline could do with a further caveat about naming conventions and certain use of style; now that some standards have become generally accepted. : ChrisG 22:05, 15 Dec 2003 (UTC)

It would also have been useful in a recent case, currently being discussed at Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(places), where a user has changed UK county names wholesale across many articles on towns, cities, counties etc, and has also created many new articles to suit a particular view of what is correct. There's a place beyond 'bold', where even angels fear to tread! Chris Jefferies 21:11, 15 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Indeed, "fools rush in where angels fear to tread". But also there must be a life-cycle issue. As WikiPedia converges (if it ever does...) the need for community respect for what exists must become relatively more important versus the priority of getting new contributers and getting new content. Systems become unstable near convergence if the step size is left high... --BozMo|talk 14:45, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)

---

Quote:

If you encounter an article on a controversial subject that you would like to edit, first read the comments on the talk page and view the Page history to get a sense of how the article came into being and what its current status is. Then, if you want to change or delete anything substantial in the text, you should either:

1. Move it to the Talk page, if it is a sentence or so, and list your objections.
2. Only list your objections to the section on the Talk page if it is longer.

Then, wait a bit for responses. If no one objects, proceed. But always move large deletions to Talk and list your objections to the text.

Unquote

I'm sorry, but there are several things I don't understand here.

- Wikipedia menus do not include a "talk page" (or even a "Talk page"). A fair amount of digging will eventually reveal that what is meant is the "Discuss this page" option; but aren't we dealing here with an article for newcomers to the Wikipedia?

- If taking option 1. we are instructed to "Move it to the Talk page" (presuming that the "it" refers to "anything substantial"). But later we are told "then wait a bit" before proceeding. Moving means taking away from one place as well as putting in another, so we are being instructed to proceed to make an amendment or deletion, then told not to proceed to do so before waiting "a bit" for responses to what we should not (or is it should?) have done anyway. The author of the caveat presumably meant not "move" but "copy" But why should we have to presume so much?

- After that conundrum comes another, equally difficult to grasp. Option 1: List your objections if they refer to a sentence or so vs. Option 2: Only list your objections if they refer to something longer (= don't list your objections if they refer to a sentence or so).

- Finally, "If no one objects, proceed". The liberum veto comes to Wikipedia! I sincerely hope not!

Et in Arcadia, 12.08 UTC on 06 March 2004

- There seems to be a lot of people here talking about Wikis, and what to write and what not to write. What is the point!? Wouldn't it be more interesting to talk about something else? Like what people on these pages do for a living, or perhaps if there's a certain type of people who write things on these sites.

Having only just found out about these from a story on the BBC website - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/3857621.stm I thought the concept was fantastic. But instead of reading about all sorts of interesting opinions from around the world there's just a load of people saying what you should and shouldn't write...

Chill out you silly Americans! It's a free platform. Stop trying to control it so much!!!

Toby, UK.

---

Parent page needs reverting (see 'sex monkey') but I have no idea how to do it. AndyE.

---

Ultra-minor nit-pick: shouldn't this page be at [[Wikipedia talk:Be bold in updating pages!]], given that it's in the imperative mood...? Otherwise, we could have [[Wikipedia talk:Being bold in updating pages]], to describe the state of mind and attitude, rather than give an order...

I said it was minor. ;-)

James F. (talk) 16:41, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

Create the page and redirect — that's what this project is all about! --Ardonik 19:46, Jul 17, 2004 (UTC)

Be bold! image

I added Wapcaplet's "Be bold!" T-shirt graphic to the page. I'm not satisfied with the layout, but I trust that someone will improve upon it. --Ardonik 19:46, Jul 17, 2004 (UTC)

To me, this image seems ugly, but also unecessary. I don't see what this adds to the article - it seems to just clutter things up and screw up the minimalistic style of Wikipedia. --Twinxor 20:28, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

To me, the image is relevant, good-looking, and an enhancement to the article. I would also disagree that the Wikipedia is minimalistic; we do what we can to make our articles look good in spite of the technical limitations. But you might have expected that I would disagree with you--such is life.
Do you see any way to rework the image so that the article is improved? --Ardonik.talk() 20:32, Sep 7, 2004 (UTC)

I suppose the main issue with the image is that it's distracting. The color, jumpy fonts, and prominent position on the left all draw one's focus away from the article. In this case the article is not encyclopedia content; rather, it's advice to editors, and it seems harmful to draw their attention from the important point being made. If you fix some of these issues, I think the image becomes less problematic.
However, you should also consider what you are trying to say by including the image. Right now, it seems to just repeat the title (which sums up the whole point of the article). After a user has been referred here and has read the page title, does he really need a further repetition of the same title? Ultimately, I'm not sure that any image is appropriate here, because I don't think an image really illustrates the idea of being bold any better than text can. --Twinxor 22:56, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I doubt that the image's impact is as devastating as you describe it. I am also no more able to justify the image's inclusion on the article than I am able to justify the 10K Wikipedia logo in the upper-left corner--in both cases, they add nothing to the content, could easily be replaced with text, and are there simply because they look nice. Provided a webpage is accessible, I have no problem it looking good. The image is also an apt illustration of being bold (in my opinion): I saw a beautiful T-shirt design on m:User:Wapcaplet, asked him if he would mind if I put up on WP:BB, and there it is.
For me, this is a trivial matter in the grand scheme of things. Do you seriously find the image to be so off-putting that it detracts from the message? If so, I'm afraid we'll be at odds and I will seek community consensus at the Village pump. --Ardonik.talk() 23:46, Sep 7, 2004 (UTC)

I don't find it "devastating"; I find it annoying. If no one else cares, it certainly is no big deal. --Twinxor 00:35, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

:-( ™ --Ardonik.talk() 00:43, Sep 8, 2004 (UTC)

I'm looking over my paragraph above and it reads like a legal threat. I hope it was not construed as such? Seriously, it's simply not that big a deal, but if there is a way we could keep the image in a way that you found aesthetically appealing, I would really love to hear your ideas. --Ardonik.talk() 00:46, Sep 8, 2004 (UTC)

No, no, it's no problem. Nobody else seems to object, and I can't say it's all that crucial to me. Leave it up and gauge reaction for a bit. --Twinxor 00:50, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Do you ever make significant changes to an article?

I'm just curious, what do any of you do when you come across an article which you believe needs significant changes to its structure? Like if it restates facts, scatters facts under irrelevant sections, uses 'critics believe that...' too often, rambles, includes lots of citations which aren't relevant or noteworthy, or just generally has poor formatting - do you ever go in and rework an article significantly? If you do, how do you deal with previous editors who may get their nose bent out of shape that you redid their stuff? Or do you just leave well enough alone, limit your changes to specific details within the existing structure of the article, and trust that the people who edited before you knew what they were doing and your own opinion might be wrong? - Brian Kendig 00:49, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Be bold, and explain your changes on the Talk pages, but be prepared to get involved in pointless controversies, or to get abused if a long standing one already exists for that article, or to get all your work reverted. -- Simonides 00:57, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Most of the time if you do a good reorg of the info, and structure a good encyclopedia article, you won't get wrapped up in arguments. Sloppy articles need to be fixed, and most people actually apprecaite a helpful touch on pages they frequent. —siroχo 01:13, Jul 27, 2004 (UTC)

What's the article in question? -- Cyrius|✎ 02:13, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Windows XP. Before I started editing it [1], I felt like it read like a high school essay. It rambled and repeated words. I reworked it; someone reverted it (possibly by mistake?); someone else (in Talk:Windows_XP) said he was glad it was reverted. The version that's up there right now is based on my own edits, and I'm comfortable in my reasoning behind what I changed (but, of course, I don't mind someone else editing me). I guess I was just rattled a bit at first at having been reverted, and wanted to know what to do in case I was reverted again - especially as the complaints given about my article were fairly subjective and could have gone either way. Who's to say whether or not I deserved to be reverted? (Today I also reworked Windows Me and Mac OS. Is there any sort of "request for peer review" list around here, where I can ask people for opinions on my edits?) - Brian Kendig 02:36, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Brian, there is a place to request peer review at Wikipedia:Peer review —siroχo 04:57, Jul 29, 2004 (UTC)

I've reworked a couple of articles. Sometimes I just start rewriting it one paragraph at a time, adding a paragraph, and then later deleting the redundant parts in the rest of the article. Sometimes I just add all the missing pieces first, so grossly expanding the article that the previous text is in the minority. Then, later, the previous bits can be reworded, worked in, or just deleted. Either way, if your text is high quality, and no factual data is actually lost in the process, it'll probably stick, and hopefully fewer noses will be bent. --ssd 03:42, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I have also reworked a couple of articles. I think the following steps can be taken to minimise the risk of dispute -

1. Check the article's history. If there is a frequent contributor or the article is clearly largely the work of one or two users, explain your plans on their talk page(s) - not to ask "permission", but just to keep them informed.
2. Explain your plans on the article's talk page and invite comments. Anyone watching the article will see this.
3. Re-write in stages. If a re-structuring is necessary, do this first, with minimal changes to existing text. Leave it for a day or two. Then tidy up existing text (spelling, grammar, style etc.) but keep the same content. Leave it for a day or two again. Then add all that new content that you have been itching to put in.
4. Try not to remove stuff - this is what often causes disputes. Clear factual errors should be removed, but other material can usually be incorporated in one way or another. POV stuff can be re-written as NPOV; bias can be balanced etc.

Just my few thoughts ... Gandalf61 10:41, Jul 27, 2004 (UTC)

Gandalf61, this is great advice (is this written up anywhere in a Wikipedia: space article?). Anecdote: one of my earliest contributions was an overly enthusiastic refactoring of cryptography — I think I ticked off a couple of editors because they were already working on a new version (although it was under construction as a user subpage, quite easy to overlook...). If I'd followed these guidelines, it would gone much smoother. — Matt 18:49, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

That IBM research suggested that initial text is rarely taken away. With the exception of short stubs, the first edit tends to define an article. There of course plenty of exceptions (even 1% would be 3,000 articles). Pcb21| Pete 10:51, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

What's this IBM research you mention? Was it all about Wikipedia? [[User:Bodnotbod|bodnotbod ......TALKQuietly)]] 07:14, Jul 28, 2004 (UTC)

Blimey Bod you have a very long sig when you view it in wikitext! The IBM paper is [2]. (Read the PDF). See also Wikipedia:Wikipedia_in_academic_studies Pcb21| Pete 08:40, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I've seen the direct results of what the IBM study found, it isn't pretty. Some articles that started with text with factual errors continue to support those errors many edits later. I think people are afraid to edit it out. Frequently if the original text was disorganized, people just keep adding bits and pieces without ever actually restructuring it, leaving it a rambling mess. I've found myself doing this. It is much harder to rearrange and restructure a text than just add a few pieces. The original text will color the tone of the article long afterwards, even if it does not deserve to. --ssd 04:41, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)

To facilitate the building of a consensus around what edits an article need, you can use the new Wikipedia:Todo lists. Any comments on it are welcome. Pcarbonn 17:04, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Recent addition by anonymous user

One of the problems when trying to even remotely approach anything like a bold update (i.e. not even really a bold update) is that someone is likely to come along and revert the update, even when the update happens to be uh, "reasonable". A couple of experiences like this would discourage would-be bold updaters and encourage conservative editing instead.

Is this a complaint, or something that we can incorporate into the article? What is meant here by "reasonable" (with the scare quotes)? Also see [3]; is this a can't tell if User:128.175.112.225 is trying to say something here of if he just has an axe to grind because he was reverted elsewhere. I'll leave a message on his talk page (assuming it's a he.) --Ardonik.talk() 18:13, Sep 14, 2004 (UTC)

Page renamed

Where was the discussion about renaming this page from Wikipedia:Be bold in updating pages to Wikipedia:Be bold ? -- Netoholic @ 20:05, 2004 Oct 13 (UTC)

I looked throught the "What links here" of the former title and found that Wikipedia:Be bold got many links. Plus, it's more inclusive of what the page actually says and is less wordy. So I though I would be bold myself and move the page. Do you have any objections? [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (hopefully!)]] 20:10, Oct 13, 2004 (UTC)

Checking the Whatlinkshere shows a lot of user talk pages referencing that... what you didn't consider was "why?". The Be bold link is/was used in a lot of new user Welcome messages. I think you should move it back and, this time, fix all the redirects. -- Netoholic @ 20:22, 2004 Oct 13 (UTC)

Why move it back? The new name got more links, it's shorter, and more descriptive of what the page actually is. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (hopefully!)]] 20:26, Oct 13, 2004 (UTC)

This would have been a great conversation to have before you moved it. You also speedy deleted the pre-existing redirect at this location against the WP:CSD policy "Redirects can be immediately deleted if they have no useful history and: ... Consensus is that it should be removed to make way for a non-controversial page move". Key word there is -consensus-. -- Netoholic @ 20:40, 2004 Oct 13 (UTC)

I didn't speedy delete any redirect (See Wikipedia:Deletion log). And I hardly thought that this move would be "controversial." But if you have such strenuous concerns, I will not object to moving this back. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (hopefully!)]] 20:42, Oct 13, 2004 (UTC)

"19:29, 13 Oct 2004 Neutrality deleted "Wikipedia:Be bold" (Delete to make way for page move.)" I did see the Wikipedia:Deletion log, which is how I knew you'd done it. Care to change your story? -- Netoholic @ 20:48, 2004 Oct 13 (UTC)

Ah, I misunderstood you. I temporally deleted that redirect in order to move the page from "Be bold in updating pages" to "Be bold" — which I did (I noted why I was deleting the page in the edit summary, which you left out. I thought you meant that I permanently deleted the redirect, something I would never do. Gets quite confusing. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (hopefully!)]] 20:52, Oct 13, 2004 (UTC)

Move request

(from WP:RM)

Wikipedia:Be bold in updating pages → Wikipedia:Be bold

• [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (hopefully!)]] 19:26, Oct 24, 2004 (UTC)
  • Disagree for ambiguity reasons. Yes, we say "BE BOLD!", but we mean in updating the pages. Unless someone says that this page can be expanded to mean "Be bold in everything you do on Wikipedia", I think it should stay where it is. New users and visitors will get the right context from the current article title. All appropriate redirects are already in place, so finding the article (or citing it) is no problem. -- Netoholic @ 17:40, 2004 Oct 27 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia:Be bold in updating pages seems more accurate than simply Be bold so I'd rather it stays where it is. Angela. 03:25, Oct 30, 2004 (UTC)

Clarifying we're talking about article edits

I added a bit to try and clarify that "Be bold!" generally means edits to a single article, recommending a bit more caution when doing things that have wide-spread effects. If someone thinks the idea can be presented better, feel free to edit mercilessly. If someone thinks I've mis-interpreted the general consensus, we can move it here and try and hash out any objections. I've just been spending too much time recently cleaning up after ill-advised and/or un-followed up page moves and template changes, and would rather have the newcomers warned in advance, instead of getting a 'please don't ___' when they apply 'be bold' beyond article edits. Niteowlneils 02:55, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I haven't read what you've done, but I definitely agree with the idea. Maurreen 10:37, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Some things to keep in mind

This page is all about BEING BOLD. Too many cautionary warnings will water this idea down. Remember, this is the page we point a lot of new users towards to encourage them to just get going. Mistakes and missteps may be made, but by-and-large, the BE BOLD statement serves as a motivator. Remember, nothing a newbie does is ever truly permanent. Keep the cautions, warnings, and caveats to a minimum on this page. Make it about empowerment. -- Netoholic @ 08:23, 2004 Dec 6 (UTC)

Deference to other authors

Because I've recently seen some authors make major changes to articles without showing other editors of the article any respect, I'd like to see a blurb like this added:

Show deference to the article authors who came before you. If the content changes you make to a long-established article are significant, err on the side of explaining your changes in a reasonably detailed manner on the article's talk page.

— Stevie is the man! ^{Talk | Contrib} 23:49, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Be bold vs. Original research

In many cases contributers are interested in editing an article, but distance themselve from this because they're not 100 percent certain if the edit the're about to do is completely correct (that is, not everyone is a PhD in what he/she would like to edit). This reflects Wikipedia:No_original_research. --Abdull 13:19, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Quote from Dead Poet's society

"This quote has no relevance."

I don't really have a strong stance on the subject, but Necaholic has removed my quote, which was perfectly relevant, in fact it can be interpreted as literally "be bold, but don't be reckless", its also a relatively well known movie reference:

"Sucking the marrow out of life doesn't mean choking on the bone." -Dead Poets Society

I don't see what the issue was? The article is relatively informal, and is meant to be.. I don't really care that much, but just for future reference. Specifically, as much as I love wikipedia, I think one of the major weaknesses is that the writing style is so formulaic and drab. I think all the pressures to be NPOV and what-not (which I don't deny the importance of at all) have created a culture that is afraid to add any flair, humour or character to the content, in ways which aren't necessarily contradictory to the philosophy. Not that I'm claiming that this quote is the shining beacon of literature or anything, but nonetheless, isn't that what this page is partially about? The fact that this is happening here I think adds a touch of irony ;) I could be wrong though; I've been contributing for only 4-5 months (but reading much longer), maybe I don't understand the system. --Freshraisin 04:48, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)