Wikipedia talk:Be bold/Archive 3

Userbox
Does the userbox subheader really have to be there? Couldn't we just put a link to it in the See also section? — Spe bi  09:46, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Importance of this page
I call attention to the third section cited above. "I know I would have never even tried to edit a page if I hadn't seen WP:BOLD." For reference I also include [ what the page looked like] when [ that user started editing]. I will try to thread through the rest of the discussion, but in the meantime I hope this helps clarify where I'm coming from: this page is important. --Abu-Fool Danyal ibn Amir al-Makhiri 15:24, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Fixing vandalism
"Fixing vandalism, of course, is nearly always welcome, even on user pages. The user will let you know if it isn't."

I think this is common sense. Surprised that we had all that scare stuff about how editing a template could cause the wiki to explode into a thousand pieces, but not one little bit about the general welcomeness of all vandalism reverts. --Tony Sidaway 06:04, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I figured this was fairly uncontroversial...
... but still, let it be known that I moved Be bold in updating pages to Be bold in updating articles. The reasons are fairly obvious and well-laid out in the page--we should be somewhat cautious, certainly not excessively bold, in updating categories and templates. Does anyone mind? (I've fixed all the double redirects I could see...)  Matt Yeager   ♫  (Talk?)  00:12, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
 * This is wiki-lawyering. The original principle was Be bold [full stop]. Also if you think deeply about this you will see how your actions contradict your words. — CharlotteWebb 02:09, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Not so. The original version of this page only ever mentions articles. Mind you, in 2002 I'm not certain templates, categories and the like existed. Wikipedia has evolved since then. As has the concept of being bold. Grutness...wha?  05:42, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Good! It's about time someone moved this to a more sensible title. The original principle of "Be bold" may have referred to all pages, but like all good rules, it gets modified when the original meaning of it is seen to be too far reaching or to cause too many problems. Even the version mentioned in the section above, from october 2005, starts with the sentence "The Wikipedia community exhorts users to be bold in updating articles." (my italics), Continues with mentioning cases where being bold is problematic, and concludes by urging serious restraint with templates. Whatever the guideline was when it started out, it is now quite clear from this early point that it refers primarily to articles. It causes far more trouble than its worth when editors see the title and think it refers to all pages - including controversial articles, templates, talk pages, user pages, categories, etc - and can be cited with disregard to any problems caused. Charlotte, although you consider it Wikilawyering and being self-contradictory, I advise you to check how many times in the archives it has been suggested that this page be moved to a more appropriate title, and how few times there was ever any objection to those suggestions. Though no formal vote was ever taken, there is an implicit consensus of sorts in those archived talk page comments. Grutness...wha?  02:22, 6 June 2007 (UTC)


 * If you had read what I said, you'd notice the manner in which this page has been boldly moved to an even more restrictive title (twice), and the way you are justifying it as bold editing... and possibly draw a conclusion from that. — CharlotteWebb 02:51, 6 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh, I spotted it all right, and the irony of it, which you clearly didn't. It seems a most appropriate WP:POINT. Here was a move that was being bold in a case where "Be bold" clearly did not apply. And your response proved the point by your argument that being bold was inappropriate. In other words, your objection to the move made it all the more clear that Being Bold in a case such as this non-article is sometimes a bad thing. Grutness...wha?  05:37, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm behind Charlotte on this one...Be Bold says it all, really. This page should be about helping editors make the best judgments in that...not take their judgment away from them. --InkSplotch 14:12, 6 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes -- Be bold is a principle of how to act in general, not one that depends on the particular content of the pages in question. To say otherwise is like saying "be nice (except in certain circumstances when you're dealing with real jerks)." Simply "Be Bold." is a nice summation and a good title for the policy, and doesn't need to have qualifications appended. Those can be in the text or in appended interpretations, if necessary. -- phoebe/ (talk) 16:56, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Indeed, anyone can be bold anywhere; from making drastic changes to an article, to uploading a new version of an image, to reporting a vandalism-only account that has just one warning, to closing an RfA that doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell (though usually most people defer to admins and 'crats). Namespace is irrelevant. EVula // talk // &#9775;  // 00:26, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
 * ...to blanking someone else's user page? to creating new articles on slang terms you've just made up in school? to removing signed comments from a talk page? to creating categories with ambiguous titles or meaningless scope? to vandalising heavy-use templates? You know what being bold entails, as do I, but new users often don't - and it is mainly to them that pages like this are important. It mentions specific cases of being bold and not being bold for a reason, specifically limiting it to updating and to articles, giving warnings about how to proceed with other namespaces and deliberately avoiding the subject of creating pages entirely. Simply calling the page "Be bold" ignores all these points and further ingrains the mantra of "do what you like" that is currently responsible for some 80% of new articles being speediable and for the majority of category and template clean-up work. It's a plain and simple fact that "Be bold" does not always apply. If it did, we would have no protected pages - and I don't just refer to those protected from vandalism, but also those protected from any editing whatsoever (such as high-use templates). We also wouldn't limit page creation to registered users - allowing anyone to create pages was tried once, but it was an abject failure and a limit had to be put in place. Wikipedia evolved, reducing that freedom by a very small amount, thereby making the encyclopedia considerably easier to maintain. Being bold where it is not appropriate is responsible to a large extent for the large numbers of articles at AFD daily, for the backlog at CFD, and for the heavy workload of those of us on the various clean-up projects around Wikipedia. Being bold is a very good thing - within limits. And that is the reason why this page has evolved in such a way that it underlines those limits. The only thing which doesn't make it clear just how far being bold should apply is the new page title. Grutness...wha?  05:32, 7 June 2007 (UTC)


 * it is mainly to them that pages like this are important -- I'm not so sure this is true. It's important even for long-standing contributors to remember our core policies and their spirit as well as sensibility; I rather doubt that newbie contributors ever even make it this far. I think you're losing the forest for the trees; all the particular things you have mentioned have evolved over time in response to ever-heavier use and technical improvements, and these things will doubtless change again in the future. The core policies, in contrast, have remained just that: core. That's not to say "being bold" can't evolve, either, but changing it because, for instance, someone developed page protection & it was found useful in preventing vandalism is the wrong way of going about things. -- phoebe/ (talk) 17:02, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Then again
I don't think it's a good idea to hold these long discussions on stuff like this. Of course we encourage all editors to be bold--in all namespaces. And equally, "don't be reckless", especially not in template and category space. This has long been the case, so I've been bold and made some commonsense changes to the wording to retain the sense, without making out that article editing is any less a place to avoid recklessness than the other places. Even editing policy pages is something some of us do every day, and we certainly wouldn't get anywhere if we sat around agonising about every change on the talk page. --Tony Sidaway 05:58, 7 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Geni says "page history makes this darn clearn it is talking about articles" (edit summary) but I don't think he's right. Some of our boldest editors are policy wonks.  --Tony Sidaway 07:00, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I suggest people read this.Geni 07:00, 7 June 2007 (UTC)


 * "So I might have convinced you to be bold in updating pages..."


 * Even if there was a time when editing boldly was restricted to articles (which I doubt,frankly, given that wording), we've moved on from then. Bold editing is applicable to any wiki or wiki-like process. --Tony Sidaway 07:05, 7 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I've been trying to think of a major exception to the above statement, and I can't seem to think of any. (Presuming bold, but not reckless, of course.) - jc37 08:51, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
 * moved on? ok a latter version .Geni 21:00, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The page Tony mentions is a very good page to refer to, from way back in February 2002. The paragraph above makes it clear: if someone writes an inferior or merely humorous article or article stub, or outright patent nonsense, don't worry about their feelings. Correct it... An article. Given that 2002 was before there were such things as templates and categories as they currently exist, though, it is not surprising that they weren't explicitly mentioned. However, articles were explicitly mentioned from at least early 2004, and have been explicitly mentioned in the oopening sentence of the page ever since, until a few days ago. It is the removal of this long-standing part of the article which is currently causing the fuss - it's pretty clear that the guideline has explicitly dealt with articles only for at least three years, and the problems which often accompany being bold in other namespaces is the reason for that (and also the reason why there is such a fuss about this change). As to major exceptions, just for one - why are heavy-use templates protected from editing? Grutness...wha?  06:11, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
 * That's a poor example, in fact, isn't it actually an exception that proves the rule? If we agree that you really need to ask first, then we'll protect it; you will be simply unable to be bold. --Abu-Fool Danyal ibn Amir al-Makhiri 13:42, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Given that prove no longer means test that sentace makes zero sense.Geni 16:38, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry. Okay: this is not an exception. Most people can't touch protected templates, so boldness is not an issue. Rather, it shows that when we really agree that you must not be bold, and that you must ask first, we can do something about it. --Abu-Fool Danyal ibn Amir al-Makhiri 23:24, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
 * eh not really. Some pretty widely used templates are not protected. more to do with security through obsurity than if we want people to be bold.Geni 00:00, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Really? Because security through obscurity is harmed by warning people against it. Shouldn't we remove references to templates from this guideline altogether then? As it happens, I don't mind that idea. --Abu-Fool Danyal ibn Amir al-Makhiri 01:21, 9 June 2007 (UTC)


 * As I said on wikien-l the other day, I don't even consider myself a big template editor, but looking at my contributions I noticed that I'd made a score or so of edits to templates over the past month. All of them were bold.  Of course you need to take more care, but that's what "but not reckless" is about. --Tony Sidaway 00:06, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I, as a proficient template editor, find "Being bold in updating or creating categories and templates, especially templates, can often be very bad" out-of-place, and not widely practiced. Grace notes T § 06:29, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Protection
Given the ridiculous amount of revert-warring on this page, by so many established contributors (who it would achieve nothing to block), over the last three days, I have protected this page for a week. Oh, and on the wrong version, of course. Sort this out like the experienced people you are, please?  Daniel  01:28, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

editprotected

Hi; could  be added to the top of this page? Thanks, Grace notes T § 21:02, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh, I see that the template is already there. But there is no reason to reduce visibility of the template, in my humble opinion. The current template is also not-as-specific. Grace notes T § 21:08, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
 * [[Image:Yes check.svg|20px]] Done. Cheers. --MZMcBride 23:05, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Grace notes T § 00:08, 10 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Hehe, the guideline about not being afraid to edit pages isn't itself editable. - ElbridgeGerry t c block 20:57, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
 * That's because it's not in article space, I guess. Grace notes T § 00:26, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

nutshell
Current nutshell assumes something is already broken. But i dont think wikipedia is a broken house. Presuming that there is wrong already is pessimistic. Why not "wikipedia is good, we make it better" approach? I wish that negative word broken to be off here, in a page that is so positive in approach. I suggest nutshell "If you see a chance for improvement, go do it". Feel free to refine this statement but avoid word broken thing 202.41.72.100 03:39, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Mind you, the word "broken" appears nowhere other than nutshell. use cntr+f. 202.41.72.100 03:47, 13 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Hmm, yes. Now that I think about it, I agree. Also, it makes it sound like we should only be fixing things that are acutally broken, and that otherwise we should be leaving well enough alone. But really we should also not hesitate to make something good even better. --Abu-Fool Danyal ibn Amir al-Makhiri 15:26, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

history of the policy
I haven't finnished digging though the history yet but:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Be_bold&oldid=36790672 "The Wikipedia community encourages users to be bold in updating articles. "

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Be_bold&oldid=77331072

"The Wikipedia community encourages users to be bold in updating articles."

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Be_bold&oldid=102578843

"The Wikipedia community encourages users to be bold in updating articles."

So over a range of sereval years WP:BOLD has only been about articles.

Geni 23:18, 8 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Who gives a fuck about history? It's what it says now that matters. --Tony Sidaway 00:02, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Gotta say, I agree with Tony about this. BOLD transcends namespace. EVula // talk // &#9775;  // 00:05, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
 * history shows that what you are trying to do is a significant policy change. I belive jimbo has outlined a procedure for that kind of thing.Geni 00:07, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
 * So you're saying that if someone wants to redesign a portal or template, or improve something within the Wikipedia namespace, as you have been doing, then it's not being bold?— Ryūlóng ( 竜龍 ) 00:26, 9 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Be bold is an attitude. Not actions per se.Geni 00:55, 9 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Huh? I'm not sure quite what this means, but wouldn't attitudes transcend namespace? --Abu-Fool Danyal ibn Amir al-Makhiri 01:26, 9 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't think it really matters what words happened to be used, it's the ideas behind the words that are important. It makes me wonder, if the words are so clear that this supposedly only applies to articles, why so many long-time Wikipedians have not understood it that way? --bainer (talk) 00:38, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
 * so many? Name 50 (given the size of WP:100 that would appear to be a reasonable threshold to get to before you can claim so many.Geni 00:55, 9 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't think I could name fifty Wikipedians off the top of my head, but I don't think I've ever encountered a Wikipedian of long experience who wasn't bold in all his editing, whether he professed to be or not. --Tony Sidaway 01:04, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Allow me to introduce myself, then. I'm an editor of long experience (2.5 years, 80,000 edits) who is bold in article space and on occasions in other spaces, but who seeks consultation with other involved editorsa on quite a large number of pages, via talk pages and relevant wikiprojects - especially when these edits involve non-article pages. Grutness...wha?  01:57, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Well go and ask 50 then.Geni 01:08, 9 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Of all the editors who have edited here recently, or commented here or on the mailing list, only you and Grutness seem to share the view that the concept expressed in this page only applies to mainspace. The broader understanding seems to be that the principle - be bold but not reckless - is general advice that is a consequence of Wikipedia being a wiki. --bainer (talk) 01:23, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Perhaps were the only ones who regularly have to point errant editors towards this page and point out what it actually says in the text. Or said, until it was recently changed. The page has for several years only applied to article space, with no complaints about that limitation. The complaints have only started since the removal of that limitation a few days ago. Eveyone seems to have been quite happy with how the page was before that time. Grutness...wha?  01:57, 9 June 2007 (UTC)


 * It seems that you're saying that you're abusing this guideline by using it to win arguments with editors who make bold edits outside article space. If that's true, it's unacceptable behavior and it really isn't right for you to demand that this guideline with its "be bold" message should be wonked around to fit your view that editors shouldn't be.  If you want to argue that editors mustn't be bold in template space, write an essay and point these fellows at that.  It certainly isn't policy. --Tony Sidaway 16:09, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
 * you have failed to justify why it should be changed to fit your view.Geni 17:12, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The scare clauses get way too much air time as it is. --Abu-Fool Danyal ibn Amir al-Makhiri 18:22, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
 * It is generaly accepted that a justification should contian some element of explanation. Your comment does not.Geni 19:10, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
 * (reply to Tony) This ain't policy, as you said yourself - but it does give very clear indications of why edits outside article space can have far-reaching effects, and as such need particular care. If pointing an editor to that and saying "please take care for the reasons listed here" is "abusing a guideline", and "unacceptable behaviour", then perhaps no editor should ever complain about anything another editor does, no matter how much trouble it causes other editors later. And as I've repeatedly said, this isn't my view - it's the view which has served successfully as a guideline for several years now with no complaints. My own personal view would be slightly different to the one which has been presented here, but it is irrelevant, since my own personal view would not be as effective for Wikipedia. All I am saying is that there was a wording and title which served well for all wikipedians for a cionsiderable length of time without any edit warring - since the change to a new title and wording which is more likely to create an increased amoundt of cleanup, this page has undergone an edit war. There is a very very good corollary to this page's implicit "If it's broke, fix it" - "If it ain't broke, don't fix it. This page wasn't broken. Now that it has been "fixed" it clearly is.Grutness...wha?  00:19, 10 June 2007 (UTC)


 * As an example, I recently suggested someone be bold in contacting an editor who they thought needed someone to talk to them. If the "bold" action is tied to any namespace, it would be "User talk" (but still, it's more of an attitude than an actual limitation in scope). EVula // talk // &#9775;  // 19:24, 9 June 2007 (UTC)


 * As a matter of interest I seem to have started this storm in a teacup by reverting this edit which was made a block-evading sockpuppet (now indefinitely banned) who had a history of poor quality and disruptive edits. IMHO, the old nutshell wasn't broke so why fix it? It's just a throwaway phrase. Don't sweat the small stuff. andy 16:03, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Wasn't you, look just a little further back: the nutshell was being altered before that user came along. Now maybe one line isn't terribly important, but there is the underlying question of whether we are to Be Bold, Be Bold, and every where, Be Bold, or whether we are to Be Bold in updating articles only (as long as they aren't controversial, featured, complex, or have a long history, that is) and Be Afraid everywhere else. --Abu-Fool Danyal ibn Amir al-Makhiri 16:50, 9 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Anyone who opposes the principle that "be bold" applies everywhere is perhaps unwise to be so bold as to edit war over the matter on a policy page in Wikipedia space! --Tony Sidaway 17:40, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keeping it at it's historical state would be the normal aproach until the chnage in policy had been shon to have wider community support. Of course you do raise the point that being bold is reasonbable for winning conflicts but crap for getting the right answer when it comes to policy and the like.Geni 19:10, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
 * If you are going to tell me that I am not free to be bold (but not reckless) and edit when I see an edit that needs to be made to a template, talk page, category, or project page, I'm simply going to ignore you. It is as simple as that. Why are we even discussing this? Dmcdevit·t 23:07, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
 * it would be a signifcant policy change.Geni 23:46, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
 * You seem to suffer from the misconception that policy is prescriptive. It isn't. Policy is what the mass majority of reasonable people already do. And they edit pages when they need to be edited, and boldly. I'm happy to include myself in that category. Dmcdevit·t 23:55, 9 June 2007 (UTC)


 * In general, however, it seems that BOLD edits to policies and guidelines invariably set off edit wars. Perhaps this is because the only BOLD edits that can be done to these pages are bad ones. Mangoe 19:37, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * No one is arguing against the "… but don't be reckless." part. In fact, if you look you'll see that all policies are constantly edited, a little bit at a time, and so edit wars are not inevitable. The edit warriors like Geni are people who haven't fully understood the policy (and in fact, edit warring is reckless in all namespaces). Dmcdevit·t 01:08, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I have a fundamental and irreconcilable difference of perception with Mangoe over the effects of bold edits on policy pages. I've done quite a few of those in my time, and found them to be a very, very effective way of changing policy.  Edit wars sometimes happen but the risk is relatively low if you're sensitive to prevailing consensus and know what you're doing.  --Tony Sidaway 01:39, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The last thing we want is anything that increases the chnage rate on policy pages.Geni 06:57, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Written policy should keep up with practice to a reasonable extent. At times of change this means the written policy must also change. --Tony Sidaway 16:19, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Do you think the change rate on Criteria for speedy deletion is acceptable? why? List of policies currently contians 42 policies. What rate of change do you think it is reasonable to expect people to be able to keep up with.Geni 17:37, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

It seems that we're still at loggerheads
It seems that we're still disagreed about the wording of this policy. To me it seems ridiculous to say it's only about articles, as we edit other pages boldly as a matter of course and (as far as I can tell) either always have done or have done so for years. To Geni and some others the historical tradition is more important, and (presumably) bold edits to anything other than articles are wrong. What can we do to reconcile this? --Tony Sidaway 16:22, 17 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Demonstrait a clear consensus for change.Geni 16:49, 17 June 2007 (UTC)


 * No, I'll just continue to take advantage of the community consensus for bold editing on all pages. This doesn't seem to have been harmed by the fact that you insist that this guideline says otherwise. --Tony Sidaway 17:14, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Geni, I think you need to stop (boldly) warring against consensus first. You and Grutness have been the two major opposers, but the fact that you disagree with the consensus does not make it so. A lot of people have chimed in here disagreeing with you. Dmcdevit·t 20:34, 19 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Personally, I like this (current) version of the article. Does anybody have a real problem with this version, other than maybe the name?  Matt Yeager   ♫   (Talk?)  22:47, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, the scare clauses still are too dominant, but we can get to that later. I'm fine with the title and nutshell... --Abu-Fool Danyal ibn Amir al-Makhiri 15:01, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I think it is still much too strong. Most of the time I've seen it cited, it's been cited to justify out-of-consensus deletions, or, sometimes, the addition of spam. The addition of spam against consensus is easily remedied, but reverting deletions is a fairly reliable way to get involved in an edit war. I'm not sure of wording myself. Personally, I consider the advice to "be bold, revert, discuss," to be a disastrous leftover from the early days, and I'll discuss it there. DGG 18:27, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * possibly adding "but be bold in deleting only when you're deleting obvious spam" DGG 18:28, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Quote to be added?

 * Moved from archive:

I would have added this quote to the first section (directly after the heading, "Be BOLD!"), but the page is semi-protected ... "It is easier to ask forgiveness than it is to get permission."

- Rear Admiral Grace Murray Hopper, USN

IMHO, it reflects the very essence of the paradigm ... if Some Other Editor agrees that this quote would be an appropriate introduction for that section, then will you add it, please?

Happy Editing! &mdash; 05:35, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
 * It's a good quote, but I'm not convinced it would be a good idea to add it (quite the opposite, in fact), since it doesn't really apply to much of the page. Most of the recent comments on this talk page have been that the page is misleading - that the page actually details both where it is and where it isn't good to edit first and ask questions later. Adding this to the top will only make it even less likely that people will note the exceptions before editing pages where WP:BB does not apply. The fact that the title is incorrect already (it should be "Be bold in updating articles") doesn't help matters, but this would only confound and compound matters. Grutness...wha?  23:54, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I only really read the handful of comments at the end of the archive, but there seem to be about as many, if not more comments that say the opposite. You may add mine to that list: the exceptions are the extreme minority, and are given far too much airtime. They will discourage people from being bold everywhere else. --Abu-Fool Danyal ibn Amir al-Makhiri 03:58, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I'd suggest you look at other comments on the page, not just at the last few. Sections 4, 6, 7, 8, 12, 14, 16, 17, 21, 25, 29, 42, 44, and 46 of the last archive all deal with problems associated with excpetions to the "rule", and several times mention is made of the fact that "be bold" is not what is really implied by the page at all. Particularly note sections like this, and this, and this. Speaking as someone who spends over an hour a day trying to clear up the messes people have created on templates and categories by only knowing the mantra "Be bold" and never having got past the first paragraph of this page, I see it as useful to stress that it is only for articles wherever possible. Having further endorsement of the "fact" that anything should be edited without first checking to see whether its a good idea will only make the jobs of the clean-up squads on Wikipedia harder. As things stand at the moment, any editors who do edit templates, user pages, categories and the like can be pointed to the real title of this page, the "nutshell" and the paragraphs at the end of the page. If they see that the page endorses acting first without any sort of consultation even in cases where there have been violent edit wars on similar edits in the past or cases where it takes considerable work to put things right afterwards, then they are more likely to ignore any such warnings. Grutness...wha?  00:07, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
 * OK, how do people feel about inserting it at the end of the article, like a postscript? Upon further deliberation, I agree that suggesting it be placed near the top was a Bad Idea. :-) &mdash; 22:53, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

WP:SOFIXIT
I've proposed to a fellow Wikipedian who is a sysop that WP:SOFIXIT should be removed from the shortcut box. We're attempting to keep the boxes with a minimum of only two popular shortcuts. I want other people to comment on this matter here. I'm aware of its long-time existence, but please try to understand that the shortcut boxes should be kept to a minimum of two obvious ones to avoid overfilling them. Thank you. Lord Sesshomaru 06:38, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

"Be Bold" merch
Awhile back, I made T-shirts, mugs, bumper stickers, etc., for the wikimedia store to advertise the "be bold" spirit. I don't remember if I ever mentioned that here, so ... I'm mentioning it now. [www.cafepress.com/wikipedia/2489941 Here's the store page.] Proceeds benefit the foundation, of course. Tlogmer ( talk / contributions ) 02:53, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I want to be bold but I'm afraid of breaking some rule. This is my favorite policy so far.DrGabriela 06:13, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Disambiguation
I noticed these were removed, and have restored them: You may be looking for Wikipedia:Manual of Style (text formatting) or Wikipedia:Bounty board.

From the shortcuts it's fairly obvious that someone could come here looking for one of those, so I think they should be left it. Richard001 05:09, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

BS
This page is total crap. All the people who are always on wikipedia get pissed at you for making even a little edit, then its removed in seconds, and then they yell at you on your talk page. --Zeldafreak104 14:09, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Safer to add content than delete existing content in controversial articles
Added a new sentence, that in the absence of discussion and consensus it is generally safer to add new content than delete existing content in controversial articles. Best, --Shirahadasha 06:03, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Good idea, — xDanielx T/C 23:16, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Let's be bold, but let's get rid of the bolding
This page is really, really tacky, and not up to speed with the elements of style (WP:STYLE) in Wikipedia, which states, "Italics are used sparingly to emphasize words in sentences (bolding is normally not used at all for this purpose). Generally, the more highlighting in an article, the less the effect of each instance."

Things like the following would get removed immediately from wikipedia:
 * 4 Sell
 * Cumm 2 the Par-T To-Nite
 * FREE!!!!

So, why does be Bold persist in this page? It's tacky, just like the formatting of this post, and should be replaced with unbolded text.

Will someone remove all of the bolding from this page that doesn't fit with WP:STYLE? The guideline is to "be bold." The guideline isn't to "USE BOLD!" Fredsmith2 (talk) 00:36, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Please fix grammar on the phrase "copy-edit"
The reference to "copy-edit" should be changed to "copy edit," without the hyphen. Will someone please fix this?

See this link for a professional example of how to use the term "copy edit." An exception would be if copy edit is used as an adjective, such as "copy-editing software." Fredsmith2 (talk) 01:22, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Victor12 I would like to submit the following article in the OTHER section. It's a travel piece but with a much broader scope and mandate. It takes issue with the guide books that counsel against renting a car in Peru. My position is that if millions of Peruvians successfully negotiate their passage from point A to point B everyday, why can't the tourist be among those millions. My article dispelled the myths and fears re driving in Peru. The article also has much to offer re tourism. Here's the link: http://www.artsandopinion.com/2006_v5_n2/lewis-21.htm Thanking you in advance for the consideration. Robert Lewis —Preceding unsigned comment added by Artsandopinion (talk • contribs) 20:07, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Good articles
The GAs that are found on WP nowadays are of quite a high standard and have usually been the result of careful work by a group of dedicated editors. I would like to see reference made to GAs in this paragraph:


 * Also, substantial changes or deletions to the articles on complex, controversial subjects with long histories, such as the Israeli-Palestinian conflict or abortion, or to featured articles such as cheese or Spoo, should be done with extra care. In many cases, the text as you find it has come into being after long and arduous negotiations between Wikipedians of diverse backgrounds and points of view.

Suggested new wording:


 * Also, substantial changes or deletions to the articles on complex, controversial subjects with long histories, such as the Israeli-Palestinian conflict or abortion, or to Featured Articles and Good Articles, should be done with extra care. In many cases, the text as you find it has come into being after long and arduous negotiations between Wikipedians of diverse backgrounds and points of view.

Such a change in wording would make it clear that extra care should be taken in making substantial edits to GAs as well. Johnfos (talk) 07:25, 24 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Have made this change now... Johnfos (talk) 06:35, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

not BS
The Be bold page is perfect, it's a GOOD THING and it's blessed! Except that I was bold without knowing it and discovered the article afterwards. Now, if everyone is asking anyone for permission to correct anything, then nothing will be done to improve Wikipedia without a tedious administrative processing. Nobody will want to develop Wikipedia by volunteering. Be bold may cause conflicts, but there are other means to diminish conflicts when they occur, f.ex. politeness, presupposition of best intents, don't answer direct insults, don't insult and so on. Normal conflict resolution rules apply. The main thing about Wikipedia functioning as a community information project is that there cannot exist territories (except personal pages, of course), nobody "owns" any article or the information within it. If I write in an article, it is my gift to all of you, with which you may make whatever you wish. Said: Rursus ☻ 13:37, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is an important page. It is helpful for new Wikipedians. Masterpiece2000   ( talk ) 04:28, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

images and policy
Images should probably have a mention along the lines of "In the case of images new images should be uploaded with new names rather than overwriting old ones. Adding information to the description of an existing image is definitely an area where be bold applies." and we should make it clear that this does not apply to policy pages.Geni 18:58, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Good point. Yet another bit to add under the "non-article" section, I'd say. Grutness...wha?  01:51, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Protection
On 14 May 2008 this page was semi-protected. Can someone who knows how please put a padlock in the top right of the page. Thanks DineshAdv (talk) 12:48, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

'Be bold' message template needed
To the innumerable people who flag and otherwise complain about contents, I answer with an invitation to be bold. I end up writing this once or twice a week. Could someone create to facilitate this chore? Emmanuelm (talk) 14:34, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Oups, just found it already exists as :

"Thank you for your suggestion. When you feel an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the link at the top. The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes — they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills.  New contributors are always welcome. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to)."

sprot
Why is this page, of all, semiprotected? 78.34.145.215 (talk) 18:23, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Edit warring in the past, and constant vandalism all the time. Ironic, but true. Grutness...wha?  20:23, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Bold
I have nominated the following template, which is peripherally connected to this guideline, for deletion. The TfD nomination was initially invalidly closed by the creator iof the template, citing that the nomination was "disruptive" as it was a "policy or guideline template" - IMO a misinterpretation of the meeaning of that term (and at odds with the example given). In any case, in an attempt to keep him happy I am notifying editors who view this page that the template is on TfD again, and viewers of this page are invited to participatee in the debate. Grutness...wha?  23:21, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

How do you improve articles when you can't?
Improving articles with valuable info that isn't found anywhere else (and thus the absence of it leaves many people confused) isn't possible here. I tried, but they deleted it calling it "original research". How does one improve articles when they delete stuff that wasn't taken from a citable resource? Isn't this the place where people look things up? Isn't this a site where people get information from? It's injustice, plain and simple.

And btw I do have an account on this site but I don't want to show my face here under that name anymore cause I once created an asinine article (even though it wuz deleted) 24.65.118.20 (talk) 03:55, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia places a greater emphasis on verifiability than on being right; my next-door neighbor may be a producer of Heroes and got drunk and told me about what will happen in the second half of the season, but I can't verify any of it, so I can't add it. We don't break news; we document it. EVula // talk // &#9775;  // 04:30, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Be Bold and Wikiprojects
I think wikiproject Pages should not apply to Be Bold. Because its should be discussed on the talk page of the wikiproject. What do you think? --  Electrical  Experiment 19:29, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Done - I'ver addedded a note to that effect under "Non-article pages". Grutness...wha?  22:35, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Thnakyou  Electrical  Experiment 14:36, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

...[ TIME ] could be a representation towards the to; Be bold. For even as I for the time and exrewnded furure will use a Talk Pge and most preferable a User talk page, though seemingly when useing either one may use one and be intended as of useing the other. For being Bold could be a slow process and a moderate and fast action, while as one time I was on a Talk page and realized that it wasn't a user talk page.

Nontheless being Bold is a concept of time, though in reason this is just an opinion. And perhaps through time a Bodied Opinion Leaves Decision BOLD. A quick action is also, for i noticed a, Bolding effort, for when a type set is altered through one or and another then a bol concept is adjusted, though still through time - a lesson in the terming 'leaves' perhaps. "Decision is also a debated {time}~ consuming effort. Opinion well it just takes time and through a respect needs to b lessoned, usually automadicly. a Bodied is in reference with though and combination, such as a combination-al :thought:. Perhaps prepairing exceptance recieving helpfull aperances prepairing situation and or situations, situational, ~thus~ activity. Be bold bypass as is, to' be-excepted Building overall lesson decidingly which perhaps is a better terming then directly as to another that will exsist. Last three and a 1/4 sentences perhaps are to much contend.David George DeLancey (talk) 17:47, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I think this regrettable. It tends to confirm the sense of WP:OWN widely held by projects. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:42, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I think it really doesn't matter anyway... the mainspace articles are much more important than the projects that manage them. If it said "be careful editing an article that's under this wikiproject", there'd be a problem. If the documentation is saying - and I think it is right now - that "oh, and by the way, be careful crossing these folks", then it oughta be the same as "you can ignore these guys for now; just be bold and edit." I don't know if that nuance is reflected here. Xavexgoem (talk) 15:16, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Both are good ideas; I'll be bold and edit. The assumption that WikiProjects reflect consensus of Wikipedia is nonsense anyway; Projects represent Project-wide consensus. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:39, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

The best I can do is:
 * ''Other Wikipedia-space pages may or may not represent a general consensus. Someone wrote them, and supports the view expressed in them, so it is often prudent to see how widely supported they are before altering them. But, except for the handful of expressions of principle which are called policies, they are advice; their binding force rests in the arguments they use and the collective voice of the editors that agree with them.

This is not ideal, so I put it here for discussion and reflection. In the meantime, the reference to WikiProjects as general consensus has been replaced by the three pages that are. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:52, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

First appearance of its modern name Bratislava
Today's official name of the city first appeared in 1837, when Slovak historian, archaeologist P.J.Šafárik, was trying to reenact the old name of the city and he thought it wasn't coming from the name Braslav but Bratislav. Before 1837, Slavic (Slovak) name of the city was Prešporok/Prešporek. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Szellajos (talk • contribs) 14:36, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Guidelines
"Do not use overly lengthy quotes" is incorrect. "Do not use overly lengthy quotations" is correct.
 * So...be bold and fix it! Grutness...wha?  01:45, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism, nonsense, test edits, etc.
I think we should warn vandals not to do any of the above. This page may motivate potential vandals who don't know the personal attack rules or other related rules in Wikipeia and think that they are just following some wonderful Be Bold guildline.  Kayau  Wuthering Heights  VANITY FAIR   paradise lost  11:43, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * We already do in the first sub-section of the page. (See the section titled ...but please be careful.)  We don't particularly call out vandalism and other malicious edits since we are trying very hard to assume good faith but it should be obvious to any well-intentioned reader that "not editing recklessly" would include avoiding those sorts of inappropriate acts. Vandals, I think, are neither encouraged nor discouraged by this page.  They are simply a problem we have to deal with.  Rossami (talk) 13:23, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

It won’t hurt to warn them here anyway, since they might see that they can be bold here and make personal attacks because they believe those attacks are good. Kayau  Wuthering Heights  VANITY FAIR   paradise lost  08:41, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Speed vs. accuracy
I've been looking for a section or essay on the merits and drawbacks of working quickly, particularly with the aid of gadgets. It seems there is a certain kind of editor who's an "edit collector" and tries to make as many edits as possible, at the distinct cost of accuracy. Twice in two days, I was wrongfully reverted/warned (by their admission) by editors on "rollback duty," who seemed too interested in clicking and moving on than in taking two seconds to make sure they were doing the right thing. A new editor could be really confused, turned off, or scared away when they go to the trouble (for them) of making a fix, only to get wrongly reverted and warned. So I thought it might be nice to remind people somewhere that while efficiency is great, if your drive for speed results in sloppiness, you might be hurting the project more than helping it. Thoughts? -Jordgette (talk) 23:33, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Sounds like the sort of thing that would make a good user essay, and anyone can write one of them - yourself included - on a subpage of their user page. If you do and it seems relevant to this page, then adding a link to that essay from WP:BOLD would be a reasonable move. Grutness...<small style="color:#008822;">wha?  00:25, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Existing relevant pages include: WP:PRESERVE (policy), and many of the essays collected in Template:Civility and Template:Essays on building Wikipedia. Hopethathelps. -- Quiddity (talk) 18:25, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I like this term "edit collector", it is much less pejorative than what I was thinking (WikiNazi).
 * I have noticed lately that there are some folks here who have taken it upon themselves to jump on new and revised pages, in one case a page I was working on was reverted before I had even finished doing the Fair Use page for an image I was in the process of adding. When I had a look at that person's user page, it was set up as a shrine to all of the Good Works he had done here, including a counter that said he had made over 40,000 edits in the last four years.
 * Although it is important to keep the trash out of Wikipedia, it is also important to hold on to worthwhile contributions and the people making them. If I devote the time and effort to make a contribution to an article, I do not expect it to be reverted by some "edit collector" who has not even taken the time to understand what has been done.
 * I have neither the time or the inclination to get into a pissing contest with these folks. I would suggest, however, that the powers-that-be have a look at finding some way to deal with this, since these problems from within will be far more detrimental to the project than the vandals from without. Kid Bugs (talk) 02:30, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
 * That certainly is an issue, but it's not really an issue of BOLDness. I think it is certainly unhealthy for contributors to spend long periods monitoring recent changes and new pages (especially using automated tools) without also participating in other areas, particularly content creation. That's hard to enforce, but we could think about how to raise the issue more prominently, and perhaps find some way to identify people who've got into a sort of "click-rage", and encourage them to take a break. Perhaps raise this at the Village Pump? Rd232 talk 09:34, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

This article is not balance about BOLD, instead it lists how to not be bold
The article is focused upon when not to be bold. This is fine, but the weight puts this article out of balance. It needs a strong section on when we MUST be bold. Original research, does it require discussion for deletion? 24.23.60.221 (talk) 02:15, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Be Bold without Consensus
The article properly stresses when to work hard for consensus. Material that clearly violates policies however MUST be removed. 24.23.60.221 (talk) 02:15, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Well... no-one "must" do anything on WP, I don't think we want to terify new editors into thinking they'll be reprimanded if they've been found to have looked at some page and failed to spot and remove some policy violation. Or do you mean something else? I'm not sure exactly what you're proposing.--Kotniski (talk) 19:41, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Discuss the changes
Well, I made some changes which I thought made the "non-article namespaces" section clearer, but they've been reverted twice, apparently not because of any concrete objection any more, but just because we're supposed to discuss them. This is all rather ironic, considering the message of this page, but anyway, here goes: the proposed changes are the ones made in this edit. Can people please say what they object to in them?--Kotniski (talk) 19:41, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I thought it was clearer before. I've added some badly-needed structure; perhaps you could clarify what you're trying to do and how that might work with the current version. Rd232 talk 20:11, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I thought it was clearer before as well. Though I think I understand most of the changes you were trying to make, K, several of them look to be gojng into too much cluttering detail as to the whys and wherefores. It's far simpler to say "be careful with templates because they affect multiple pages" and leave it at that than to then explain why they affect multiple pages, for instance - the fact that they do should be enough. It's also important to retain the section on discussing changes on talk pages. Rd232's structural changes do make a considerable improvement, though - some form of organisation of that section has been needed for a while. Grutness...<small style="color:#008822;">wha?  23:39, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Well OK, but there are some changes that just have to be made, since there are simply factual errors. I also don't see why you're saying we need less explanation and then adding more explanation yourself. Oh well, I've made a few more changes piecewise and explained them in edit summaries. Now there should be no excuse for reverting the whole lot because you have some problem with one of them.--Kotniski (talk) 07:16, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, good - particularly separating out Categories. I've made some additional changes. Rd232 talk 08:58, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Merge another guideline in
As hinted above, there's a guideline called Discuss and draft graphical layout overhauls, which really has no need to be out on its own, so I'd propose merging it into this one (for now - there was also a suggestion above that all the stuff about non-articles be moved to a different page, which could still be done later). Please see that page's talk page and possibly discuss there.--Kotniski (talk) 08:41, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
 * In the interests of clarity and newbie-friendliness it would probably be best to separate out non-article namespaces from WP:BOLD, and merge the graphical thing into that (it affects mostly non-article space, doesn't it?). For newbies it would be best to say very clearly "Be Bold In Updating Articles", and then in WP:Summary style "but less so on non-article pages, see here for details". Rd232 talk 09:02, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, Quiddity basically proposed the same thing above. To avoid multiplying the number of pages, perhaps the non-article stuff could go into WP:Editing policy? That would give us two well-purposed pages - a comprehensive one and a newbie-oriented one.--Kotniski (talk) 09:11, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Possibly; not sure about how that would affect WP:Editing policy - WP:Be less bold in non-article namespaces is easier to picture. But as long as clarity isn't sacrificed, fewer pages are better. You could try drafting something for a merger with EP. Rd232 talk 09:36, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I'd be very, very careful in moving the non-article stuff to a different page. More than enough editors cite "I was just being bold" when editing templates and categories, without ever having read the page and seen that it doesn't apply as strongly there; moving the non-article stuff to a separate page will only make that worse. In any case, taking that out will basically make this page into "Be bold when editing articles" - something which was roundly and soundly defeated (sadly) when proposed a couple of years back (see earlier on this talk page). There'd also be problems moving it into WP:Editing policy: WP:Bold is a guideline, not a policy, so it can't go there without considerably more discussiopn, and if it's rejected as policy it would be lost to both pages. In any case, the present page isn't so long as to be a problem - the only real problem with it is that (as mentioned by others above) it seems to stress when not to be bold more than when to be bold. As to the potential merge candidate mentioned, it is so short that it should be very easy to merge it here without causing any problems, especially since some of it (re: portals), is simply an extra short section for the "non-article" section. Grutness...<small style="color:#008822;">wha?  11:15, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Fair points, though the "but" section is longer than "be bold" because the latter point is basically simple (expanding/explaining more just weakens the point). Maybe (especially if more is merged here), it's time to remove the NOTOC tag, and make the "But..." section a section rather than a subsection. A bit better layout could make the Be Bold point more visible. Rd232 talk 11:50, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Looking at WP:Editing policy again, it actually seems to be covering a lot of the same ground as this page (the two nutshells says virtually the same thing, in fact), although it also contains other stuff about preserving information, for example. I'm sure we don't need two pages going over the same points with somewhat different words. Or if we do, then it's because we want a short, clear (perhaps more chatty) page that we can link newcomers to. I don't think there's anything here that isn't compatible with being included in the editing policy page (that page already contains a lot of waffle; it certainly isn't the kind of crisp policy that would become "impure" if points from this page were included in it). So my ideal solution would still be: make the editing policy comprehensive, including all the aspects of when and how to be bold (or not), and make this page a short and inspiring missive to new editors that we can link to when they seem to need it. It doesn't have to be marked as a guideline.--Kotniski (talk) 12:28, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
 * As Kotinski mentioned this at WT:EP, I'll chime in to say that I'd have to generally agree with Grutness, that this is a guideline, not a policy, and a merge-over shouldn't be willy-nilly. WP:EP, while having a somewhat generic title as a relatively ancient policy, shouldn't become a sort of policy "WP:COATRACK" for new ideas wishing to become new policy. That said, I'm not actually familiar with all the issues going on here. -- 209.6.238.201 (talk) 07:45, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think there are any new ideas - indeed these ideas are already featured at WP:EP, so this is basically just about tidying the presentation (to remove duplication, while also removing distracting information from a page that new users are linked to from all over the place). A more precise title for WP:EP would be a benefit, though, so we have some idea of what its scope is supposed to be (because "editing policy" could mean pretty much anything). It seems to me the intended scope is something like "guidance on editing in situations of potential or actual disagreement", but somehow I don't see that as a title... --Kotniski (talk) 11:36, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I merged in WP:DDGGLO, anyway, as proposed. This page is definitely looking bottom-heavy now though, so I think we need to start thinking about applying some of the solutions suggested above.--Kotniski (talk) 11:38, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Still applies?
I've been a wikipedian for quite a long time, but not been here for a while. I've seen in a few places people say things like "It's best for all concerned if you discuss non-minor changes here before you make them" in Talk:Analytic Hierarchy Process which I believe to be the opposite of the spirit of the "Be bold" principle. Is it still something wikipedia believes in, or is the "discuss, agree then change" model more common now? --Khendon (talk) 09:04, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I hope we still believe in being bold - of course there are some people who don't (at least, in as much as it applies to editors other than themselves), and since those people make their presence felt with their pesky unreasoned reverts ("no consensus for this change" is the typical non-explanation that they give), they might seem to be more numerous than they actually are.--Kotniski (talk) 11:40, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I think the key word here is "non-minor". Being bold is definitely acceptable in general terms and is in general a good thing, but where an edit is big enough to significantly change an article, it's still worthwhile to discuss it - especially if the article is a fairly thorough/high quality one or has had numerous editors. Grutness...<small style="color:#008822;">wha?  22:14, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

It's worth discussing it, just not first. I change it (and explain my reasons in the talk page), you change it (in a way that makes a compromise between my change and the original), and we circle round until we reach a working consensus - that's "being bold" and how wikipedia should work, in my opinion. Requiring consensus first gives a strong preference for the status quo, leads to stagnation, and encourages people to think of themselves as the "owners" of a page. --Khendon (talk) 07:17, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, I agree - the main reason for not being bold I think is self-interest - if you put a lot of work into something and it ends up being reverted wholesale, and you can't convince people to accept it, then you've wasted a lot of your time, whereas outlining your ideas first might give you an idea of whether it's worth doing the work or not. And in general, big changes are probably more likely to run into opposition than small ones. So I don't think it's ever socially unacceptable to be bold (except perhaps in some of the special cases we've discussed, like templates and categories, though even there it's OK if you really know what you're doing), but it might not always be the most time-effective strategy.--Kotniski (talk) 10:42, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * You're talking about the BOLD, revert, discuss cycle, and as far as articles are concerned, then yes, that's fine, acceptable, and expected. As explained at WP:BOLD, though, there are problems which make this less attractive in some other namespaces (especially those where reverting takes considerable time, as in the creating of new categories). Basically, if reverting is easy - as it is with articles - there's no problem whatsoever with this approach. While "self-interest" may be one reason for not being bold, a greater one in my experience is the difficulty of undoing anything which may be problematic. Grutness...<small style="color:#008822;">wha?  00:02, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Frizzies
a new word to say fizzy 64.141.109.2 (talk) 21:33, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

A new word to learn (Frizzie)
Frizzies is a new word to describe Fizzy, as in a fizzy drink. This word can be used in multiple contexts. For example: There is a Frizzie soda on the table. This is mostly used in the context of a drink.

- Meg da Egg, Ayla Ozturkey 184.71.81.202 (talk) 21:36, 22 November 2023 (UTC)