Talk:Be bold

This redirect

Per the overwelming consensus at WP:DRV, I have replaced this recerted this redirect to point to WP:BOLD instead of boldness. Please see [1] for the discussion and here for the original RFD.

With a full sense of irony, I decided to be bold and use a soft redirect since that will help users to not to rely on a cross-namespace redirect. BigDT 02:41, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I think that in this case your action may have been premature. Let's leave it alone for a while and let the DRV discussion run its course. As several people have said, there's no harm in waiting. Thanks. Rossami (talk) 03:24, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Please take a look at the DRV history [2]. At 02:20 UTC, the DRV listing was closed by an administrator. I changed the redirect at 02:41 UTC in adherence to the consensus of the then-closed discussion. At 02:59 UTC, the administrator re-opened the discussion. My change was made while the DRV was closed and at the time, I had no reason to believe that this DRV would be reopened. BigDT 03:40, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

This should be a link to Wikipedia:Be bold in updating pages. See the What links here. — Omegatron 17:26, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Result

Some people keep redirecting this page to WP:BOLD. Since this is a cross namespace redirect, I will continually revert any attempt to turn it into such a redirect, regardless of what result came up at DRV. Either this should redirect to an article, or it should be deleted, but any attempt at turning this into a cross namespace redirect will be reverted.Polonium 18:10, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

So basically, you don't give a shit what consensus is, you're going to go against consensus anyway, even if the people who voted in the DRV kept in mind that cross-namespace redirects are generally frowned upon? --Deathphoenix ʕ 20:11, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Why? — Omegatron 20:37, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

So you've admitted that you're going to violate the results of a DRV? Yay for wholesale violation of consensus and policy. People with attitudes like yours shouldn't be welcome on Wikipedia. jgp (T|C) 22:58, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

it's not worth the wheel-wars. just fix the dozen or so things that link here and delete away. No need to keep it for "historical reasons" once nothing links here. Oh, and WP is not a democracy. dab (ᛏ) 20:39, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

So discipline those who are wheel warring and power tripping. We don't delete articles just because people are fighting about their content. Remove the problem, not the symptom.
But hey, whatever... *unwatches page* — Omegatron 21:10, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Polonium, et al - until you can point to a policy-level page that explicitly says that cross-namespace redirects are forbidden or until the DRV decision is formally overturned, I will enforce the DRV decision. I really don't want to get into a wheel-war but it is important that we live up to our values. The community discussed this fully. You had every opportunity to speak your piece and to convince us differently. The consensus decision, after all the arguments and evidence was considered, was to restore the redirect to WP:BOLD and that the strict interpretation against cross-namespace redirects was inappropriate. Rossami (talk) 23:39, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Redirect#When_should_we_delete_a_redirect.3F. It states that redirects from the main space to the user or wikipedia space can be deleted. Polonium 23:46, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, that's a guideline page, not a policy page but ignoring that for now, I presume that you are basing your comment on bullet 5 which opens "It is a cross-space redirect out of article space..." Please note the sentence immediately above that list which reads "You might want to delete a redirect..." (emphasis added). This indicates that deletion may be considered through the RfD process, not that the redirect must be deleted and certainly not that it qualifies for speedy-deletion or out-of-process deletion.
The sentence at the top of the list continues (but note also the exceptions listed below this list)" . Please note bullet 3 in the exceptions list which reads "You risk breaking external or internal links by deleting the redirect..." This decision broke a lot of links and while the bot fixed the current internal ones, it did nothing for external links if any exist. For a page this old, it's likely they do. "Be bold" is one of our core values and it's been written about extensively by students of social software and of wikis in general. Remember that the policy page started here. It predated the creation of a separate Wikipedia-space. Please also remember that these links are all over the history. The bot overwrote them at a point in time. If any page is reverted after the bot goes by, the link is again broken.
Please also note bullet 4 in the exceptions list which reads "Someone finds them useful..." I find it useful. Reviewing the DRV discussion, it seems that others do too.
By the way, there is an interesting section on that page which suggests that running the bot was a bad thing to have done in this case. It's water under the bridge now, but in the future we should be much more cautious before launching these bot-attacks.
Note: If you are basing your comment on some other part of that policy page, please clarify so I can reconsider comments. Rossami (talk) 00:51, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Unprotect please

This redirect is protected to the wrong location ( :) ). Generally we should not have wikipedia internal operations leaking into the main namespace. There is no cause or justification to have this incorrect page protected currently. --Gmaxwell 00:30, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Ahh, I see it's been fixed. One interesting datapoint is that all of the 'revert' users on the DRV discussion are substantially newer editors than the active editing community. None were around for the last big cross namespace discussions. I think that it's interesting, and that it demonstrates that the DRV says nothing about the consensus of the community when it's participants are so obviously anomalous. --Gmaxwell 00:43, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

No, it wasn't "fixed". It was moved back to the version which was rejected in the DRV discussion. By the way, I suggest that you rerun your analysis of the contribution histories of the people arguing to revert. Rossami (talk) 00:57, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps it would be helpful and not seem as patronizing if you could give us "newer editors" a link to the last big cross namespace discussion? BigDT 02:51, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Attempted compromise

On the disambiguation version, can we agree on the use of {{selfref}} as an unobtrusive self-reference? There seems to be precedent for this and I don't see why we have to be all or nothing here. (ESkog)^(Talk) 01:33, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Mos:DAB says that {{disambig}} goes on the bottom, lines should start with the links (unless you are linking to a section of another page), and links should not be bold. Kotepho 01:49, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I concur with ESkog...there is a precedent. However, I must note, that given the preponderance of Google hits (10,100 was the count today's date) specifically attributed to the quote referenced in the article, nobody can convincingly argue against people searching for "be bold" for other reasons besides WP:BB.

There are a decent number of google hits that attribute it to King, and a decent number that attribute it to Goethe, but it seems they are both wrong. `"be bold, and mighty" "basil king"` and `"be bold, and mighty" goethe` get some hits in google books but from self help books. There is a quote from The Conquest of Fear by Basil King, but it is instead "Go at it boldly, and you'll find unexpected forces closing round you and Coming to your aid." It gets a paltry amount of google hits, but the 3 google books hits look real and project gutenburg and others have this version. Most of the confusion seems to result from a line in the movie Almost Famous, so google hits is not a good way to figure out which is correct. I'll see if Bartlett's has it. Kotepho 02:36, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Never let it be said that no matter how great the effort at compromise, someone will still try to come along and demean and criticise your effort. Kotepho, you've proven my point. Whether or not the quote was made by Basil King verbatim, it is attributed to him and clearly searched in that string. Therefore, the discussion as to its accuracy belongs elsewhere, not here. Bastique▼^parler _voir 03:00, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh yes, heaven forbid someone try to verify the content on a Wikipedia page, THE GALL I MUST HAVE! I'm not really that good at feigning indignation. If we are going to go with "well, it googles!" we should probably mention Goethe as well. Kotepho 03:20, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Excellent compromise, ESkog. --Deathphoenix ʕ 14:32, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank You for this compromise by creating a disambiguation page! It eliminates the need to create a self reference at boldness, no cross namespace redirect, keeps all of the links working, and encourages people to use the proper link (WP:BOLD). This was a perfect compromise. Polonium 12:50, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Be Bold

Let's be honest. At this point, a guideline as well-known as this one deserves some mention in a "Be Bold" disambiguation page. We don't need the self-reference; it's notable enough, I think. Certainly moreso than some throwaway line from The Conquest of Fear... right? Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 22:47, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

See the above discussion in which this compromise was already made. Many of our content reusers only replicate the article namespace, and not the Wikipedia one, so this link would be broken there. If it's really notable enough, I suppose you could create an actual article on it, but you might have a tough time selling folks on that one. (ESkog)^(Talk) 00:54, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Be Bold? Really?

Every time I've made an edit (and I used to have an account), it's be reverted or erased and I've been chided in the talk page. Why would I want to be bold if virtually every editor I've encountered throws policy after policy at me, reverts my edits and writes tersely to me in the talk page? And my edits have been useful and in good faith.

Some guy. 172.133.157.65 05:09, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

A core value of some Wiki communities

It's basically an encouragement for wikizens to contribute in the sense of <-> AboutUsOrg:BeBold Fridemar (talk) 01:06, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

redundant link?

One of the bulletpoint reads "Be bold in updating pages, a Wikipedia editing guideline.", but the link has already been covered on top. Can I remove it?

石川 (talk) 07:35, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Remove the redundant link as you see fit, and provide an edit summary to explain your actions. If a conflict arises despite this, bring it up in the talk page. Be bold. –Cup o' Java

({{#iferror: {{#time:U| Jan 03, 2013 8:46 PM }}
 |{{error|Error: first parameter cannot be parsed as a date or time.}}
 |{{Time ago/core
  |ago = ago
  |time = Jan 03, 2013 8:46 PM
  |auto_magnitude_num = {{#if:
   |0<!-- Make sure the specified {{{magnitude}}} is used -->
   |{{#expr:{{#ifexpr: floor( abs( {{#time:U}} - {{#time:U| Jan 03, 2013 8:46 PM }} ) / 120      ) | 1 | 0 }}+
    {{#ifexpr: floor( abs( {{#time:U}} - {{#time:U| Jan 03, 2013 8:46 PM }} ) / 7200     ) | 1 | 0 }}+
    {{#ifexpr: floor( abs( {{#time:U}} - {{#time:U| Jan 03, 2013 8:46 PM }} ) / 172800   ) | 1 | 0 }}+
    {{#ifexpr: floor( abs( {{#time:U}} - {{#time:U| Jan 03, 2013 8:46 PM }} ) / 5356800  ) | 2 | 0 }}+
    {{#ifexpr: floor( abs( {{#time:U}} - {{#time:U| Jan 03, 2013 8:46 PM }} ) / 63115200 ) | 1 | 0 }}
   }}
  }}
  |min_magnitude_num = {{#switch:{{#if:
    |{{{magnitude}}}
    |{{{min_magnitude}}}
   }}
   |years   = 6
   |months  = 5
   |weeks   = 4
   |days    = 3
   |hours   = 2
   |minutes = 1
   |seconds
   |#default= 0
  }}
 }}
}}{{#ifeq:|yes|&#32;<span class="plainlinks">([{{fullurl:{{FULLPAGENAME}}|action=purge}} purge])</span>|}})

Practice Edit's

Practiced adding links, citation addition and removal.Katylady1007 (talk) 04:44, 22 January 2020 (UTC)