Talk:Be bold

I took the responsibility to move this page to its author's userspace for the following reasons:

1. the page reflects the author's personal opinion on how to manage this wiki site
2. the page was placed in the wrong namespace and should be titled "Camera-wiki.org:Be bold" if and only if it is adopted as a guideline
3. more important, a request for deletion was introduced by Hoarier and removed without any discussion, which prompted my action

This change was reverted without me even having the time to explain the move there. I do not understand the status of this page (guideline? rule? personal essay?) and I vote for deletion. --NihonCamera 13:30, 5 May 2011 (PDT)

"If the change and reversion game goes into a second round, editor and reverter should use the user talk pages of each other to reach each other better with questions and arguments for and against the change" ;-)

This page strikes me as an opinion piece, not yet a policy that we universally embrace. Boldness is valued when creating entirely new content. Carefulness and accuracy are valued when revising existing content.--Vox 14:08, 5 May 2011 (PDT)

"Carefulness and accuracy are valued when revising existing content". But boldness is also sometimes needed for changing existing content. My text reflects the idea of "Being bold" carefully and accurately as idea to encourage change and even enhances it to "be prepared for change (by others)" by reminding of switching between minor and major changes from time to time. You can be the bold one, or You can be the one who sees a bold change as wrong. You don't need necessarily to write such a guideline as dust-dry as some other "law&order" writings. Please accept this as guideline, and not as policy. "Be bold" can never be policy, it can only be a helpful idea.U. Kulick 15:01, 5 May 2011 (PDT)

I don't accept this as a guideline. (And if it were a guideline, it should not be here. U. kulick, are you "namespace blind"?)

I welcome intelligent, thoughtful, creative boldness. I reject stupid, thoughtless, destructive or capricious boldness. Wikipedia itself is extraordinarily cautious in accepting new guidelines (as its own, intelligently and carefully written "Be bold" page implies), and incidentally any author who was so bold as to remove an "Articles for deletion" notice from an article would have his knuckles rapped if he were a newbie and would probably be "desysopped" if an admin. -- Hoarier 15:30, 5 May 2011 (PDT)

Finding the germ of something useful

I'm leaving aside the question of where this topic might appear most appropriately. But I have written an alternate version, in the form which could plausibly be added to one of our existing help pages.

It is not entirely dissimilar to something here—a help page which at the moment is perhaps too buried for newcomers to discover it. In order not to inflame anyone further, I have left my re-writing commented out; but if you like you may read it within the page source. --Vox 11:45, 6 May 2011 (PDT)

Thank you for your extensive work on this. I don't agree with all of it, and I'm certain that it's in the wrong namespace, but I see that it is now worthwhile. -- Hoarier 23:16, 6 May 2011 (PDT)

Minor/major

We're told:

To facilitate this, begin by making one minor change and saving it, with the "minor edit" checkbox under the edit window left unchecked. This insures that an intact version of the article (from before your radical edit) will be preserved in the page history.

(plus some bolding).

I was going to change "one minor change" to something like "any minor and obvious changes". But I stopped, because if this really were a minor change then it would call for, or at least permit, description as a "minor edit". Yet the reader is told (in bold, too) not to click that box. So I really don't understand at all. What's the point that's being made here? -- Hoarier 23:16, 6 May 2011 (PDT)