SmashWiki talk:Be Bold

Proposal discussion

Support, as nom.

--- Monsieur Crow, Author Extraordinaire, 18:38, 15 July 2017 (EDT)

Oppose in its current state. I'm not big on how the page is written right now. The opening section especially could use a more defined structure. In addition, the "what being bold is not" section should be reworded to more heavily emphasize what the "best way" to act bold is, and paragraphs are currently split up unnecessarily.

By the way, is this intended to be a guideline or policy? I feel it should be the former. Nyargleblargle (Contribs) 19:49, 15 July 2017 (EDT)

I'll see if I can address your complaints, though I did intend for this to be strictly a guideline. Can't exactly ban someone for not being bold.

--- Monsieur Crow, Author Extraordinaire, 20:01, 15 July 2017 (EDT)

Oppose this seems kinda unnecessary. We shouldn't have to tell people to make edits they think will help? Also side-note how many proposals do you plan on making because this is kinda getting tedious. Alex Parpotta the flying lobster! 19:54, 15 July 2017 (EDT)

Something I've noticed is that we have quite a number of users who stay on Recent Changes and don't edit; furthermore, a number of former discussions received particularly disappointing turnout, something I feel that is detrimental to the Wiki. Also, by your logic, we should delete SmashWiki:You are valuable, since it "only" tells users that their edits are valuable.

And for your final question, I obviously plan on writing 105 different guidelines and policies in the future. Are you going to automatically oppose them just because I've written so many?

--- Monsieur Crow, Author Extraordinaire, 20:01, 15 July 2017 (EDT)

And that's another thing, this kinda seems supplementary to SW:YAV, and could probably just be covered there.

Also 105?! At this rate we'll be the future Soviet Union with all these rules... Alex Parpotta the flying lobster! 20:13, 15 July 2017 (EDT)

I disagree. YAV covers that editors are valuable; Be Bold covers that editors should be bold, two objectives that are separate, distinct, and different from one another.

Also, thanks to that snide remark, I now plan on writing 106 different guidelines and policies.

--- Monsieur Crow, Author Extraordinaire, 20:39, 15 July 2017 (EDT)

Wow that's just really petty of you. Clearly this discussion is getting us nowhere due to your personal bias towards this page, so I'm ending it here. Alex Parpotta the flying lobster! 06:12, 16 July 2017 (EDT)

For calling me petty and biased, I now plan on writing 107.

In case you haven't figured it out yet, this entire "105" thread is a stupid joke. I mean, c'mon, 105? Wikipedia doesn't even have that many policies, I think.

Regardless, it did a pretty good job of demonstrating that you have no argument for rolling this into SW:YAV, didn't it?

In any case, accusing me of bias is teetering dangerously close to assuming bad faith. While I do want to see this guideline passed, as I feel it would help the Wiki, I have received well-deserved criticisms and have acted on them in an attempt to address such criticisms. If I were truly biased, I would not see eye-to-eye with anyone here. And I'd also like to point out that this is not the first time I have received criticism for my actions regarding policies, and I certainly hope it won't be my last; if I were truly biased, I don't think anyone would try giving me the time of day when it came to policies, dig it?

--- Monsieur Crow, Author Extraordinaire, 11:29, 16 July 2017 (EDT)

Righto, you two. That's enough. Alex, your words tread close to becoming a personal attack or at least assuming bad faith, and Crow, arguing about it is not going to help anything. Can it, both of you. Black Vulpine of the Furry Nation. Furries make the Internets go! :3 19:37, 16 July 2017 (EDT)

Neutral, sliding towards oppose. I'm undecided, but here's what I think. This kinda touches on what SW:YAV is, making it redundant. Furthermore, I don't like how it's written - if we're gonna use this, the writing must be improved significantly (hence why I might support this). Black Vulpine of the Furry Nation. Furries make the Internets go! :3 22:18, 15 July 2017 (EDT)

YAV is separate from Be Bold. YAV merely states that editors are valuable and their input is as valuable as that of a seasoned editor; Being Bold tells all editors to freely edit SmashWiki, no matter their experience, as to help the Wiki grow. YAV deals with ranking and perceived nepotism; Being Bold deals with editing.

Also, saying "I don't like how it's written" does not help in the slightest. If it sucks, you have to tell me why it sucks, not just that you think it sucks.

--- Monsieur Crow, Author Extraordinaire, 22:29, 15 July 2017 (EDT)

The readability is the main problem. It's not bad, but it's not the best either. The tone also needs to be made a little bit more formal - in particular, on line 3, instead of the word "upset", use "discouraged". I know you say this is different from YAV, but I still can't really see the difference. Black Vulpine of the Furry Nation. Furries make the Internets go! :3 00:38, 16 July 2017 (EDT)

I've tried to address some of your criticisms in this policy. If I missed anything, let me know, or try editing it to correct what I wasn't able to accomplish.

Also, something I neglected to mention is that just because two policies appear to cover similar ground (which, in this case, they frankly don't, but whatever) does not mean that we automatically graft them together, cf. SmashWiki:Images / SmashWiki:Image copyrights or SmashWiki:Talk pages / SmashWiki:Sign your comments.

--- Monsieur Crow, Author Extraordinaire, 01:11, 16 July 2017 (EDT)

Sorry Crow, I'm still not convinced. Although it does look a bit better now. Black Vulpine of the Furry Nation. Furries make the Internets go! :3 01:16, 16 July 2017 (EDT)

Oppose; in general, I feel like the "be bold" principle doesn't work as well for specialized wikis like this compared to Wikipedia. We have a clear set of content limitations (we're about Smash) and any major changes to what we cover really ought to be done only if consensus was reached before doing so. The "make edits so bold they're being reverted!" idea is also counterproductive on a wiki with a userbase size like ours as well. If the main reason for implementing this concept on SW is just "people should feel free to edit any page", that hardly warrants its own guideline. It's a basic principle of how wikis work in the first place and over-explaining it like this isn't beneficial. This page's goals seem to be better served by Help:FAQ and SW:RTFM. Miles (talk) 12:08, 16 July 2017 (EDT)

These are all very valid criticisms that, ultimately, I cannot refute. Perhaps Be Bold truly doesn't translate well to our smaller scope.

While I am willing to withdraw this proposal, I still feel that SmashWiki needs to address users being bold somewhere. I'll try to think of an alternate route in this regard.

--- Monsieur Crow, Author Extraordinaire, 12:15, 16 July 2017 (EDT)

Maybe tweak the last section of Read this First? Nyargleblargle (Contribs) 15:12, 16 July 2017 (EDT)

I'm considering a number of options to include the idea of this proposal in SW:RTFM, but I want to find a way to succinctly include it, as I now realised that perhaps this proposal was too long-winded for a rather basic concept. It's not a priority, though, I'm actually pretty sick of writing and staring at proposals lol

--- Monsieur Crow, Author Extraordinaire, 19:51, 16 July 2017 (EDT)