 | This is an
explanatory essay about the
Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle page. This page provides additional information about concepts in the page(s) it supplements. This page is not one of
Wikipedia's policies or guidelines as it has not been
thoroughly vetted by the community. |
 | This page in a nutshell: You should discuss and collaborate instead of edit warring. |
When editors tell you to "follow BRD" or that "BRD is practically policy", they almost always mean you need to follow the talking and editing policy. In short, these editors are telling you to stop reverting and start discussing.
They almost never mean you should follow the real bold, revert, discuss (BRD) cycle, which describes one method of reaching consensus when an existing talk page discussion has bogged down or fails to address an editor's concerns. That explicitly optional method involves one-on-one negotiation, and advises editors to do things like only talking to the person who reverted your edit. It is not always appropriate, and it even lists a variety of situations in which you shouldn't follow it and alternatives that might be more appropriate.
What editors usually want you to do when they say "follow BRD" is to follow what the Editing and Edit warring policies say about communication. Simply put:
- If your change is met with resistance from another editor, do not restore your change, as that could be edit warring. Instead, go to the article's talk page and discuss the matter. (You're more likely to get a response if you ping the reverting editor.)
- Find out why the editor reverted your edit, and seek an agreement about what to do.
- After you have reached an agreement, one of you should make the change to the article (unless you all agreed not to change the article).
Alternatively, if the reverter's initial edit summary pointed to a clear and easy way to improve your edit, then (if you agree with their advice), you can try that form of edit. Such an edit is not a repetition of the original edit and is generally not viewed as a problem, but be careful to avoid misunderstandings by adding a clear edit summary or leaving a note on the talk page.
Finally, if your efforts are met with a bunch of complaints about which version is the "status quo" (it's always The Wrong Version) and an insistence that it's always the other guy who has to start the talk page discussion – you should probably look into a Wikipedia:Dispute resolution process that involves additional editors instead of following BRD.
- WP:BRB, alternatives to BRD
| This is an
explanatory essay about the
Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle page. This page provides additional information about concepts in the page(s) it supplements. This page is not one of
Wikipedia's policies or guidelines as it has not been
thoroughly vetted by the community. |
| This page in a nutshell: You should discuss and collaborate instead of edit warring. |
When editors tell you to "follow BRD" or that "BRD is practically policy", they almost always mean you need to follow the talking and editing policy. In short, these editors are telling you to stop reverting and start discussing.
They almost never mean you should follow the real bold, revert, discuss (BRD) cycle, which describes one method of reaching consensus when an existing talk page discussion has bogged down or fails to address an editor's concerns. That explicitly optional method involves one-on-one negotiation, and advises editors to do things like only talking to the person who reverted your edit. It is not always appropriate, and it even lists a variety of situations in which you shouldn't follow it and alternatives that might be more appropriate.
What editors usually want you to do when they say "follow BRD" is to follow what the Editing and Edit warring policies say about communication. Simply put:
- If your change is met with resistance from another editor, do not restore your change, as that could be edit warring. Instead, go to the article's talk page and discuss the matter. (You're more likely to get a response if you ping the reverting editor.)
- Find out why the editor reverted your edit, and seek an agreement about what to do.
- After you have reached an agreement, one of you should make the change to the article (unless you all agreed not to change the article).
Alternatively, if the reverter's initial edit summary pointed to a clear and easy way to improve your edit, then (if you agree with their advice), you can try that form of edit. Such an edit is not a repetition of the original edit and is generally not viewed as a problem, but be careful to avoid misunderstandings by adding a clear edit summary or leaving a note on the talk page.
Finally, if your efforts are met with a bunch of complaints about which version is the "status quo" (it's always The Wrong Version) and an insistence that it's always the other guy who has to start the talk page discussion – you should probably look into a Wikipedia:Dispute resolution process that involves additional editors instead of following BRD.
- WP:BRB, alternatives to BRD