Wikipedia talk:Editing policy/Archive 5

DESAFRI - Online Shopping for African Designs
DESAFRI, an Online Shopping & e-marketplace specially for African Fashion & lifestyle designs, a unique getaway to African fashion and everything you want to know about Cameroon designers. We aim to maintain a unique cross-platform online store that sells African designs (Men, Women & Children) clothing and delivered at your footsteps.

It is Founded by group of Cameroonian Entrepreneurs ; — Preceding unsigned comment added by Larieikome (talk • contribs) 16:38, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Have these rules recently been edited by Wikipedia?
I was wondering why they looked different from the last time I saw them. I went through the rules and guidelines and there is definitely something. Im just not sure what it is. If you find something please comment. Thank you! There may not be anything but please let me know if there is! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.76.151.68 (talk • contribs) 07:21, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Don't revert changes you approve of
I've just made a WP:PGBOLD attempt at clarifying a point that seems to have gotten lost. You can see the edit here, at the end of Editing policy.

In the last five or so years, I've seen several editors revert changes with an edit summary that says (a) they agree with the change, but (b) someone else, almost always unnamed, might object. This pattern is fundamentally anti-wiki, but even worse than that, it completely breaks WP:BRD. A bold editor cannot actually follow BRD's instruction to "Discover the Very Interested Persons (VIP), and reach a compromise or consensus with each, one by one" if the Revert action has been undertaken by a person who agrees with the action! At best this turns reversion into a pointless game of Mother May I?.

So I invite you: If you personally think that it's a good idea for editors to remove changes that they fully agree with, then please revert my change, and ping me here with an example of how reverting apparently good edits helps Wikipedia. And if you don't think it's a good idea to revert edits that you agree with – then don't.    Thanks,  WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:29, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Good editors frequently revert changes that they, personally, think are improvements but which they know are contrary to consensus. If they feel strongly about it they work to change the consensus, but in the meantime they abide by it. EEng 02:48, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Should someone who actively opposes a given interpretation of consensus be the person who enforces it, especially in light of WP:CCC and WP:IAR? After all, we have a policy that directly says that if a rule (any rule, including the consensus policy) prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, you are supposed to ignore that rule.  Knowingly and intentionally harming a page (using, of course, your own well-developed judgement of what constitutes "harm") does not seem to comply with either that policy or even with ethical behavior.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:15, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
 * IAR is not compulsory. It's stretching it to make this a question of ethics. EEng 08:29, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Actually, I'm under the impression that the difference between actively harming something and passively allowing someone else to harm is a major subject in moral philosophy, so it's not really a stretch. Deliberately making a page worse is wrong (and Vandalism); passively deciding not to revert harm is generally ethically acceptable (and also compliant with WP:VOLUNTEER).
 * Can you give me an example of an edit that you firmly believe is a clear improvement to a page, but you would personally revert it anyway? (As opposed to, e.g., letting someone else revert it, re-opening discussion, improving the change, etc.).  All the examples I have thought of so far aren't things that I'd revert myself (e.g., there is a widespread consensus to use sports team colors in some navboxes, even when that produces lower compliance with WP:ACCESS; however, if someone removed those colors, I wouldn't revert those changes).  WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:57, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I think that, with rare exceptions, giving full birth and death dates I the lead of bios is distracting clutter; I often remove them. However, there are articles where the issue's been discussed and concensus was to leave them in; therefore, if someone were to remove them I'd put them back even though I might think the page is better without them. I really don't see where this discussion is going. EEng 19:28, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Do you feel that you need to be the person to put them back? WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:54, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't know if I "need to be the person" but I'd do it if I knew that the removal was contrary to current consensus. I think I'm going to end my participation now, since I don't see what the point it. EEng 22:22, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, perhaps let me explain the point: We have editors who believe it is their duty to actively make articles (in their opinion) worse, because Consensus Said So, or because Wikipedia is a Bureaucracy, and You Did Not Jump Through All the Hoops.  And I think that it would be valuable to give editors who are inclined to properly apply relevant policies and guidelines (e.g., IAR, BOLD, NOT) a written-down statement that says, you know what?  If you think that change is an improvement, then you are not required to revert it yourself, and anyone who tells you otherwise is wrong.
 * About a week ago, I saw a long-time editor revert a change to a page with an edit summary that said that he fully agreed with it, but he was reverting it because changes to policies required formal discussion in advance. This is anti-wiki; this is anti-policy (this policy, in particular); and it wasn't even a policy page, so it was irrelevant.  I've seen this multiple times, and I think that we should actively tell people that it's not required, or even desirable.
 * Based on your comments, it sounds like you'd prefer a softer way of saying this. Could you tolerate something closer to this?
 * Some changes need to be reverted, and editors' judgment about which changes require removal may vary. However, it is important to remember that you personally are not required, or even encouraged, to revert any change that you believe improves that page.
 * WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:08, 28 March 2019 (UTC)


 * I don't really agree with much that EEng said above, and I think it's very rarely a good idea to revert anything on procedural grounds. I'd be happy if the policy discouraged editors from elevating procedure above their own editorial judgment.—<b style="font-family: Verdana; color: Maroon;">S Marshall</b> T/C 21:29, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Perhaps that's because we're dinosaurs. People actually believed that a good article mattered more than nominal compliance with rules back when we were new.  I don't get the feeling that's what new editors are learning now.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:26, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Personally, I'm a diplodocus.—<b style="font-family: Verdana; color: Maroon;">S Marshall</b> T/C 09:37, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Editing a page more than once
Hi,

Sometimes I may make an edit to a page and then realise that I forgot to do something else, requiring me to edit the page again. Is that acceptable? I'm not sure where information on that would be, since it isn't here. Thanks, DesertPipeline (talk) 06:12, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
 * That's normal and acceptable.—<b style="font-family: Verdana; color: Maroon;">S Marshall</b> T/C 22:38, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your response :) DesertPipeline (talk) 05:28, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Duplicated section
Editing_policy is effectively a complete duplication of Policies_and_guidelines. Judging by incoming links to WP:WPEDIT (this page), it seems this page is not what people tend to refer to for advice. Complete duplication in policy is a bad idea IMO, as pages are likely to fall out of sync with each other and a WP:PGCONFLICT will arise, plus it's just confusing if you need to check two pages for the exact same thing. This particular matter seems more relevant to that page and the WP:BOLD guideline. So: any objections to merging this section into that? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 05:49, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Use BRD when changes MIGHT be contentious?
User:WhatamIdoing removed the following text with an edit summary of "General", Her reason for this edit is not obvious from the diff.
 * The "BOLD, revert, discuss cycle" (BRD) is often used when changes might be contentious.

User:Valjean restored the text, giving "long-standing content" as the reason. Unfortunately, this does not suggest that the content has any value beyond it's age. I, for one, find the text troublesome. It seems to me that an editor who suspects an edit "might" be contentious should forgo BRD and jump right to D (that is, right to the talk page). Am I misreading the text? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 02:04, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree about going directly to D, rather than starting with B, when an editor KNOWS an edit will be controversial, but that isn't always a known. Many bold edits occur simply because an editor saw a need for a change. They may not be familiar with the topic at an in-depth level or have checked the talk page first. In that case, they should respond to R with D. Does that make sense, or have I missed your point?
 * Rather than deleting the BRD part, we should add something about this situation as it's a desirable option. It is only after the revert that BRD becomes a good way to prevent an edit war, and isn't that what it's all about, right? -- Valjean (talk) 02:28, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
 * BRD is one way to learn whether a change is contentious. The idea may not have been contentious until the moment of the BOLD edit. -- Valjean (talk) 02:38, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Right, if you don't know your B "might" trigger an R then go ahead and B. But if you suspect your B will likely trigger an R then why waste time cluttering up the article's diff history? Either (a) don't make it, (b) change it to make it uncontroversial, or (c) take it to D from the get-go.
 * What about changing the sentence to: The "BOLD, revert, discuss cycle" (BRD) is often used when an editor believes a change is unlikely to be contentious"? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 16:56, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose. We don't want to make a change that would have a chilling effect on being bold.—<b style="font-family: Verdana; color: Maroon;">S Marshall</b> T/C 19:06, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
 * S Marshall, how would encouraging avoiding edit warring and discussions that are far longer than necessary be "chilling"? It's best not to poke a sleeping bear with a sharp stick when you suspect it just might not agree that a sharp stick is the right tool. Change your approach so that you'll make less heat and more light. Any contentious edit is better dealt with within the collaborative system on the talk page as it will have to be vetted anyway.
 * There is no point in causing disruption by making a bold edit just to make a point that BOLD edits are allowed. We know that. There is obviously no suggestion that controversial edits never be made, just that it's best to have a consensus right up front, rather than create irritation, edit warring, long discussions, and a huge waste of time. Article talk pages get large enough as it is without them being needlessly longer because of editors who think that the right to be bold also gives them a right to create unnecessary hoops to jump through. When in doubt about what might be seen as a strongly controversial edit, just skip the BR hoops and leave the article in peace. Struggles over content shouldn't appear in the article's contribution history more than necessary. That's what talk pages are for. -- Valjean (talk) 19:49, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Are you under the impression that the bold-revert part of the BRD cycle is "edit-warring"?—<b style="font-family: Verdana; color: Maroon;">S Marshall</b> T/C 20:12, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
 * S Marshall|, not usually, but it is when that part goes wrong that we see edit warring. It occurs when the bold editor repeats their original bold edit after the revert, instead of resorting to discussion, that starts an edit war. It's when BRB is done instead of BRD that we see the start of an edit war.
 * OTOH, as described (elsewhere), a second bold edit is only legitimate if some form of meeting of the minds has occurred, such as a revert with a really good edit summary, and the bold editor agrees and modifies their original bold edit in a manner that resolves the reverter's objections. That second bold edit isn't a repeat of the original bold edit and is generally accepted as good practice. In that case, there may be no discussion on the talk page, and that's okay. I hope that explains my thinking good enough. -- Valjean (talk) 20:15, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
 * It explains your thinking but I differ from you. If I make a bold edit, and you revert saying "no because of X", then my next move can be a bold edit that takes account of your concerns.—<b style="font-family: Verdana; color: Maroon;">S Marshall</b> T/C 20:19, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
 * ??? Isn't that what I just wrote in that second paragraph? I think we agree. -- Valjean (talk) 20:56, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Butwhatdoiknow, that's exactly right. Good suggestion. -- Valjean (talk) 19:49, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
 * That's exactly what (actual) BRD is not, though. @Butwhatdoiknow and @S Marshall, Valjean and I should let you in on the secret that we spent the last week or so discussing the difference between what BRD says and what editors incorrectly guess that it means from its title over at WT:BRD.  Valjean has effectively been arguing that BRD basically be replaced with WP:EPTALK and WP:AVOIDEDITWAR (approximately, if you get reverted, try discussing instead of edit warring.  This is solid advice, but it's not what BRD says).  You'll might want to look at that for some of the background.
 * But more to the point, you'll want to actually read BRD itself, which seems to be a key step that editors have been skipping for the last decade. For example, Butwhatdoiknow suggests that BRD be used when we expect that an edit will be uncontroversial.  BRD itself says When to use: While editing a particular page that many editors are discussing with little to no progress being made – rather the opposite of "when an editor believes a change is unlikely to be contentious", right?  See also the list of use cases, which includes Two factions are engaged in an edit war and Your view differs significantly from a rough consensus on an emotionally loaded subject.  BRD is all about being bold in proven-to-be-contentious situations.
 * As for the change, I think that section needs to be (as I made it) much more general. BRD itself says, right at the top of the page, that it is not a good process for many (or even most) situations.  This page should provide more widely applicable and practical information.  (Do not assume that editors know how to start a discussion on a talk page; a substantial majority of registered editors, including some who have made 1,000 mainspace edits, never edit a talk page at all.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:00, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Enlightened by WAID's history, I suggest modifying the first paragraph of wp:EPTALK to something like this:
 * Be bold in updating articles, especially for minor changes and fixing problems. Previous authors do not need to be consulted before making changes. Nobody owns articles. If you see a problem that you can fix, do so. Discussion is called for, however, if you think the edit might be controversial. If another editor reverts your edit, consider your options and respond appropriately.
 * - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 18:47, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
 * "Discussion is called for, however, if you think the edit might be controversial" == Policy says not to use (actual) BRD for the purposes that (actual) BRD says that it's good for.
 * Perhaps "If you don't know how to fix the problem, or if you think your change might be controversial, you can discuss it with other editors. If another editor reverts or changes your edit, do not edit war"? WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:19, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
 * To your first item first: The "Discussion" sentence is from the current text. I'm not thrilled with it either, but I didn't want too change too much at one time. Given it's placement, I don't see the sentence as relating to BRD. Rather, it is saying "your first move (before any discussion) should not be a bold edit if you know you're likely to draw a revert." Can we put this item aside for now and revisit it after we resolve your second item (dealing with what to do if you edit before any discussion and draw a revert or change)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Butwhatdoiknow (talk • contribs)
 * For clarity, that sentence may not be intended to related to the sentence about BRD. I'm just saying that BRD directly and explicitly contradicts that sentence.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:52, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Again I ask: Can we put this item aside for now and revisit it after we resolve your second item (dealing with what to do if you edit before any discussion and draw a revert or change)? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 06:42, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Aside from the arguments above, this would be confusing at best. For the person contemplating the edit, (who this is clearly addressed to) if if they think it's non-contentious, their next step is "Bold", and they think that it might be contentious, the advised first step is "Bold" .......so, what does it say to them??? - User:North8000 21:19, November 24, 2021‎ (UTC)
 * How do you know when a change is contentious? When someone reverts you.  Until someone reverts you, you don't know.  They might think your change is a good idea, and if they do they'll leave it in and optionally use the "thank" button.  I'd encourage any editor to do what seems right to them, and if they get reverted, then decide whether to accept the reversion and do something else, or have a chat about it.  We, as in those of us who watchlist WT:EP, tend to think about how the editing policy affects our own preferred editing areas.  But hard cases make bad law.  The editing policy should be written for the people who're writing articles about newly-discovered asteroids or 18th century German music or species of beetle in Peru.  Those who feel a burning need to edit articles about US politics or medicine or pseudoscience might need some additional guidance but we really don't want to have a chilling effect on being bold.—<b style="font-family: Verdana; color: Maroon;">S Marshall</b> T/C 02:00, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Very well put. -- Valjean (talk) 20:25, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
 * It turns out that BRD can mean a process (what should happen when a bold edit is disputed) or a strategy (something to do when a talk page discussion has reached an impasse). See WAID's post above (at 17:00, 23 November 2021). Accordingly, I have proposed alternative text above (at 18:47, 23 November 2021). Does that text resolve your concern? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 22:03, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
 * BRD is not what should happen when a bold edit is disputed. WP:EPTALK and WP:AVOIDEDITWAR is what should happen when an edit is disputed.  Starting a talk page discussion after you've been reverted is only one of multiple ways to comply with the policies.  In some cases, it is one of the worst possible way to comply with the relevant policies.  For example, if you are reverted by someone you recognize as a banned editor, then you should be contacting admins, not starting a friendly discussion.  If you are reverted by someone who appears to have made a sloppy mistake, then BRD is a waste of everyone's time (but an edit summary like "I was reverting sneaky vandalism—check the cited source" or "I'm removing duplication, not blanking the section" might be in order).  WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:59, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
 * User:North8000, that is indeed confusing, but that's because we don't agree.
 * I contend that the first edit should be bold, unless the bold editor knows that the edit is contentious (sometimes they know because they have seen the talk page), in which case they should go directly to discussion, skipping the B that will certainly provoke a following R. It's best to not poke the sleeping bear, and the bear is the reverter.
 * By contrast, WhatamIdoing follows the original procedure described by Kim Breuning, which means to be bold, no matter what. Some of us think that we shouldn't cause more disruption by being bold in the middle of a controversy. Then it's best to skip directly to discussion. -- Valjean (talk) 03:27, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
 * BRD does not mean to be bold no matter what. Both the original versions of BRD and the current versions explicitly state that you should not always be bold in editing.   WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:51, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

My main point is that logically, the removed text says absolutely nothing, in essence it is a tautology. (Basically "start BRD if it's not contentious, start BRD if it is contentious") Another statement has entered the discussion which in essence says "don't be bold (= start BRD) if you already know the edit is contentious." This does say something, albeit on a different point. <b style="color: #0000cc;">North8000</b> (talk) 15:04, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
 * What "removed text" are you referring to? What "another statement" are you referring to? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 15:27, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
 * By "removed text" I was referring to "The "BOLD, revert, discuss cycle" (BRD) is often used when changes might be contentious." <b style="color: #0000cc;">North8000</b> (talk) 18:05, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
 * By "another statement" I was referring to: "Even better, if you know your bold edit might be controversial, skip the bold edit and go directly to discussion" <b style="color: #0000cc;">North8000</b> (talk) 18:08, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Got it, thanks. What do you think about changing the "removed text" (which has now been restored) to: "If another editor reverts or changes your edit, consider your options and respond appropriately"? (I realize that this doesn't solve the "another statement" problem. We can look at that after we've figured out what to do with the "removed text.") Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 19:24, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Sounds good to me. I have no strong objection to the current text, after all something that says nothing does no harm  :-) Your idea is really about / has good content in in the link. <b style="color: #0000cc;">North8000</b> (talk) 19:34, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Edit summaries for reverts
Although we strongly encourage but do not require edit summaries, I think we should require, as a matter of editing policy, edit summaries for all reverts, explaining the reason for the revert. Anyone else agree? Levivich 13:41, 17 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Support.. Not leaving an edit summary (1) is an invitation to an edit war, (2) impedes consensus-building, (3) is discourteous to good faith editors, and (4) violates the spirit of this editing policy. Compare The problem with a "no_consensus" edit summary. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 15:44, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Agree. Rogerdpack (talk) 18:55, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Opposed - While leaving an edit summary is nice (and leaving a detailed edit summary is nicer), we should not reject any BOLD edit (be it to add or remove material) simply because someone neglected to leave an edit summary. The same goes for short edit summaries that you find confusing. If you do not understand why an edit was made (including a revert)… just ASK. Blueboar (talk) 16:18, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Just to emphasize: for reverts only. I think if an editor reverts another editor's edit, an edit summary explaining the reason is like the minimum required for basic courtesy and productivity. It takes two seconds to write "rv vand" or "undue" or whatever. Putting the burden on the reverted editor (or any other editor) to ask the reverting editor "why?", instead of putting the burden on the reverting editor to explain it in the first place, is incredibly unproductive: literally that's requiring extra work from other editors just to save the reverting editor like two seconds of time. It takes longer to start a talk page thread than to write an edit summary, so that's just wasted editor time. Also, "rv unexplained revert" is so common that I think requiring edit summaries for reverts is already de facto consensus, just not (yet) codified. Levivich 16:56, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Blueboar, you say "we should not" reject unexplained reverts, which is a conclusion. What is your reasoning for this conclusion? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 18:27, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
 * If we require edit summaries for some edits (reverts) and not for other types of edits, we simply add to the wikilawyering that plagues our articles. Let’s say someone objects to an edit and reverts, but they hit “publish” a bit too soon (neglecting to type in a summary)… the original editor can then argue that they can ignore the revert simply because there was no edit summary (instead of finding out WHY the first editor objected and reverted).  I am not saying that edit summaries are bad, I am saying that they should not be required. Blueboar (talk) 14:24, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
 * This seems like an argument for having no policies whatsoever because sometimes good faith editors will accidentally violate them. Turning to your example, the burden should be on the editor who made the mistake to fix it. Thus, in your example, step three would be "first editor reverts again with an edit summary saying 'Oops. The reason for the revert is ...'" Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 15:31, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Wouldn't have the desired effect. The editors at whom this is aimed would give you an edit summary that says "rv".—<b style="font-family: Verdana; color: Maroon;">S Marshall</b> T/C 14:58, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
 * :-) "rv" wouldn't cut it. Levivich 15:06, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Two more points. First, not having a policy because some people will comply in bad faith seems like an argument for no policies whatsoever. Second, while "rv" would not help the reverted editor, it would help editors reviewing an edit history know what happened in the edit. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 15:35, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not saying that people will "comply in bad faith", I'm saying that a lot of reverts are at the Cluebot or near-Cluebot level where it's appropriate to make a minimum effort-revert. And once people have learned to make minimum-effort reverts, by doing NPP or whatever, then that's what they'll default to.I know what Levivich is getting at: ideally any revert of a good-faith edit would be the start of a conversation, but we have editors who use reverts to shut down dissent.  It's an annoying behaviour.  I get that.  But let's imagine that policy says I have to give a full explanation of all my reverts, and explore how it could work.Case 1:  Someone replaces the content of an article on my watchlist with "Suck it wikipedophiles!!1!"  I revert with the edit summary "rvv".  Is my edit summary sufficient?  Case 2:  An IP makes a blatantly promotional edit that includes a link to somewhere I can make a purchase.  I revert with the edit summary "rv upe".  Is my edit summary sufficient?  Case 3: An editor makes an edit based on an unreliable source.  I revert with the edit summary "rv urs".  Is my edit summary sufficient?  Case 4:  An editor makes an edit that is sourced, but (according to longstanding talk page consensus after many discussions) should not be made because it's WP:UNDUE.  I revert with the edit summary "see tp archives".  Is my edit summary sufficient?  Because if it is, then we're deciding that I can use reverts to terminate discussions instead of starting them, so the rule is not going to achieve its aim.—<b style="font-family: Verdana; color: Maroon;">S Marshall</b> T/C 16:18, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
 * The first three cases provide substantive explanations for the reverts. The reverted editor can either accept the explanation or open a talk page discussion. The fourth case is no better than "go fish" and would violate the spirit of the proposed rule. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 16:37, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Why? If there have been many discussions and a consensus reached on talk, then at least one but likely multiple well-reasoned arguments have previously been put forward. Rather than trying to summarize all that in an edit summary, pointing to talk archives - which in the case described include multiple previous discussions - seems perfectly reasonable. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:11, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
 * The problem with "see tp archives" is that it doesn't tell the reverted editor the reason for the revert or what to look for in the archives. Compare "WP:UNDUE, see tp archives." Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 00:58, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
 * You can look for a discussion about the thing you were trying to add which was reverted, surely? Depending on the rationale(s), it's not always easy to summarize the reasoning in the space of an edit-sum. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:12, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
 * As preliminary matter I'll comment that this proposal allows for a "see talk" edit summary accompanied by a talk page discussion containing the reasoning for the revert. Editors would not be required to stuff their revert rationales into edit summaries.
 * Turning to your post, "the thing I was trying to add" doesn't give me much guidance - is the problem the substa:nce of my addition, the source of my citation (or, if I don't have one, the lack of a citation), was my phrasing unclear, did I put it in the wrong place, ... the list goes on. Which "thing" should I search for in the archives? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 01:41, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
 * The answer to all four case studies IMO is "yes," they'd satisfy the requirement. In each of those cases, the edit summary is better than no edit summary because it tells all editors (now and forever) the reason for the revert. (Granted the fourth one could benefit from more specificity.) The point of requiring edit summaries for reverts isn't to start discussions or stop them, it's so everyone knows the reason for the revert (without having to ask). This is useful for (1) avoiding unnecessary discussions, (2) focusing any resulting discussions that may be started, and (3) provide a record of the reason even if the reverting editor is not available to answer questions, among other benefits. Levivich 23:14, 18 June 2021 (UTC)


 * User:Levivich, what do you think about the advice in WP:RVAN, which encourages the use of the automatic edit summary ("Undid revision nnnnnnn by User:Example") for vandalism? I understand that this recommendation is inspired by Revert, block, ignore principles, and it is IMO much better than editors expressing frustration, explaining that 'the word poop doesn't belong in this article', etc.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:10, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree with the part of WP:RVAN that says . "rvv" is enough to explain the reason for the revert (and is a convenient three keystrokes). Tools like rollback, huggle, and redwarn, might not include the "v" in "rvv" but the fact that they're tagged as reverts made with those tools communicates the "v" part just as well. So I don't think if we required an edit summary for reverts, we would need to change RVAN, or any of the patrolling tools, and an edit summary of "rvv" would be satisfactory (assuming the edit was in fact vandalism). "Rvv" is definitely better than expressing frustration, but the "v" ("vandalism") is the explanation. (As opposed to say, reverting because it's undue, or a BLP violation, or a copyvio, etc. etc.) Levivich 16:16, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
 * So you disagree with RVAN's suggestion to just use the automatic summary and to assume that the reason will be obvious to anyone else who looks at the diff? You think that vandals should get the recognition of someone declaring that they were vandals? WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:45, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I think that this would be a good step, but it's also important to understand what this would mean in a practical sense. I don't think anyone is suggesting that failing to provide an edit summary would be a red-line rule like the WP:3RR; the point would be to establish that it is a requirement in a general sense. Much like WP:CIVIL or WP:FORUM or WP:NPA or WP:AGF, only the most serious, persistent, and clear-cut violations would actually move past the stage of someone linking someone to the policy and saying "hey, you need to leave an explanation for your reverts." Situations like someone leaving "rvv" or the like are also covered by this in the sense that editors (and, if it somehow gets dragged to ANI or whatever, administrators) are capable of using common sense and figuring out if an edit summary is sufficient in context, just like they do when there are disagreements over the boundaries of other policies. In light of all this I would probably word it something like "you must make a good-faith attempt to explain your edits in your edit summary" - the point is not to make people argue over whether "rvv" is sufficient in each and every context, the point is to establish the general case that you need to be at least attempting to explain yourself. Broadly-speaking I think it is worth codifying that you should make at least some good-faith effort to explain your reverts, since failing to do so can be disruptive, makes it hard to engage and build consensus, is WP:BITEy towards new users (who are the least likely to understand why they are being reverted), and so on. I also feel that it is to a certain extent already tacitly accepted practice - few people would disagree that someone who consistently reverts with no attempt at an explanation has a serious conduct issue; we just lack a clear-cut, easy-to-reference policy to explain precisely what they're doing wrong. --Aquillion (talk) 18:04, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
 * What if you DO start a talk page discussion explaining your revert, but DON’T leave an edit summary? Is that still acceptable? Blueboar (talk) 00:41, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
 * If the page is not on the reverted editor's watchlist then how would the reverted editor know that you explained your revert on talk? What's so oppressive about taking a moment to type "see talk" in an edit summary box? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 15:54, 20 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose we should not have specify reasons for reverts for vandalism, non-contructive edits, and editors blantantly ignoring notes/comments in the article (See Rockstar North if you want find scores if not hundreds of edits by IPs changing British to Scottish with complete disregard to the note). Moreover, would just lead to generic, canned "reverted, gain consensus on talk" summaries. Regards  Spy-cicle💥   Talk? 13:09, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
 *  Spy-cicle💥  Edit summaries are not only for the reverted editor, they are also for the community. An empty edit summary means other editors have to open the revert edit to see what was reverted. Wouldn't it be better to save everyone the time by, for example, dropping "rvv" into an edit summary for a vandalism revert? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 15:42, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
 * But the standard undo button automatically generates text saying "Undid revision [revision no.] by [User]". A generic "rvv" would not add anything and more often than not these edits are automatically tagged as reverts. Regards  Spy-cicle💥   Talk? 17:25, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Note that I suggested "rvv," not "rv." (Perhaps I should have typed "rv/v.") Does that change your answer to my post? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 17:50, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Oh I actually did not realise that "Rvv" there was for revert vandalism there. I can see your point but I do not we should be strictly requiring reasons edit summaries for reverts, but should be recommended as good practice, etc (which I believe we already do). Regards  Spy-cicle💥   Talk? 23:18, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Your second concern is about boilerplate "reverted, gain consensus on talk" summaries. I wonder whether the part of Levivich's proposal requiring the edit summary explain "the reason" for the revert might resolve that issue inasmuch as "gain consensus on talk" is procedure, not a substantive reason. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 06:02, 21 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose for technical reasons: there are rapid revert tools that are very useful to counter vandalism. It is also expected per the spirit of WP:ONUS, WP:BLP, WP:CONSENSUS, etc., that the reverted editor should open a discussion to justify the changes when reverted, and per WP:PRESERVE that what is obviously encyclopedic and well sourced should normally not be reverted without compromise.  In practice I agree that it's a good idea to explain a revert, especially when it is not obvious vandalism.  There may be a less black and white way to suggest that they are helpful, without making them mandatory for all situations...  — Paleo  Neonate  – 20:24, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose. This kind of thing would encourage substantial discussion of disagreements via edit summaries, whereas such discussion should take place on the talk page. It is to be noted that as currently constituted neither Third Opinion nor Dispute Resolution Noticeboard will accept cases for dispute resolution unless substantial discussion has taken place on the talk page and will not consider things said in edit summaries in determining whether that discussion has occurred. Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 19:19, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
 * On the other hand, if the reverted editor knows the reason for the revert then that editor might see the problem and there would be no disagreement to encourage discussion. Or are you suggesting that we reqire all reverting editors to start talk page discussions? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 22:48, 8 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose because it can't be enforced relatively smoothly. Aiming Guides (talk) 23:31, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose The purpose of edit summaries is to summarise what is done in the edit. They are not there to provide extensive rationales and discussion.  WP:REVTALK puts it like this: "Edit summaries should accurately and succinctly summarize the nature of the edit, especially if it could be controversial. ... Avoid using edit summaries to carry on debates or negotiation over the content. This creates an atmosphere where the only way to carry on discussion is to revert other editors!"  Andrew🐉(talk) 09:11, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Why two aspects when we can dispense with the first one?
I think a lot of the disagreement here, which has been very collegial and civil discussion (thank you, WhatamIdoing, for that ), lies in the nexus of "motivation" for the bold edit versus the simple BRD "mechanics" (3 step flow chart) as steps in the content creation process, where someone objects to an edit. (Bold editors may or may not have special motives, but reverters ALWAYS have motives. More later.)

Can we separate those two aspects, "motive" vs "mechanics"? I believe the first is a distraction we should remove from BRD. There is no doubt about Kim's original thinking when he created this essay, and he placed a lot of weight on the bold editor's very special and confrontational "motive", but most reverting editors (maybe because of the title) skip right to using the BRD "mechanics" as a means (their motive) to resolve disputes and avoid edit wars. It is the reverter's motivations that are primary, not the motivations of the bold editor. I feel we can dispense entirely with the bold editor's "motive" aspect as it's irrelevant to the mechanics, which function quite well without it.

The essay's title focuses exclusively on the BRD "mechanics" and doesn't mention the "motive" aspect at all, and most editors have discovered that the BRD "mechanics" work quite well without any form of special "motive" for that first bold edit. Most bold editors just want to improve content, and most reverters just want to protect Wikipedia from bad content, so their revert is simply their easy way to say "Let's vet that content on the talk page before it gets to go into the article".

Mind you, such a downplaying of the supposed necessity of having a strong "motive" for that first edit does not prevent any editor, who knows about Kim's original thinking, from having such motives, as long as their motive is not to create disruption. -- Valjean (talk) 20:52, 24 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Or to put it more succinctly, motives don't matter ......under all of the scenarios described above, the first step is "Bold".<b style="color: #0000cc;">North8000</b> (talk) 21:57, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
 * No. I have explained in the previous thread how that confusion is caused by an ongoing disagreement. -- Valjean (talk) 03:31, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
 * What text change are you proposing? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 22:06, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Butwhatdoiknow, I think your proposal at 18:47 is an improvement, but I'd go further by adding "do not revert" to your suggestion:
 * Be bold in updating articles, especially for minor changes and fixing problems. Previous authors do not need to be consulted before making changes. Nobody owns articles. If you see a problem that you can fix, do so. However, discussion is called for if you think the edit might be controversial. If you don't know it might be controversial and another editor reverts your bold edit, do not repeat your initial bold edit, but consider your options and respond appropriately. Even better, if you know your bold edit might be controversial, skip the bold edit and go directly to discussion and collaboratively seek to improve that bold edit so it meets the approval of other editors.
 * I have added even more to it. How's that? -- Valjean (talk) 03:39, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I fear your text may have a wp:TLDR problem, which isn't to say that the content is objectionable. Since you find my text an improvement, what to you think about agreeing to support that change for now and then, if we can at least get that done, we can proceed to look at tweaking it and adding to it as part of the "constant improvement" process? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 03:55, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
 * That makes perfect sense. -- Valjean (talk) 04:17, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I would be happy to see the first sentence say "especially for minor changes, fixing problems, and changes that you believe are unlikely to be controversial". That might help emphasize bold editing as the normal way of editing, which was one of the points @S Marshall made above. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:02, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
 * WhatamIdoing, I have installed your suggestion. I also made a few other tweaks, so feel free to improve them. -- Valjean (talk) 17:42, 28 November 2021 (UTC) Pinging Butwhatdoiknow. -- Valjean (talk) 17:48, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Having been pinged, I have gone crazy. Still problematic? Please WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 22:58, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
 * LMAO! You do well. -- Valjean (talk) 20:07, 29 November 2021 (UTC)


 * I think the last thing that needs to be discussed is "The "BOLD, revert, discuss cycle" (BRD) is often used when a contentious edit has been reverted." I think this is better than what we had before, but I don't think it's completely right.
 * Starting at the beginning, if a (likely) contentious edit is reverted, there are two initial responses that fully comply with all policies:
 * find out why, or
 * walk away.
 * "Finding out why" could be accomplished in any of these means:
 * guessing ("Oh, hey, it looks like I accidentally blanked half the article" or "Yeah, if I'm going to write 'Eastasia has always been at war with Oceania', then I probably should have added a citation")
 * reading (e.g., the edit summary, prior discussions on the talk page, the reverter's block log...)
 * asking (e.g., on the reverter's talk page, on the article's talk page, at a WikiProject, at a noticeboard...)
 * Once you think you have an idea about why it was reverted, you can take any of these approaches:
 * revert the reversion (rare but real option)
 * make a modified edit
 * walk away
 * begin dispute resolution, which includes at least the following options:
 * discuss with the reverter
 * discuss with any/all editors at the talk page
 * request a third opinion
 * take the dispute to one of the many Noticeboards
 * ask for help from a WikiProject
 * use Requests for comment
 * propose Mediation
 * address behavioral problems (e.g., any individual admin, ANI, ArbCom)
 * That's a lot of options, and none of them are technically BRD.  Technically, BRD (as  written) begins with an edit that you expect to be reverted.  The point of BRD is to push someone to revert you, so that you can identify the "Very Important Person" to have your discussion with.  If you weren't deliberately trying to provoke a reversion, then you can't really be doing normal BRD.  If you make a significant edit without prior discussion, that may be "bold", but if you respond to a revert with a discussion, that's just plain old Consensus, not BRD.  Notice that that section provides a link to BRD, but it's merely "further information", and the text in the policy mentions only non-BRD forms of discussion.  (Maybe that link is part of the problem:  Maybe people thought "further information" is the same as "main", when only "see also" was intended.  Until a couple of years ago, BRD was linked at the top of Consensus along with several other pages.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:49, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
 * WhatamIdoing, there is no disagreement about all the advice that's found at BRD, hence your comment isn't at all necessary HERE. All that you have described is part of the current BRD essay, so the content under discussion HERE is perfectly fine. All those "lot of options" will be found by anyone who follows that advice by clicking the BRD link we provide HERE. We shouldn't import every available option to THIS page about "Editing policy." -- Valjean (talk) 20:37, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I think it would be better to point people to a page that lists a lot of options and not to a page that first advocates for an option that is inappropriate for newcomers and then only later gets around to pointing out that other options exist and may be preferable.
 * In fact, if we had a good list of all the other options, and if editors would send people to that list instead of to BRD-as-written, then maybe it wouldn't be necessary for WP:BRD to include that list. That would go some ways towards solving the rule-creep problem that you decry. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:30, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Isn't wp:BRB a good list of options? If it is, should we perhaps make it a stand-alone page? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 00:43, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Since I wrote BRB, then perhaps it would seem immodest of me to say that I believe it's good. I wonder whether it should be a stand-alone page or a part of Dispute resolution.  Creating new pages usually means creating pages that nobody reads.
 * However, since so many editors are citing BRD without actually reading BRD, or understanding how it is different from the general and almost universally applicable advice that is (and should be) in the actual policies, BRD probably needs to retain a copy of BRB for the next few years. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:58, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Again with this slippery concept of an edit you "expect" to be reverted. When I make an edit, it's because I think it would be an improvement.  I do not usually "expect" to be reverted, and when I am, it's almost always a surprise to me.  I don't know when it's going to happen because I am not a mind-reader.There have been occasions when I did expect to be reverted, and it was when I was dealing with QuackGuru and others on an article they considered to be a medical topic.  Even then I did not know what reason they would give for their reverts (or rather, what excuse; the actual reason was that they were reverting because it was me making the edits.  They viewed me as a shill or advocate, and in the end only Arbcom could help me.)  This is not the kind of case that we should examine in detail in the editing policy.  I think we should simply advise editors to boldly make improvements to articles, and to treat any revert as the opportunity to start a conversation with the reverter.  We don't need to get into the weeds about how they start that conversation.  User talk pages, article talk pages, edit summaries, skywriting, ok maybe not that last one, but it really doesn't matter.—<b style="font-family: Verdana; color: Maroon;">S Marshall</b> T/C 22:55, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Amen! S Marshall, all the talk about "motives" rather than the bare "mechanics" just confuses the issue. People who find themselves in odd situations, and feel they need advice, can find it at the BRD essay. No one is denying that. -- Valjean (talk) 20:37, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
 * The core story behind BRD is that people are already fighting, but they're getting nowhere, and you address the apparently insoluble dispute by making an undiscussed (and hopefully brilliant) edit, rather than talking about possible solutions first. Then you wait patiently for someone to revert you, in the hope that the reverter will say something interesting and useful, like "You've overlooked what Alice Expert says about that source" instead of saying something like "How dare you even touch the article while we're already having a fight on the talk page about this subject".
 * In other words, BRD isn't about the everyday, garden-variety bold edits that make Wikipedia work. I don't think any of my edits to the mainspace this month had any BRD potential (although this one was reverted and duly [and dully] discussed, with no resolution in sight).  This one to MEDMOS, on the other hand, has tons of BRD potential.  I am still waiting to see whether there is any Very Interested Person who is willing to revert me.  So far, all I've managed to find is other editors agreeing with it on the talk page. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:46, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
 * The way I've always understood BRD is, it normalizes the use of the revert tool when I see an edit I'm not sure about. It gives permission to revert without giving offence.—<b style="font-family: Verdana; color: Maroon;">S Marshall</b> T/C 00:19, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, S Marshall, everyone has a right to revert an edit they question, as long as they have PAG-based reasons for concern. No one OWNS their edit, and other editors have a right to vet those edits, and that is done by reverting and then discussing. That's the bare bones basic method used most of the time. (IOW, don't clutter this up with all the other options for odd situations.) -- Valjean (talk) 20:37, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I believe that Consensus suggests that the normal and most common method of improving an article is "bold–revert–keep editing", not "bold–revert–stop editing until the discussion is over". WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:01, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I think S. Marshall is using BRD to mean one thing (see the first paragraph of wp:FOLLOWBRD) while WhatamIdoing is using it to mean another (see the second paragraph of wp:FOLLOWBRD). I suggest you two confer and agree on which meaning to use when discussing this issue. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 01:37, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Butwhatdoiknow, you're right. We need a very short mention here, not all of the "motives" that are found at the BRD essay. Here the "mechanics" is all that's needed, and the link to BRD gives people the option to find more advice elsewhere. -- Valjean (talk) 20:37, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
 * @S Marshall, have you ever read sat down and BRD completely, from start to finish? Most editors are really surprised at the advice it contains.  It isn't meant to normalize reverting, and it tells bold editors to expect hostility, which I don't think aligns with your hope that reverting won't give offense.  BRD was originally advice only to the bold editor, and it said things like "The basic concept is to find the people who actually disagree with you by causing them to revert."  If you have time, I'd suggest reading one of the oldest versions (maybe this one) and then the current one.  The older, shorter, less polished versions might give you a clearer feeling for BRD than the wordy version we have now (noting that I'm personally responsible for a good deal of the current verbosity (e.g., this 10% of the page)). WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:31, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, I certainly hadn't read those old revisions of it. Thank you: you've now got me thinking about the reasons for rules (as well as whether linguistics is a science and how to talk about suicide on Wikipedia).I've cited BRD at the kind of person who wants to see talk page consensus before any edits at all are made.I think linguistics is best done scientifically: hypothesis, observation, analysis, proof/disproof. I think that post-Chomsky linguistics probably does fit a looser definition of a science but there are certainly those who treat it as a humanity instead. I don't think it greatly matters where linguistics fits into university administrative structures, the question should be how it's done.I agree with you that Wikipedia should not advocate suicide or explain methods of suicide. I think your proposals for language about suicide are very restrictive, though; "committed suicide" seems appropriate phasing to me because it takes a disapproving tone. I don't think NPOV should apply to suicide advice. For me, the ethics of this outweigh NPOV.—<b style="font-family: Verdana; color: Maroon;">S Marshall</b> T/C 10:18, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
 * S Marshall, the BRD essay suffers massively from rule creep. I have tried to provide an abbreviated version that focuses solely on the mechanics and leaves out the "motives" as they are usually irrelevant. (See Short BRD.) We AGF by expecting that most editors make a bold edit (meaning don't be shy) because they want to improve the article. It's that simple. If someone's motives are to poke the bear and cause controversy, that's their problem. -- Valjean (talk) 20:37, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, no, people whose motives are to poke the bear and cause controversy are everyone else's problem. They themselves are usually having fun.  Ideally we'd find a phrasing for BRD that doesn't enable them.—<b style="font-family: Verdana; color: Maroon;">S Marshall</b> T/C 21:07, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't think we want to find a phrasing for BRD that discourages bear-pokers. I think we need to find a phrasing for this policy that encourages garden-variety bold editors.  Traditionally, in this metaphor, the one who discourages future bear-poking efforts is the poked bear. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:27, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, I certainly hadn't read those old revisions of it. Thank you: you've now got me thinking about the reasons for rules (as well as whether linguistics is a science and how to talk about suicide on Wikipedia).I've cited BRD at the kind of person who wants to see talk page consensus before any edits at all are made.I think linguistics is best done scientifically: hypothesis, observation, analysis, proof/disproof. I think that post-Chomsky linguistics probably does fit a looser definition of a science but there are certainly those who treat it as a humanity instead. I don't think it greatly matters where linguistics fits into university administrative structures, the question should be how it's done.I agree with you that Wikipedia should not advocate suicide or explain methods of suicide. I think your proposals for language about suicide are very restrictive, though; "committed suicide" seems appropriate phasing to me because it takes a disapproving tone. I don't think NPOV should apply to suicide advice. For me, the ethics of this outweigh NPOV.—<b style="font-family: Verdana; color: Maroon;">S Marshall</b> T/C 10:18, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
 * S Marshall, the BRD essay suffers massively from rule creep. I have tried to provide an abbreviated version that focuses solely on the mechanics and leaves out the "motives" as they are usually irrelevant. (See Short BRD.) We AGF by expecting that most editors make a bold edit (meaning don't be shy) because they want to improve the article. It's that simple. If someone's motives are to poke the bear and cause controversy, that's their problem. -- Valjean (talk) 20:37, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, no, people whose motives are to poke the bear and cause controversy are everyone else's problem. They themselves are usually having fun.  Ideally we'd find a phrasing for BRD that doesn't enable them.—<b style="font-family: Verdana; color: Maroon;">S Marshall</b> T/C 21:07, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't think we want to find a phrasing for BRD that discourages bear-pokers. I think we need to find a phrasing for this policy that encourages garden-variety bold editors.  Traditionally, in this metaphor, the one who discourages future bear-poking efforts is the poked bear. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:27, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Changes to BLP 3RR exemption
FYI: Wikipedia talk:Edit warring. Levivich (talk) 15:06, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

Content removal versus page deletion
I think that the distinction between content removal and page deletion (WP:Deletion policy) should be emphasized on this page. One way is to select "remove" or "delete" precisely. I have made similar, small changes to a few other pages: WT:Page blanking (guideline), WT:Content removal (essay), and User talk:Samuel Blanning/Blanking (user essay). Replacements of "deleting" to "removing" have been made here in the past, for example, Special:Diff/604170088 and Special:Diff/193664667.

There are twelve instances of "remov" that all look correct to me. There are two "delete"s:
 * 1) In policy in a nutshell, linked to WP:Deletion policy
 * 2) Near the top of WP:Editing policy – there is an existing "remove" in the same sentence, so swapping it will increase repetition

I believe that the nutshell instance actually means "remove", consistent with the rest of the page. My assumption is that its original wording was imprecise and it was linked and updated without attention to the difference. Somewhat similarly, WP:Proposed deletion was linked inappropriately and reverted.

I propose replacing the two "delete" instances with "remove" and removing the WP:Deletion policy link. Flatscan (talk) 04:24, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I found an appropriate synonym: excise (excise, excision). It evokes surgery, such as carefully separating a tumor from healthy tissue. (I am not comparing any editor's contributions to a tumor.) Flatscan (talk) 04:26, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Seeing no objections in over a week, I revised the Try to fix problems sentence. Flatscan (talk) 04:46, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
 * While I was editing the section, I noticed a link to WP:Overzealous deletion that had been added in May 2021. Since that essay is focused on deletion, I plan to revert the link to its previous target of WP:Five pillars. Flatscan (talk) 04:22, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Since Visviva's objection was rebutted a few weeks ago, I reverted the link. Flatscan (talk) 04:29, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I realized that this #2 "delete" had been added in February 2022. Flatscan (talk) 04:40, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Seeing no new objections in over a month, I edited the . Flatscan (talk) 04:29, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

While I can understand the thinking here, I don't believe such a drastic change to the long-standing meaning of WP:PRESERVE is appropriate. "Removing content from the project entirely" makes sense only as a reference to deletion, which uniquely and irreversibly removes content from the wiki process. Visviva (talk) 04:48, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I see why you infer deletion from "removing ... entirely", but the wider context has minimal emphasis on deletion.
 * The phrase was added in January 2015. That revision has only one "delet", in the . There were a few small edits within the next month, but nothing material.
 * There are several occurrences of "delet" in the discussions preceding the edit, specifically WT:Editing policy/Archive 3 and WT:Editing policy/Archive 3, but I don't see any that mean page deletion.
 * WT:Editing policy/Archive 3, which discusses the change directly, doesn't mention "delet" at all.
 * Flatscan (talk) 04:30, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I disagree that my proposals are "a drastic change to the long-standing meaning". I sampled the revisions as of the first edit of each year for the last 10–11 years: 2022, 2021, 2020, 2019, 2018, 2017, 2016, 2015, 2014, 2013, and 2012. I skimmed them and saw no overt references to page deletion besides those already being discussed.
 * A piped link to WP:Overzealous deletion was added in May 2021 as I mentioned above.
 * From 2015 to 2021, the sole "delet" has been in the nutshell.
 * 2012 to 2014 had two other "delet"s, but they were both replaced or removed in 2014: Special:Diff/604170088 and Special:Diff/623523275.
 * The nutshell sentence was added in December 2013. I explained why I interpret it as "remove" above in my opening comment.
 * Flatscan (talk) 04:40, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
 * In context (specifically, in the context of suggesting that the removed information be copied to the talk page), I think this sentence is about blanking content. If it were about deleting the page, the talk page would usually get deleted, too, which means there would be no point in copying the soon-to-be-deleted article to the talk page. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:59, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Is there a distinction between articles and talk? There have been deletions that make no sense on a talk page; in one case, deleting the text, but not the supporting links, so it now makes no sense why the links are there, again just on a talk page, and there’s no “talk” for a a talk page, so it is not explained. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.181.192.29 (talk • contribs)

ChatGPT to help create articles
Today I was seeing a test command prompt on creating articles using the Open AI program and was able to cultivate text and sources for creating a potential article, and the fact there are only two articles as of this moment, Artwork title and Leniolisib, that were created using ChatGPT that use the template, Template:OpenAI, for full disclosure that came of this discussion at Afc ChatGPT and other AI generated drafts. Aside from dealing with copyright violations that could occur using the software, but what editing policies do we have to bear in mind if any user creates an article using GPT? And how could one tell if say there was no disclosure as it was in the creation edit by the two users who created those two articles?

Among several issues I see occurring would be original research although GPT states on a subject I was researching, "Since I don't have enough knowledge about [name of subject], I can't write a Wikipedia article about him without proper research. Additionally, creating a Wikipedia article requires strict adherence to their guidelines and policies. It would be best to leave such tasks to qualified Wikipedia editors who have the necessary expertise and experience to ensure the accuracy and neutrality of the content." But loopholes are easy to access. If you use GPT to create an article but change the wording a bit or a lot, does the disclosure tag in the references section from the OpenAI template be necessary regardless or depending on the circumstances?

If any user is the first user to create an article using the AI software, then can it be claimed that they still wrote the article? It could if they're the first to hit publish changes when creating said article. In this case whoever creates it first may claim they "actually wrote it" since they were the ones who entered the prompt. It may be that "didn't create it" but instead the software did. Pinging users who created articles using GPT and from the Afc discussion. Add any other issues that can arise if I missed any which I'm sure I have. Pharos, KBi, robertsky, asilvering, S0091, Rsjaffe, Novem Linguae, HaeB, Johannes Maximilian. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 22:14, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

Forgot to add this, but I have read Large language models and the other relevant discussions and pages linked through the talk page or the home page, but it doesn't seem to really address some of the questions I have laid out here. Although it is a great start to go over the risks and benefits. But nothing concrete has been enacted or agreed upon through consensus-based voting. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 22:22, 30 April 2023 (UTC)


 * re: is the disclosure necessary, OpenAI's terms are clear: The role of AI in formulating the content is clearly disclosed in a way that no reader could possibly miss, and that a typical reader would find sufficiently easy to understand.
 * re: did they write the article, again, OpenAI's terms are pretty clear: they use the word "co-authored" (so, the human editor is not the sole writer), and they want the human co-author to clearly attribute the text to the human co-author('s organization). So they don't get sued when someone uses it to say something horrific, I assume.
 * re: how can you tell if there is no disclosure, you can't - you can only guess. There are programs floating around for this, but they give false positives to an alarming degree. There are other tells, but an alert human co-author will notice many of them and might scrub them. -- asilvering (talk) 09:14, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
 * asilvering, I forgot to add one more thing and that is ChatGPT gives you the basic Wikipedia style writing, and let's say you add that, either manually writing it out or copy-paste it, do we have a violation of policy? Because this could veer into copyright violation or perhaps it doesn't. Because I see for some articles I'm working on it can be useful since it can provide sources. And yet it can give you dead links at times, but it does give a small number of links and sources that are non-links. If we are using GPT to find sources, then is this also a violation of any policy? --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 15:06, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I do not recommend using GPT or any LLM to find sources. They don't actually "know" whether the sources they name are real - they're just created based on the statistical likelihood of certain words appearing in a certain order. Even Bing's AI search, which has access to the internet, invents facts and sources. For example, asked about me, it accurately describes my general research topics (pulling them from the department's website) and links to an article I've written, but also invents another article that does not exist, and says that I am co-editing a book (I am not) that is related to my general research topics but is a specific subject I have no intention of ever editing a book on. It also gave me a promotion. I'd love to have one but I don't think HR would accept "but Bing said!" as reasonable grounds for one. If you were to use this information or the invented sources, that would be a failure of WP:V.
 * re: copyright violation, that hasn't been tested in a court of law. Personally, I think Wikipedia ought to be very conservative on this and assume that using LLM-generated content is a copyright violation until proven otherwise, since it will be a lot of work to clean up in the future if it is found to be copyright-violating. -- asilvering (talk) 14:28, 3 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Seems like a really, really bad idea. Legal issues and AI coding issues have been pointed out already. 3vvww661 (talk) 19:02, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

Creation of new section: "Do not use sources or commentary that undermines Wikipedia"
The idea explains itself, as Wikipedia maintains an active community and standards unlike pre-2006. Thoughts? 3vvww661 (talk) 19:03, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't understand the intent. Could you expand on your thinking? Schazjmd   (talk)  19:04, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Sure! |Source example sometimes news articles and other external sites and parties make commentary about Wikipedia that isn't fundamentally a criticism, and doesn't contribute a lot and might undermine Wikipedia. Take for example the quote "tells the legendary monarch's tale with all the dramatic heft of a Wikipedia article." from this revision of the article African Queens; because it's not in article Criticism of Wikipedia, there isn't much gained by the article or community.
 * Therefore, it'd be best to make it a policy to avoid using quotes, sources and commentaries like these, is the intent. 3vvww661 (talk) 19:20, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I see your rewrite. I would have used an edit summary like "Provided a more descriptive quote from source". I don't think the problem with the previous quote in that article was that it "undermined" Wikipedia, just that it wasn't very informative. Schazjmd   (talk)  19:26, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
 * That makes sense, that's something that's already accounted for, makes sense to me. Thank you Schazjmd! 3vvww661 (talk) 19:27, 27 May 2023 (UTC)