Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Consensus/Archive 22

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 15←Archive 20Archive 21Archive 22Archive 23Archive 24

Not so obvious

The second paragraph of wp:EDITCONSENSUS begins:

All edits should be explained (unless the reason for them is obvious) ...

I suggest that the reason for an unexplained edit is never obvious to an editor scanning a Watchlist or a Revision history. Accordingly, I propose removing "(unless the reason for them is obvious)" from this text. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 01:45, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Disagree. For example, I am replying to this edit with the edit summary of "re"; someone scanning a watchlist or revision history will understand that I'm replying to something without me needing to explain why. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:31, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
I would say that your "re" is an explanation. As you say, it gives someone scanning the history a clue regarding what the edit is about. My concern is the blank edit summary, which contains no information whatsoever. (That said, I can see having a special rule for talk pages, where almost all of the edits are replies.) Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 05:45, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
It's an explanation of what the edit is, but not the reason (why the edit was made). Similarly in mainspace "create", "ce", and many more potential summaries say what but not why, but the proposed change would disallow them. If your intention is rather to disallow blank summaries, whether entirely or by namespace, this isn't the optimal approach to achieve that (plus that needs a sitewide RfC). Nikkimaria (talk) 12:12, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
What if we change the first sentence:
All edits should be explained (unless the reason for them is obvious)—either by clear edit summaries indicating the reason why the change was made, or by discussion on the associated talk page.
to
All edits should be described and, unless implicit in the description, explained—either by an edit summary indicating the reason for the change, or by discussion on the associated talk page.
That makes it clear that, for example, "ce" is okay because it implies a reason: to improve the text. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 16:00, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
I don't think there is a significant different in how people will be interpreting "obvious" vs "implicit" - and as I said, if your intention is to mandate edit summaries (and actually this new proposal goes beyond that), this isn't the way to go about it. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:37, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
This edit now makes it clear that edit summaries are not mandated, Incorporating that change into the proposed text, using "obvious" instead of "implicit," and doing a bit of copy editing, we have:
The Wikipedia community strongly encourages editors to describe and (unless obvious from the description) explain all edits—either in the edit summary or in a post on the associated talk page.
Do you have any objection to that text? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 04:58, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
What benefit do you see in that change? Nikkimaria (talk) 12:17, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
I'll be happy to answer your question after you have answered mine: Do you see any harm in the proposed change? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 15:48, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
It makes the wording more complex - I think this is generally the wrong way to go for policy pages unless necessary, and I'm not seeing a "necessary" here. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:00, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
Thank you. Yes, instructions should be worded as simply as possible. On the other hand, important points should not be sacrificed at the alter of simplicity. I suggest a two step analysis: (1) Is the point important enough to make? (2) If it is, what wording that will make the point as simply as possible?
Step (1) brings us to the answer your question: the benefit would be the elimination of the "unless the reason ... is obvious" exception from the current text (The Wikipedia community strongly encourages meaningful explanations for all edits (unless the reason for them is obvious) ...). This exception is problematic because (a) noting is obvious from blank edit summary, (b) all edits are obvious to the editor making them, and (c) lazy editors use the exception as an excuse to not leave an edit summary. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 05:49, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
So, putting aside the precise wording for now (that's step (2)), do you agree that we should eliminate the "unless the reason ... is obvious" exception? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 05:49, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
This brings us back to what I said above: if you're trying to mandate edit summaries, this isn't the way to do that. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:54, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
As I said above, and as Blueboar notes below, this edit now makes it clear that edit summaries are not mandatory, What I am trying to do is eliminate the "unless the reason ... is obvious" exception because it is problematic (as I explain above) and confusing (as Blueboar says below).
Again I ask: putting aside the precise wording for now, do you agree that we should eliminate the "unless the reason ... is obvious" exception? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 16:05, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
No. I can easily think of edits that are genuinely obvious without any explanation - for example, a page creation - and if we're not intending to require edit summaries then the concern of "excuses" doesn't apply. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:28, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
Before I respond I want to make sure I understand your first point. Would you please give me a couple more examples of edits that are obvious? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 01:37, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
Most things in your own userspace would also fall into that category, whether that's drafting (apart from some thing that do require summaries, like copying from another page), editing your userpage, etc. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:35, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
I can see an argument that explanations for such edits are less useful because third parties are unlikely to search those pages' Revision histories. But I'm having trouble seeing how the substance of such edits would be "obvious." What am I missing? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 15:37, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
I think by your reference to the "substance" of the edit, I've spotted a difference of interpretation. In context I read the current phrasing as not requiring providing a "why" for particular edits; am I correct in understanding that you're using it as not requiring a "what does this edit do?" summary? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:59, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
Let me try answering your question with this categorization: (1) Blank edit summaries have no substance. An editor would have to check the diff to know what the original editor did. In short, the substance of the edit is not obvious. (2) Edit summaries such as "revert," "reply," and "added content" have some substance. An editor looking at a Revision history would know the general "what" of the original edit but the specifics or the "why." (3) Edit summaries with what and why information such as "rvv" or "added content re Cicero didn't say it" have more substance and, in my opinion, are the gold standard. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 16:18, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
I would disagree on all points. (1) is not universally true - if I create a page it is clear even with no edit summary what I am doing for someone glancing at the edit history. (2) is not universally true - even leaving aside the case of an inaccurate summary, sometimes it is sufficient to say only what and not why. Giving this edit a summary of "re" is not any less useful than "re because I have something to say", and arguably copying my entire comment into the summary (which is a more comprehensive "what" but not a "why") would be more useful than the "why" summary for someone glancing through the edit history. And so (3) is not universally true - explaining why can be helpful where there is likely to be good-faith disagreement about a particular edit and where that explanation can reasonably be included in an edit summary... but that is not every case. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:00, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
Yes, I see why a page creation "edit" needs no explanation. But is that the only exception? I'm looking for a couple more examples of edits that are obvious. (And by "obvious" I mean someone looking at a blank edit summary in a Revision history would have any information regarding what the original editor did. Please let me know if you are using a different definition.) Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 05:22, 20 August 2021 (UTC) @Nikkimaria: please reply. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 05:30, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
Another example would be a page move - eg. moving a draft to mainspace. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:18, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
I've never moved a page but, looking at the graphic shown at Help:How_to_move_a_page, it appears the process involves a pre-written edit summary that the moving editor can modify. Since a move preserves the edit history, it is not clear to me how the move would be "obvious" if the edit summary were blank. Please elaborate. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 16:34, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
A user can optionally add an edit summary for a move, but whether they do or do not, there is a system message that makes clear what the move was. This, for example, is a page move made without an edit summary: you can clearly understand that the user moved that page from draft to mainspace, without them having to use an edit summary to explain. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:36, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
The diff you link to has an edit summary ("EnPassant moved page Draft:Lions Lighthouse to Lions Lighthouse"). I'm still looking for a second example of a blank edit summary that conveys any information at all other than an edit took place. Or are you suggesting we change "(unless the reason for them is obvious)" to "(unless the system automatically generates an edit summary or the reason for them is obvious)"? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 00:55, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
That's not an edit summary, it's a separate system message. There is, as I noted, a separate edit summary field, which in this case the editor did not fill in. And I'm not suggesting we change anything; I don't feel the present wording needs changing. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:43, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
According to Help:Edit summary, "An edit summary is a brief explanation of an edit to a Wikipedia page." It does not add "generated by a human editor." Does it say somewhere else that an explanatory message generated by the system and appearing in the Revision history edit summary parentheses is not an edit summary? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 03:28, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
This page details what are considered automatic edit summaries; that is not among them. That being said, I think continuing to argue about this is not productive and not really the point of this discussion. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:50, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Whether this discussion is "productive"

We are discussing whether to retain the "(unless the reason for them is obvious)" exception to the "explain edits" text. I have posited that no edits are obvious. You have responded: "I can easily think of edits that are genuinely obvious without any explanation" (00:28, 18 August 2021 (emphasis added)). So, yes, let's step away from "edit summary" and focus on "edit explanation." - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 17:33, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
I have asked for examples of obvious edits and, with the exception of page creation, your proposed examples have not involved edits without explanations. Instead, they have involved edits with system generated explanations. Would you please provide another example of an edit that is obvious, i.e., self-explained when it appears in a Revision history with no explanatory text between the parentheses? - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 17:33, 26 August 2021 (UTC) @Nikkimaria: please reply.- Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 15:35, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

@Nikkimaria: Unless you advise otherwise, I will read your silence as agreement that (a) edits are rarely self-explained ("obvious") to editors scanning page revision histories and (b) "(unless the reason for them is obvious)" is wp:CREEP we can safely remove from wp:EDITCONSENSUS. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 15:12, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
Not agreeing - as I said, I don't think continuing this line of discussion is productive. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:14, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
@Nikkimaria: What you said (12:50, 26 August 2021 (UTC)) was "continuing to argue about [what constitutes an "edit summary"] is not productive and not really the point of this discussion." I agreed (17:33, 26 August 2021, first post) and returned to the point of the discussion (17:33, 26 August 2021, second post): your assertion that the text should remain because there are many "edits that are genuinely obvious without any explanation" (00:28, 18 August 2021 (emphasis added)).
Resolving that assertion is productive because it helps you and me reach a consensus regarding whether the disputed text is CREEP. Accordingly, I renew my request that you "provide another example of an edit that is obvious, i.e., self-explained when it appears in a Revision history with no explanatory text between the parentheses." Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 06:38, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
At this point I don't think we've even reached a consensus on what we're discussing. See the exchange of 19-20 August. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:15, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
In the August 19-20 period I offered (16:18, 19 August) three statements. The first one was "Blank edit summaries have no substance. An editor would have to check the diff to know what the original editor did. In short, the substance of the edit is not obvious." You replied (03:00, 20 August) to this point by saying "not universally true - if I create a page it is clear even with no edit summary what I am doing for someone glancing at the edit history." I, in turn, replied (05:22, 20 August) "Yes, I see why a page creation 'edit' needs no explanation. But is that the only exception? I'm looking for a couple more examples of edits that are obvious."
I think we are discussing whether there are any other examples of edits with no explanation that convey meaningful information to an editor reviewing a revision history. What do you think we are discussing? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 07:34, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
At the moment we're down a rabbit hole about what "explanation" means, and I'm not sure why we're focusing on that; the text that you propose removing regards "reason", not "substance". Nikkimaria (talk) 02:49, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
Note: The words I propose to remove appear in context as follows (emphasis added): "All edits should be explained (unless the reason for them is obvious)." Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 05:38, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
What do you propose we focus on to help us decide whether to keep or remove the parenthetical? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 05:38, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
See Jc37's post below. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:11, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Other discussion

  • With the change to “encourages”, I think it clear that we are NOT mandating edit summaries. And since we are not mandating them, I think stating an “exception” might be confusing. After all, it’s not like we discourage summaries when the reason for the edit is obvious. Blueboar (talk) 13:41, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Huh?

Ok, I just read through all of the discussion above, but it seems to me - and maybe I missed it in someone's comments - but it seems to me that the parenthetical is being taken out of context of the whole sentence and section.

The meaning (to me at least) is clear: If you are being WP:BOLD, then the explanation should appear in the edit summary, if as a result of a discussion, then explain there. Remember, we're talking about how this refers to wp:con here, not just any old edit summary.

And with that in mind, the text is saying that if the average editor looks at an edit and the reason is obvious, then explanation isn't required, but if it isn't obvious then an explanation (either through edit summary of discussion) is then required.

I don't understand why the parenthetical should need to be removed, since it merely documents current practice, as far as I know.

So what am I missing here? - jc37 11:59, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

What you are missing is the question: What happens when there is disagreement as to whether the reason is “obvious”?
After all, what is obvious to one editor may not be obvious to another.
My answer to that question is to “Assume Good Faith”. If someone makes an edit without leaving a summary, we have to assume that this editor was acting in good faith, and thought that the edit was “obvious” enough to not need a summary (even if the reason wasn’t obvious to YOU). If we start with an assumption of good faith, it then becomes the responsibility of those who don’t find the reason obvious to ask for clarification. Blueboar (talk) 13:14, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
Oh ok, ty. And sounds like what we do here. (or in other words, would seem to be the current process.) - jc37 13:54, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
Well, we are talking about writing, so I think another underlying assumption is that for the vast (super)majority of edits the "why" is obvious (that seems to be the actuality for, 'it stays, until someone reverts or challenges'), or the why can readily be intuited by anyone with a modicum of intelligence, even when one disagrees. Wikipedia does not suspend the role of written communication: 'make sense'. In the minority edits, if others can't tell why, then the edit will likely be discarded, which means the proponent of the edit is the party that 'losses' if others are confused by the edit, and thus the disadvantage already falls on the proponent, and also means we do not need any bureaucratic/mandatory rule for summaries. In short, 'you want your edit to stick', it's already functionally all on you, in the edit and in summary: be advised, don't confuse others, make sense. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:30, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
We should also encourage information in all edit summaries because they "help other editors by (a) saving the time to open up the edit to find out what it's all about, ... and (c) providing information about the edit on diff pages and lists of changes (such as page histories and watchlists)" (from Help:Edit summary). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Butwhatdoiknow (talk • contribs) 15:46, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
@Jc37, I think what you're missing is that there seems to be a difference of opinion in what the "patrolling" editor needs to do to figure out what's going on. Imagine that I've reverted poop vandalism. An obvious kind of edit, right? @Butwhatdoiknow wants to be able to figure out that I was reverting poop vandalism without looking at the diff – while only looking at the edit summary. Therefore, I need to write something like "rvv" in the edit summary, because the long-standing recommendation of "Undid revision whatever by User:Vandal" doesn't explain what happened. Everyone else assumes that editors will look the diff, and therefore editors only need an explanation if the situation is not obvious to someone who has already looked at the diff. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:29, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
To actually patrol, you have to look at the article. To edit intelligently at all, you have to look at the article. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:26, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
Fair enough. But does that mean edit summaries are not useful?) And, if they are useful, shouldn't we encourage them? See generally, Perfect is the enemy of good. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 05:53, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
The standard practice is to care about an "explanation" (the why) only if an experienced editor would be confused by the diff. For example, if you are removing a perfectly good sentence from an article, then "Rm duplicate" explains why you are doing so. "Copyedit" would only explain what you are doing. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:58, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
Not sure what your point is here. Are you saying that blank edit summaries are okay if an experienced editor would not be confused when looking at a diff? Or, put another way, that there is no problem with a Revision history full of blank edit summaries? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 21:24, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
No. I'm saying that there's a difference between "explaining" why you made an edit and "describing" what you did, and that an actual "explanation" is only necessary sometimes. The default undo summary – which is strongly recommended for vandalism – is not "an explanation" of why you undid an edit. It is a factual "description" of what you did. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:15, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Fresh take on "unless the reason for them is obvious"

The discussion above reveals that one of the problems with the current text is the meaning of "explained." Does it mean "describe" or "give reasons"? To resolve that issue I propose changing

All edits should be explained[under discussion] (unless the reason for them is obvious[under discussion])—either by clear edit summaries indicating the reason why the change was made, or by discussion on the associated talk page.

to

All edits should be[under discussion] described. Unless the reason for an edit is obvious, it should also be explained either briefly in the edit summary or by discussion on the associated talk page.

Your thoughts? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 07:36, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

"Explained" is correct and I don't see any room for confusion. People who just want to see what changed (i.e. a description) can look at the diff; what is at issue here is the reason for the edit (i.e. an explanation). "I changed 1920 to 1921" is useless, but "1921 is what the source has" is useful. Zerotalk 09:07, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
(1) While "explained" is perfectly clear to you, the discussion above shows that it isn't perfectly clear to everyone. (2) Edit summaries are not only viewed on watchlists, they are also viewed in revision histories. While editors can check each and every diff, it is very time consuming. (3) Some edit descriptions are self-explanatory ("copy edit," for example) and don't need a separate statement giving the reason.
Or are you saying we should eliminate "(unless the reason for them is obvious)" altogether? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 20:41, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
@Zero0000: I look forward to your reply. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 19:23, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
@Butwhatdoiknow, do you have WP:NAVPOPS installed? Because of NAVPOPS, I don't think that it is very time-consuming to check each and every diff. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:44, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
Never heard of it before. And, I'm guessing, I am not in the minority of editors in that regard. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 18:29, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
It is one of the most popular gadgets on wiki. Please go to Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-gadgets and turn it on for a few days. It's the sixth item in the first section on that page, so it's one of the easier ones to find. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:10, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
Once you've got it on, the key point is: go to your watchlist or a page history, and hover over the "prev" button. Assuming you have an average-to-good internet connection, you'll be able to see most diffs without clicking on anything. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:11, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
Well, I've tried it and I find it more irritating than helpful. I wonder what "most popular" means in terms of the percentage of Wikipedia editors who use it. And, anyway, why use a work=around when simply leaving a meaningful edit summary solves the problem from the get-go? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 06:38, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
Because what you're calling a work-around is automatic and self-explaining, whereas leaving an edit summary, redundant to what is apparent from the content of the edit itself, is adding an unnecessary burden to each contribution. And in what way are popups irritating? EEng 11:59, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
(1) Navpop is automatic only if you turn it on and hover over edits one-by-one. (2) You and I disagree regarding whether the better practice is (a) editors leaving descriptions as they edit or (b) all subsequent editors having to inspect each and every edit to learn what each one is all about. (3) Navpop is irritating in at least three ways: (a) once you start it the darn popups appear on every page you're looking at (not just Revision history pages), (b) the popups cover up text so you have to move your mouse to read the text underneath, and (c) if the popups are at the bottom of the page you have to scroll down to read the popup. I'll add that, since the popups are only small boxes, they don't "self-explain" large edits. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 16:38, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
So turn on navpops and hover over edits (the ones you think need reviewing) one by one; that's what I do and it works great. I haven't had your "darn popups appear on every page" problem; the bottom-of-page problem is rare; for large edits I open the diff. I think your scenario of all subsequent editors having to inspect each and every edit to learn what each one is all about is an exaggeration: on my watchlist, I probably feel like learning the substantive content of the diff for maybe 1 in 10 pages that appear (and for those, I typically use the x diffs since last visit link to see all changes wrapped into one); on page revision histories I usually use the Compare selected revisions button for similar efficiency. I think cluttering up watchlists with comments like "I removed a comma" makes the watchlist harder to use. I'm certainly never going to bother entering such stuff, and you're never going to get consensus for requiring it. EEng 05:47, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
I am intrigued by your comment that edit summaries with descriptions of changes "makes the watchlist harder to use." Would you please elaborate? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 15:46, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
Especially when the edit summary is longer than a few words, the the line wraps. A watchlist in which every entry is on a single line is easier to scan than a watchlist in which some are one, some are two, and a few are three lines. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:32, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
Well, the example given was "I removed a comma." I'm still at a loss regarding how Eng finds that makes a watchlist "harder to use." (And, in any case, what are you doing looking at edit summaries? I thought you were a Navpop user.) Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 02:31, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
Because it clutters the watchlist with trivia. If you're just removing a comma, ce or punct will do as an edit summary; I don't need to read I ... removed ... a ... comma. When you do something that needs explanation meta to the edit itself, then use the e.s.: "After consulting Smith, Jones, Birch, and Calton, it's clear that the figure in Calton is a typo -- S, J, and B all agree on the correct figure, and S in particular points out that Calton corrected the figure in his British edition." That's what edit summaries are for. EEng 03:17, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
I'm with you 100% - brevity is best. To my mind, "ce" is a perfectly valid description. And, when an editor gives that description, the reason for the edit is obvious (the editor believes it improves readability) and the edit needs no "meta" explanation. An editor who sees that summary and is curious can open or "navpop" it to see the change.
The problem with the current text is that says that a blank edit summary is okay if - after opening the edit - the "meta" explanation is clear. How can we improve
All edits should be[under discussion] described. Unless the reason for an edit is obvious, it should also be explained either briefly in the edit summary or by discussion on the associated talk page.
to say that you should give a description (even if it is only "ce" or "punct") but don't need to give a meta explanation if the description makes the meta explanation obvious? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 06:36, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
Honestly I've lost track of what we're arguing about, but I do think every edit should have a least a faint indication of what it "is": ce or punct (as above) or + or cut detail or oops. It's when someone says the edit has to be "explained" or "described" that I get nervous. EEng 10:58, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
Yep, that's the problem we're working on: how to characterize the minimum requirement for an edit summary. "All edits should be ..." what? Currently it says "explained," which you and I agree doesn't hit the mark. You don't like "described." Maybe "summarized"? "Identified"? Or perhaps we just need to add "briefly" in front of one of these words. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 17:37, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
I'm at a loss as to how to characterize it. Obviously if there's something about the edit that isn't apparent from the diff itself -- something other editors need to know to understand why you've done what you've done -- then you say that (as in my Smith, Jones, Birch, Calton example above). If that's not the case, then when I'm about to save I think of someone who, for some reason, is untangling a complicated list of diffs on the rev history page -- what can I do to help them sort out who did what? "OK, let's see again ... right, the edit by JoeEditor that says 'drop detail', that's where he cut that irrelevant stuff, and then the edit EEng marked as 'typo' is where he fixed that spelling error, then right after that UnionJack made that edit he marked 'BrEng' because actually EEng had mistakenly changed the British spelling to American spelling ..." So for most edits the edit summary really doesn't have to be much at all, at least given the way I see their function. But again, I don't know to express that. It's possible that all we need to say is that most edits should have something in the edit summary field, and beyond that we let water find its own level.
BTW, I'm talking about pages other than discussion pages here; on discussion pages, my e.s. is almost always simply "+" because, well, I posted something. EEng 13:50, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
I prefer edit summaries that say something (i.e., something relevant). But I still wonder: Do we need to say that on this page? Maybe it's enough to have that information in the WP:Editing policy and similar pages. WhatamIdoing (talk) 14:23, 13 October 2021
As I've said (below): Feel free to propose that in a separate discussion. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 19:31, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
EEng: How about a "best of the worst"? Which term is least objectionable to you: "briefly explained," "briefly described," "briefly summarized," or "briefly identified" (or something else)? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 20:24, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I just don't know. I only wandered in here looking for that bathroom. But here's another thought: the context here is how edit summaries are involved in consensus-building that takes place directly in the context of editing. It's not about the humdrum everyday edits that aren't involved in any sort of issue. So, to the extent this guideline makes recommendations about edit summaries, maybe instead of All edits should be explained (unless the reason for them is obvious it should say If you think your edit might be questioned, it should be carefully explained by} ... no, that won't work. I give up. EEng 23:09, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
Hate to see you go. Just one more thing: Is it fair to say that you don't see much of a difference between "briefly explain" and "briefly describe"? And, if so, that you have no objection changing:
All edits should be explained[under discussion] (unless the reason for them is obvious[under discussion])—either by clear edit summaries indicating the reason why the change was made, or by discussion on the associated talk page.
to
All edits should be[under discussion] described. Unless the reason for an edit is obvious, it should also be explained either briefly in the edit summary or by discussion on the associated talk page. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 06:00, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
I'm sorry to let you down, but I just can't say. EEng 14:02, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
This Navpop discussion seems to go to whether we should encourage "explanations" for all edits. That is the subject of the Wikipedia_talk:Consensus#Something_better_than_"all_..._should"? section, below.
The question up for discussion in this section is whether - until and unless we do away with the current sentence altogether - to (a) clarify that "explanation" includes both "describe" and "give reasons" and (b) clarify when a description is sufficient and when reasons should also be given. I welcome your thoughts on that issue. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 16:38, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
It doesn't feel to me like anyone else shares your concerns/confusion over this sentence. Unless I've missed something, maybe we don't need to change anything. It can be CREEPY to change a policy when only one editor needs a more substantial explanation. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:30, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
How about we just remove the sentence completely, since how and when to use an edit summary or to pre-emptively post an explanation on the talk page isn't really a core point for the policy about consensus? WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:45, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
Feel free to propose that in a separate discussion. (That said, I suggest the sentence is appropriate because it speaks to a procedure that enhances consensus building.) Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 18:29, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

WhatamIdoing issues

@user:WhatamIdoing I acknowledge your suggestion that we remove the “All edits should be explained …” sentence altogether. That is a discussion worth having. But it is tangential to what the sentence should say until and unless we remove it. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 01:56, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

To recap, I propose changing

All edits should be explained[under discussion] (unless the reason for them is obvious[under discussion])—either by clear edit summaries indicating the reason why the change was made, or by discussion on the associated talk page.

to

All edits should be[under discussion] briefly described. Unless the reason for an edit is obvious, it should also be explained in the edit summary or by discussion on the associated talk page.

First issue. @user:WhatamIdoing wonders (15:30, 11 October 2021) whether I am the only person who finds “explained” to be unclear. As evidence that I am not the only one, see (1) discussion (beginning at 02:31, 3 August 2021) regarding whether “re” and “ce” are explanations, (2) discussion (beginning at 03:17, 12 October 2021) regarding whether “ce” and “punct” sufficiently supports an edit, and (3) the distinction WhatamIdoing makes (at 01:15, 22 September 2021) that “rvv” is a description (not an explanation). Does that resolve the first issue? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 01:56, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

No. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:49, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
What more evidence would you want that I am not the only one who finds the requirement that edits be "explained" in the current text confusing? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 23:37, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
Perhaps you could try to find any two other editors who are willing to explicitly and directly say that they can't figure out how to write an edit summary as a result of this sentence? WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:58, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
The text in question says "All edits should be explained (unless the reason for them is obvious)." Doesn't that speak to when - rather than how - to write an edit summary? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 16:01, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
There is only one time to write an edit summary, which is when you make an edit.
Did you perhaps mean to ask "Doesn't that speak to whether - rather than how - to write an edit summary?" WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:09, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
As currently written, the policy says there are sometimes when you don't write an edit summary to accompany an edit (see Blueboar's post). But let's not get pedantic, "whether" is fine. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 03:07, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
See also Wikipedia:Perennial proposals#Automatically prompt for missing edit summary
Every time editors have considered whether to require an edit summary (informative or otherwise), they have decided not to create any such requirement. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:45, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
Good to know, but off topic. The issue is "whether I am the only person who finds 'explained' to be unclear." You are willing to answer this question "no" if two other editors "explicitly and directly say that they can't figure out how to write an edit summary" (emphasis added). I am suggesting that the test should be when whether rather than how to write an edit summary. Hence, by question immediately below (03:07, 1 November 2021). I request that you reply to that question. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 23:23, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
You are asking "whether" edit summaries should be required. My impression is that you would like to require edit summaries. I am telling you that editors have repeatedly considered requests to require edit summaries, and they have always rejected such requests.
Have you attempted to locate two other editors who find the existing sentence unclear? WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:54, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
NO, I am not asking whether edit summaries should be required. I am asking what "explained" means in the sentence in question. Does it mean "explain what you are doing" (describe) or "explain why you are doing what you are doing" (give the reason for)? I think the failure to make that clear in the text is confusing. You don't.
To resolve our disagreement you challenged me to find two other editors who "explicitly and directly say that they can't figure out how to write an edit summary as a result of this sentence." I questioned whether "how" was the correct adverb. Are you now changing the proposed test to "locate two other editors who find the existing sentence unclear"? If so, that resolves the adverb question. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 02:43, 2 November 2021 (UTC) WhatamIdoing: I look forward to your reply. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 15:30, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
No, I propose that you find any two other editors who will (a) read this section and (b) are then willing to explicitly and directly say that they can't figure out how to write an edit summary. For example, you might look for someone who would say something like "I have made a thousand edits, and I thought I knew what I needed to put in the edit summary box, but having read this sentence, I am now worried that I have been doing it wrong all along". I am looking for some evidence that this causes (a) actual, practical problems for (b) someone who is not you. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:34, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
WhatamIdoing: The text in question says "All edits should be explained (unless the reason for them is obvious)." Doesn't that speak to whether - rather than how - to write an edit summary? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 03:07, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Since the reason for every edit I make is obvious (at least it’s obvious to me), I will just assume that I am exempt from leaving explanatory summaries. Blueboar (talk) 18:11, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Off topic discussion of usernames

For some reason, I didn't know Butwhatdoiknow and WhatamIdoing were different accounts. The similar account names are a strange coincidence. – The Grid (talk) 20:03, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

  • I can see how the brain would rearrange a few letters like that.
Back in the day, you could create accounts that differed only in their capitalization. Thus we have Mastcell and MastCell, for example. I see that there is also one named Thegrid (an editor at the German-language Wikipedia). WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:04, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Survey: when does the current policy say an edit becomes obvious

The second paragraph of wp:EDITCONSENSUS begins: All edits should be explained (unless the reason for them is obvious) ... Putting aside the "all" in that clause (discussed elsewhere on this page), does the parenthetical mean:

(a) unless the reason for them is obvious from the edit summary. In other words, the edit summary should either state or imply* the reason for the edit (or point to a talk page post giving the reason). [* For an example of "imply," consider "ce," which implies the reason for the edit is to improve the text without changing the substance.]
(b) unless the reason for them is obvious when viewing a diff. In other words, a blank edit summary is fine as long as the reason for the edit is obvious once you open it up.
(c) something else altogether (please give your understanding of the meaning).
(d) danged if I know. .- Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 18:56, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
Why is this all out of order? I had to search for the most recent discussion. Is this a real survey? I guess I have to think about which to choose. B means we have to click on the diff and determine if the edit is satisfactory enough to not have needed an edit summary. Seems thorny. Aiming Guides (talk) 01:00, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
Aiming Guides: The question is not what it should mean but what it does mean. If you have to think about it then maybe you're a "(d)" along with me. I am not sure what a "real" survey is, but this is a genuine attempt to determine whether the community is in agreement regarding the current meaning of the parenthetical. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 01:27, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
Butwhatdoiknow, why'd you move my comment from under the "Your answer:" section? SmokeyJoe hadn't given a definitive answer either until this edit. I'm not "(d) danged if I know." I say so because I don't think "obvious" is difficult to determine in this circumstance. If you look at the exemptions for edit warring , it says, "obvious vandalism—edits that any well-intentioned user would agree constitute vandalism, such as page blanking and adding offensive language." A similar mode applies here. I think any well-intentioned user will be able to see that a certain edit (like minor edits) doesn't require an explanation. "Explained" is tricky because your "a" option is saying it can either be in an edit summary or on a talk page. People might disagree on whether the edit summary sufficiently explained something. Still, I think most people will see the edit summary as sufficient. I said "b" is thorny because it requires clicking on the diff and interpreting the situation without an edit summary and deciding if the absence of an explanation in an edit summary or on a talk page is okay. So what happens if the editor doesn't think it's sufficient? Do they give the other editor a warning? How is this enforced? I just think you've pushed this too far and we should either settle for Blueboar's attempt at a compromise or use something like "typically." I asked if this section is a real survey because it's not the request for outside input that gets more people to comment. So you're only surveying people who've been involved in this on this page? I think most of those people are over this. Aiming Guides (talk) 23:10, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
  • I moved your post because I read it as a comment on - rather than an answer to - the survey. If the definition of a "real" survey is limited to one that seeks input from those who do not watch the page in question then this is not a "real" survey. If the definition includes seeking input from page watchers who have not already actively engaged in a talk page discussion then it is a real survey.
None of the survey answers seek to define "obvious" or speak to how to enforce whatever standard we have. Instead, they ask about what the current standard says about when the reason for an edit should be obvious. Must it be in the edit summary or is it okay if it is only obvious once someone opens up a diff? I've changed the heading to clarify this. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 17:56, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Responses to survey re when current policy says an edit becomes obvious

Never assume something is obvious. Instead, give the explanation, no matter how obvious you think it is. If it is truly obvious, the explanation will be trivial to give. If it is not trivial to give, then you are playing the dominance assertion game. "Obvious" is a danger word, never use it. It is either redundant or condescending. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:44, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
Cut the parenthetical clause "(unless the reason for them is obvious)". All contingencies are sufficiently covered by the word "should". Advice should err on the side of best practice, not on the side of descripting common poor practice. -- SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:47, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
SmokeyJoe: Sounds like your answer is (c). Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 04:06, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
Yes. A deeper meaning of this word, than its definition, is the reason why the author is using it. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:27, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
I don't understand the "contempt" comment. What is "it"?
As for never assuming that something is obvious, I think you do a good job of providing detailed edit summaries, but I also find that you have used edit summaries such as these this year:
  • recently 2020. Is set to, now, will.,
  • Edit,
  • .,
  • was,
  • continue to English,
  • space, and
  • His kettle does not add.
When I look at the diffs, I can see that most of these edit summaries mean "Copyedit". (The last is about changing an image.) Do you think these edit summaries would help someone (e.g., Butwhatdoiknow) figure out what changes you made without ever looking at the diffs? It's my impression that this endless discussion exists because Butwhatdoiknow wants to review your edits from the article's history page, and never have to look at the actual edits to figure out that "Is set to, now, will" means that you replaced the three words is set to with the single word will. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:30, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
"Butwhatdoiknow wants to review your edits from the article's history page, and never have to look at the actual edits." Not true. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 18:09, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
On 19 August, someone using your account claimed that "An editor would have to check the diff to know what the original editor did. In short, the substance of the edit is not obvious" [if you have to look at the diff rather than the article's history page alone]. On 22 September, someone using your account complained that "While editors can check each and every diff, it is very time consuming."  
If this wasn't you, then please review Wikipedia:Compromised accounts. If it was, then you will have to forgive me for understanding your multiple complaints about it being too onerous for you to look at diffs as meaning that your don't want to look at the diffs.
WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:20, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
I forgive you. Should you wish me to explain why the out-of-context quotes you selected do not support your mistaken conclusion then please continue this conversation on my talk page.
Meanwhile, I hope you will consider posting a reply to the survey: Regardless of you and I want, does the text of the current policy say an explanation is not necessary if the reason for an edit is obvious in the edit summary (a)? In the diff (b)? Somewhere else (c)? Unclear (d)? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 06:49, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
User:WhatamIdoing, the threading suggests you are replying to me, and I used the word “contempt” (for which I may need to consult a thesaurus for a better word choice), but the edit summaries do not look like my edit summaries. — SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:39, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
@SmokeyJoe, see, e.g., recently 2020. Is set to, now, will. and His kettle does not add. Outside the mainspace, you use "d" and "k" as common edit summaries. This is another edit summary that is perfectly understandable after clicking on one diff but which might be confusing do someone only looking at the page history.
I don't want you to change your edit summary style. I am doubtful, however, that edit summaries can be an adequate substitute for looking at the diffs. IMO that's simply not functional, and therefore these efforts to encourage or mandate fuller edit summaries are misguided. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:12, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
There is a huge difference between encouraging fuller edit summaries and mandating them. I have no problem with encouragement… I have a serious problem with mandates. Blueboar (talk) 16:21, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
Me too. Aiming Guides (talk) 23:59, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
Blueboar: Good to know but this survey seeks the meaning of the current policy "Putting aside the 'all' in that clause." So when does the current policy - whether it's a mandate OR an encouragement - say an edit ought to be obvious? In the edit summary (a)? In the diff (b)? Somewhere else (c)? Unclear (d)? I'd be interested in your response to that question. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 00:50, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
"Obvious" has to be in the mind of the editor who makes the edit. Anything else does not assume good faith. If "you" don't think "your" edit is obviois, please leave a summary to help others understand what you did and why. If you think it is onvious, you don't have to. Now, it is quite possible that someone else might not fond it as obvious as you do... in which case they can ask on the talk page (that is one of the reasons why we have talk pages, after all). Blueboar (talk) 01:09, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
This is very sensible. Also, it implies the answer to Butwhatdoiknow's question: if "you" don't think "your" edit is obvious – and the way that you find out what the edit is, is by looking at the diff.
The only downside to this sensible approach is that dissatisfied editors will never be able to prove that others have wantonly violated the policy by failing to magically know what's not obvious to others. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:11, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
WAID, gosh, in hindsight those edit summaries were so cryptic as to be counterproductive. I will try to do better, especially where no summary is better than cryptic. SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:52, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
I don't want you to change your edit summary style. I do admit to being curious about whether the uncropped version of that image originally contained a kettle. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:08, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
WAID, the image can be seen here. The subject had uploaded a version of it to commons, and I assumed he had the right to do that (laters, commons deleted it for lack of evidence provided, speedied). Cropping the image takes a bit of time, much longer than typing an edit summary. In my mind was something about the kettle, and other background, not adding <anything valuable> to the cropped portrait. The best word choice escaped me, and rather than open a thesaurus, thinking that it was a trivial edit that no one would ever care about , and that ideally an entirely new image would appear, I just pressed the publish button.
It was not a BRD edit, specifically not a BOLD edit, and I think little edits don’t need full justifications, but often I like to add a edit summary to help myself when reviewing my recent edits.
If it is a BOLD edit, I think a concise and meaningful edit summary is a very good idea. I became a fan of Kim Brunning’s advocacy to explanations in edit summaries as even a substitute for talk page discussion, subject to serious caveats. However, I have over many years, noted in my own edit summaries and others’, that we sometimes put the most explanation into the most trivial grammatical copyedits, which is kind of weird. It tends to happen with one’s first edit to an article, as if tentatively and submissively daring to edit for the first time. SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:18, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
Thanks. I'd been hoping that it would turn out to be a much more dramatic kettle. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:37, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Not so obvious. Suggestions to improve

The second paragraph of wp:EDITCONSENSUS begins:

All edits should be explained (unless the reason for them is obvious) ...

I suggest: Edits should be explained (especially if conceivably contentious) .... —SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:40, 21 November 2021 (UTC)'

  • Support. That's better than the current text. Not perfect, but that's no reason to not implement it until something better comes along.
  • I can live with this. Blueboar (talk) 16:28, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I don't think removing "all" works. Is there doubt that editors are still going to look at that and say another editor's edit(s) should have been explained if absent an explanation in an edit summary or on an article talk page? Really, it's worse than what's in the policy page now because the exemption "unless the reason for them is obvious" isn't there. Unless I'm mistaken, most of the sentences and paragraphs in Wikipedia's policies aren't tagged with "all" at the beginning. For example, the policy on 1RR says, "Editors of policy and guideline pages are strongly encouraged to follow 1RR or 0RR." It doesn't say, "All editors of policy and guideline pages are strongly encouraged to follow 1RR or 0RR." There isn't a use for "all" because "all" is implied. In similar mode, "all" is implied in "edits should be explained" because no exception is mentioned. I think we're kidding ourselves if thinking editors will be able to point to the policy and contend that they were allowed to not use an edit summary because it doesn't say "all edits". No one's going to think of "should" as lax either. SmokeyJoe, your proposed construction makes it easier to enforce others to use edit summaries. A better proposal is to add "typically" into your proposal. Then we'd have: "Edits should typically be explained (especially if conceivably contentious)." I would hope that Butwhatdoiknow wouldn't then argue that "typically" needs an explanation in the policy. But I also think that even "typically" is stricter than what's on the policy page. I still think Blueboar's compromise of "Ideally, all edits should be explained (unless the reason for them is obvious)." is the way to go. I think Butwhatdoiknow has made too big a deal of "obvious." "Obvious" has been in the policy page for how many years now without an apparent issue? Aiming Guides (talk) 23:17, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
  • I respectfully suggest that "should" does not necessarily mean "must." I speculate that this is the reason that Blueboar - who adamantly opposes a mandatory policy - does not oppose this proposal. Would your opinion change if we used "ought to" instead of "should"? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 01:33, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
  • "Does not oppose" is not the same as "endorse". I would prefer to not use either word. Both "should" and "ought" come across as being preachy. TBH, of all the wording suggestions made so far, the one I really like is the one you made below... encorporating "Strongly encouraged". Blueboar (talk) 02:30, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Butwhatdoiknow, I must respectfully ask you if you caught where I said "No one's going to think of 'should' as lax either."? It seems to me you've been around long enough to know that editors consider "should" the same as "must" for the most part or as practically mandatory. When is "should" ever considered optional or optional-like in a policy page? I also haven't seen any Wikipedia policy that uses "must" a lot. "Should" is usually preferred over "must" on the pages and policies have a mandatory tone. They are "standards all users should normally follow." Aiming Guides (talk) 03:39, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
    And when they aren't complaining that "should" indicates that compliance is mandatory, they are claiming that guidelines aren't allowed to use the word "must".
    Wikipedia:Policy writing is hard, and one of the reasons it is hard is because statements on a page with "guideline" or "policy" at the top tend to be enforced more rigidly than their authors intended them to be. IMO the safest thing to do with these sentence is to remove it entirely. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:33, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
    Interesting. I looked at your contributions and saw you're involved in the medical areas of Wikipedia, and frequent Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Medicine-related articles. So I wanted to know if "should" has been objected to there. I found one such discussion. You said you "chose the word 'should' because it means less than 'must,' and more than 'may (if you happen to feel like it).'" Then there's the "Something better than 'all ... should'?" discussion on this consensus policy talk page. I can't imagine how many times words like should and must have been discussed on policy pages all over Wikipedia. I think I agree with the suggestion to remove "should" and Blueboar's preference to use "strongly encouraged." "Strongly encouraged" is also used in the 1RR policy, and Butwhatdoiknow said on my talk page they're considering "should" more closely in SmokeyJoe's proposal. Aiming Guides (talk) 23:02, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Whether to require explanations at all

I agree that best practice is to explain every edit as you make it, but it isn’t what most editors actually DO. Most edits are NOT explained until/unless they are challenged.
Policy is supposed to reflect actual practice, and we should not write “rules” that are not (and likely will not be) followed.
I have no problem with encouraging editors to leave explanations… we can note that it is “best practice” to do so… but we should not say “you must leave an explanation” when such a rule will simply be ignored. Blueboar (talk) 13:33, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

The fact that some editors violate the current rule does not mean that we should abandon it. That reasoning leads us to no rules whatsoever. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 15:25, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
Except - the “rule” is: Wikipedia consensus usually occurs implicitly. An edit has presumed consensus unless it is disputed or reverted. Should another editor revise that edit then the new edit will have presumed consensus unless it meets with disagreement. My take is that there is no NEED to explain an edit that is presumed to have consensus - UNLESS it meets with disagreement. In other words, the need for explanations kick in when/IF there is disagreement. There is no requirement for an explanation when/IF there is no disagreement. Blueboar (talk) 17:04, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
If (a) there is no need to explain an edit that has presumed consensus and (b) all edits are initially presumed to have consensus then (c) there is no need to explain any edit. The problem with this sentence is, I think, that the need to explain an edit (that is, to tell the community what you have done) is not the same as an edit having presumed consensus. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 18:40, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
Not quite… There is no need to explain any edit UNTIL (d) an edit is disputed. This is because once an edit is disputed, we reach the point where we can no longer presume consensus. Thus, once there IS a dispute, people DO need to give explanations. Blueboar (talk) 19:34, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
Explain can mean either "tell" (describe) or "support" (provide reasons). For the moment, let's accept your position that an editor need not support an edit until it is disputed. What about telling editors who scan Watchlists or Revision histories what you have done ("ce," for example)? Any reason to make that optional? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 22:35, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
There is even less need for a “what” summary than there is for “why” summary. If you want to see what an edit was, you should look at the article edit history and actually see what was added or subtracted from the article. Don’t trust the edit summary… seriously, think how many idiots try to hide vandalism behind a faked edit summary. We catch it because we DON’T trust edit summaries. Blueboar (talk) 23:53, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
This seems to repeat the "don't make a rule because some folks will abuse it" reasoning that leads to no rules whatsoever. That said, most articles have just a few editors and they get to know each other. In such cases they do trust each other's work (including edit summaries). Further, edit summaries are not just for real-time monitoring, they are also used when folks look back at a history to see when a change was made. A list of empty edit summaries makes the editor "go fish" for the change. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 20:33, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
All that said, I concede below that there is no consensus for language explicitly requiring edit summaries. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 20:33, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
Any kind of wording in a policy page suggesting that editors must give edit summaries has been constantly rejected at the village pump, as far as I know. The closest to it is WP:UNRESPONSIVE. This change would be duplicating another page anyway, and this isn't the page where that should belong, but in any case it purports to set a requirement that consensus does not support. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 20:39, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
WP:UNRESPONSIVE seem pretty definite to me. No qualifying words such as "best practice" or "ideally." Perhaps it would help if you provided links to a couple of the village pump discussions so we can see the thoughts expressed there. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 22:24, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
This was the most recent. At a skim there's also [2][3] ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 22:41, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
Well, I'm not sure that I'd characterize those discussions as "rejecting" mandatory edit summaries. Rather, they seem to reflect a lack of consensus to either require them or not. Which brings me to the section I'm starting below. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 20:33, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Not seeing anything in those discussions that would remotely approach the necessary consensus to change the existing wording. If you think there's consensus to change it, I'd suggest an RFC. --Aquillion (talk) 06:23, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Something better than "all ... should"?

Above, ProcrastinatingReader points to several discussions that reach no consensus regarding whether edit summaries should be mandatory. "Should" in the second paragraph of wp:EDITCONSENSUS seems to reflect this lack of agreement inasmuch as it has two meanings: ((a) "must" and (b) "ought to"). So one option is to retain the current wording ("All edits should be explained") as is.
Blueboar proposes changing the current text and has offered "Ideally, all edits should be explained" and "Best practice is to explain your edits" as alternatives. While I prefer the current wording, if we do decide to change the text I propose "The Wikipedia community strongly encourages meaningful explanations for all edits." Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 20:34, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

I could accept this. While there is not a consensus to mandate explanations, I think we do (and should) encourage clear communication (be it in an edit summary or via talk page threads). Blueboar (talk) 21:49, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
I oppose it if it includes talk pages. For example, it's quite common where an edit summary would be a bad, missing context, misleading or ineffective summary of the talk page post and I deliberately leave only a short non-explanatory edit summary as I will for this post. :-) Also, Wikipedians have limited volunteer time and trying to write an edit summary that avoids the above issues can take more time than the edit itself. North8000 (talk) 12:52, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
To clarify, that strong urging should be for edits in article space and for edits in places other than talk pages. North8000 (talk) 17:18, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Strenuously disagree with weakening the language here. "Several discussions have reached no consensus" is the opposite of a a reason to change the wording of a longstanding policy; we need to reach a clear consensus on something else to replace it (ie. not just a discussion between a handful of editors, given that this is known to be a long-standing dispute that has attracted much more discussion), otherwise the old version ought to stand. Beyond that I'm utterly opposed to any changes that would weaken its wording - my comments above mostly touch on my rationale. Edit summaries are an essential part of collaborative editing, and while we don't police every single edit, an editor who never used edit summaries, ever, at all, or whose edit summaries were consistently grossly insufficient, can absolutely face sanctions for this - it is comparable to eg. WP:MINOR in that respect, where editors are given substantial leeway and occasional lapses or gray areas are fine, but the basic requirements do still apply and are not at all mere suggestions or "encouragements." --Aquillion (talk) 06:11, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
Can you give us some examples of editors who actually were sanctioned for not leaving edit summaries? I have never seen it done. Blueboar (talk) 12:04, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
@Blueboar, I saw a dispute along those lines a year or two ago. I think the conclusion was everyone agreeing that edit summaries are Good Things. It's more common to see complaints about misleading edit summaries, such as adding disputed content with an edit summary of "copyedit". WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:33, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
Unfortunately, nothing we are discussing will stop misleading edit summaries. And I agree that (except for misleading edit summaries) edit summaries are “good things”. I just disagree that we need to mandate “good things”. Blueboar (talk) 22:15, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
I agree with you. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:01, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
Also agree.....not possible....vast majority of edit do not have a summary. Would be setting our selves up for mass conflict with litte benefits for our readers.Moxy- 13:35, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
Also agree. "Usually a good thing" does not equate to mandate. North8000 (talk) 19:30, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
I agree we shouldn't be required to always provide an edit summary. Yes, there's times when we should, like in disputes. That said, there's editors who use a template on other editors' talk pages to say they should use an edit summary. I think this is usually when those templated editors are being reverted and aren't communicating. So how do we process these cases when saying edit summaries aren't mandated? Editors have been blocked for not communicating. Is this discussion over? It's stalled and the guideline still says that all edits should be explained. So where do we go from here? Aiming Guides (talk) 00:47, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
"Not communicating" is different from "not typing a detailed edit summary for every single edit, including when I'm making a change whose purpose ought to be patently obvious to anyone who glances at what I did" (which, you know, you ought to do, because some edit summaries are intentional lies, and some are unintentional errors due to web browser memory of your previous edit summaries). WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:33, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
But editors who don't communicate but who are good editors discounting that are kind of in the same boat as editors who do communicate but don't type a detailed edit summary for every single edit. Those who are being disruptive are going to get blocked for good if they don't ever communicate, but are the productive ones going to be considered more of a problem than the editors who communicate and sometimes or always explain things in an edit summary? It seems to me that because editors who don't communicate are very often treated as problems (reported and such), they'll be targeted more for not using edit summaries. I think this is amplified when it's an IP editor. One IP editor quit a few months ago because they perceived unfairness. It was before I left a comment about an edit they made, and I didn't even know they'd already quit. What I was trying to highlight before is the template for not using edit summaries. It says, "Please be sure to provide a summary of every edit you make, even if you write only the briefest of summaries." Why should this template be used if editors don't have to provide a summary of every edit they make? Why does it exist? Because providing an edit summary is best practice? Aiming Guides (talk) 23:48, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
Why shouldn't editors be allowed to play schoolyard cop over minor infractions whenever the fancy strikes? I suppose that's not exactly what you're asking, but that's how it works out in practice on occasion. The community created Template:Uw-editsummary and Template:Uw-editsummary2 and Template:Uw-subtle2 because it's good for people to know about the software feature, and because good edit summaries prevent erroneous reversions. But, of course, the times when this information would be useful isn't the only time when the messages are delivered. Sometimes it's just some inexperienced RecentChanges patroller who's trying to help but who kind of thinks that Wikipedia:Wikipedia is an MMORPG, and that its his job in the game to make everyone conform to superficial rules. As long as everyone is allowed to post comments on anyone's talk page, then these templates are likely to get overused. ¯\_ (ツ)_/¯ WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:30, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
I noticed today that Blueboar softened the language at that template, and Sdkb is considering softening the language at Template:Uw-ewsoft. Aiming Guides (talk) 22:46, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Agree that “All … should” is non-ideal. Actually, it’s an abuse of language, an example that statements on policy pages should not be taken literally, because taken literally, it alludes but doesn’t actually say anything concrete. The problem is the mixing of absolute words like “all” and soft recommendations like “should”. If “should” is correct, then drop the “all”, because it’s meaning is negated by “should”. “All … should” could mean “Some … must”, and this at least more clearly begs which. Drop the “All”. Less words means that the words left are more likely to be read. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:47, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
I answered your proposal. I don't think removing "all" helps much. Aiming Guides (talk) 23:30, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
Well, I think you are wrong. I think that self-conflicting language tells the reader that the message is not really serious. “All” and “should” are incongruous, and when someone really wants to know, and when push comes to shove, self-incongruous language proves useless. SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:42, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
I don't think that "all…should" is self-conflicting language. Shakespeare used it: What glory our Achilles shares from Hector/Were he not proud, we all should share with him. Consider "We all should be kind and helpful": It does not mean that some of us must be kind and helpful; it exhorts all of us to the ideal.
I don't think that including or removing "all" makes any real difference, especially since this is should in the RFC 2119 sense. "All edits should (unless there exist valid reasons in particular circumstances to ignore a particular item, but the full implications must be understood and carefully weighed before choosing a different course) be explained". The practical difference between "all edits should unless there are valid reasons do otherwise" and "edit should unless there are valid reasons to do otherwise" is basically zero. It is perhaps a difference in emphasis and emotion rather than in practice: All edits should – no, really, practically every single time, because there are genuinely not very many valid reasons or circumstances in which to do otherwise". WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:24, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Also it's missing the qualifier that this refers to edits in article space & similar, not to talk pages. 13:12, 21 November 2021 North8000 (talk)

Are formal indicators of the end a discussion are always necessary?

Sometimes, talk page discussions occur according to the following scenario:

  • Editor A: "I propose to remove/add the statement X"
  • Editor B: "I object"
  • A: What is your rationale?
  • B: I object because of Y"
  • A: Your statement Y is wrong, because ...."
  • B: (does not respond)
  • A: After several days, A makes the proposed edit X
  • B: "You have to achieve consensus before editing. A discussion is still in progress."

In connection to that, my question is as follows: can a lack of response from one party be considered as an implicit agreement (an option I), or the policy requires some explicit "Yes, your arguments convinced me"? If the answer is "I", then how long a delay should be to to make a reasonable conclusion that the arguments were accepted? If the answer is "II", doesn't it mean that the policy endows a user B with an implicit right of veto? It seems the policy is not clear about that. Paul Siebert (talk) 18:32, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Once an objection is made (and especially if a reason for the objection has been given), you can NOT assume subsequent silence means the objection has been withdrawn and can be ignored.
It does not give editor B a “veto”. It simply means the discussion is not yet over… and that editors C, D, E etc need to look at the issue and give their opinions. If they all agree that editor B’s rational for objection is flawed, then it can be ignored. But editor A should not make the call on his own. Blueboar (talk) 19:01, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
That does not answer my question. The editor B objected, and the editor A addressed their argument. If the editor B does not respond, but they are active (they are making other edits), their silence may be interpreted in two ways: (i) editor B has no counter-arguments (which means the discussion is over), or (ii) they are contemplating their responce (i.e. the discussion is not over yet). Obviously, the delay time cannot be too short, but it cannot be infinitely long either. Therefore, I am still expecting an answer to my question: what marks an end of a discussion if one user stopped to respond to arguments?
A reference to editors C, D, E is hardly valid. Thus, imagine that A and/or B is a group of users, not a single user. Do you seriously propose to start an RfC every time one party stopped to respond? How do you see such an RfC? "A user B stopped to respond to my arguments. Do you think they agreed with mem, or they believe my arguments were not convincing?" IMO, that is ridiculous.--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:29, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
Actually, some users may feel uncomfortable to write "Ok, your arguments are convincing". They prefer just not to respond, and, in my opinion, it may be impolite to request them to explicitly recognise that their arguments have been debunked. In connection to that, there should be some generally accepted rule that would allow us to deal with situations when a user stopped to respond. That may mean at least four different things: "I have no counter-arguments, but I still object" (an illegitimate objection), "I have no counter-arguments yet, but I am looking for some fresh facts and opinia" (a legitimate reason for not responding), "I see that your arguments are strong, but I don't want to openly write that" (a de facto agreement, although implicit one), and "I am not interested in this topic anymore. Do whatever you want" (again, a totally legitimate position; a user has no obligation to respond in that case). Paul Siebert (talk) 19:43, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
There is another reason why editor B might not respond: “I have said what I have to say, still stand behind it, and do not feel the need to engage editor A in further debate.” When only two people are in a debate and disagree, we need to accept that neither opinion has gained consensus (and that no consensus will be possible until more editors get involved). Blueboar (talk) 20:55, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
@Blueboar: as I already explained, "A" and "B" are not necessarily just one user. "A" and "B" may refer to different groups. And, your "“I have said what I have to say..." is the same what I say: "I have no other arguments, but I disagree" (i.e. "Veto"). Paul Siebert (talk) 21:04, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
The person who speaks last does not necessarily have the best argument. Blueboar (talk) 14:57, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Formal indicators of the end a discussion are very helpful to editors who come along later, especially if the discussion was long. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:20, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
    I think we should use formal indicators of the end of a discussion only rarely. For one thing, if we mark a discussion as "ended", then Editors C, D, and E may feel inhibited from adding their view. For another, it becomes another thing to fight over, because editors might not agree on whether the discussion is over. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:55, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
    Ok, I think “formal indicators of the end of a discussion” is not well defined. User:Paul Siebert presented a disagreement between only two editors, and the questions goes to how long to wait. I thing a “formal indicator of the end of a discussion” is a summary of the discussion. I think if the discussion was complicated, a summary is helpful. If only two people are involved, I don’t think there is any point to the word “formal”.
    Where only two people disagree, A and B, if B does not respond, that could be taken as WP:Silence, the weakest form of consensus. A could strengthen the consensus to better than weakest by summarising the discussion with the note that the objection would appear withdrawn by WP:Silence. However, better, would be the standard escalation to a WP:3O request.
    If A summarised the discussion, indicating it’s end, on the basis of WP:Silence of B, that is immediately overturned by the addition of comment by any new editor C.
    How long a delay should be reasonable? Some answers include:
    • Less than a day is short, and a week is long.
    • The wait for several edits by editor B elsewhere.
    • The wait for several meaningful edits of the page in question, by other editors.
    • If two editors have not agreed, always use WP:3O to try to revive the discussion.
    — SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:06, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
    I don't think we should put that much burden on the 3O process, and you've basically just said that the Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle should be banned. One of the use cases is "Discussion has died out with no agreement being reached". You start editing again to see if the other person is still interested in the subject. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:33, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
    I most certainly did not mean to imply that BRD should be banned.
    The question as I saw it was what to do with a discussion that appears to have died out. BRD is certainly one option. BRD means abandoning the died-out discussion as dead. WP:SILENCE and WP:3O are ways to squeeze a bit of “consensus” for the summary of the discussion, which is not necessary, but is very helpful to future editors.
    Even if BRD succeeds, I would wish for a summary statement on the talk page, for the benefit of editors who come by in the future. A criticism of BRD is that the record of what happened is unclear. SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:54, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Revert of 10:09, December 22, 2021

@SmokeyJoe: You gave three reasons for this revert:
(1) "unwelcome," which sounds a lot like "I don't like it."
(2) "Makes archive searches not work" What do think about leaving the collapses in temporarily while the discussion is active and then removing them before the section gets archived?
(3) "other reasons" What are those? - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 04:14, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

(1). Yep. Most certainly, I do not like you collapsing my contributions.
(2). What do you think about not refactoring others’ contributions.
(3). If you want to go into this, how about we begin with why you think collapsing selected sections is a good idea?
—- SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:34, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
(2) I think such a rule would prevent refactoring to clean up "overly complex ... or congested" portions of talk pages that "discourage potential contributors" (see WP:REFACTOR).
(3) In this case, the section was a poll. The poll received much discussion but only two responses. My concern is that the discussion buried the poll, driving away potential contributors who don't have the time to dig through all the discussion text. By collapsing I (a) set aside overly complex and congested text while (b) leaving your contribution (and others' - including mine) intact and easily available to anyone curious enough to click open the collapsed text.- Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 16:11, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
@SmokeyJoe: I have answered your questions. Please answer mine (((2) & (3)). Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 17:55, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
By collapsing, the collapsed part is diminished in visibility, and implied relevance. I definitely disagree that the discussion is less important than the poll. Note Wikipedia:Polling is not a substitute for discussion. The fact that your poll was not progressing as a successful poll suggests that you were not wise to run the poll. The fact that discussion overwhelmed the poll results implies that people thought there was important stuff to say that could not be captured by the poll. In general, refactoring discussion should be avoided. Refactoring so as to highlight your unwise poll and hide the discussion that you didn’t like was especially objectionable.
If you think the discussion has gone off-track from what you wanted to discuss, then restart your point, better, in a new thread. Do not refactor others posts to better fit your purpose. And I suggest that you should not try to make your point by constraining others into answering according to your set of options. SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:09, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
@SmokeyJoe: Thank you! This is very helpful. (Just for the record, I didn't dislike the discussion, I just thought it interfered with more editors participating in my "unwise" poll. I appreciate you offering a suggestion regarding how to better handle that problem in the future.) Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 16:18, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Why add "article"?

In the edit summary for this edit user:Nikkimaria asks "why add that?" The answer is to clarify that the text refers to article deletion, not content deletion. Now here's my question, why not add that? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 04:35, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
Actually, now that I look more carefully at it, the problem may be in the contrast between the wikilink (which is limited to articles) and the text, which is not - and which conflicts with the immediately following bullet point. Should we remove "image, or other content" from the first bullet point? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 04:41, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

The wikilink is not limited to articles, and the following bullet point addresses your concern that the first might be interpreted as applying to material within articles. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:43, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
Thanks, you've helped me figure out (what I think is) the real problem and I've edited to fix that. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 16:10, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

No consensus on admin actions is apparently wrong

STATEMENT REMOVED
This discussion is now moot as WhatamIdoing has removed the disputed policy statement.[4] This is a non-admin procedural close to preserve the discussion, as it existed when the statement was removed.--John Cline (talk) 10:22, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

NOCON says "When discussions of contested administrator actions result in no consensus either for the action or for reverting the action, the action is normally reverted."

@John Cline says he "did an extensive review of the AN/ANI archives and a 100% review of all challenged discussion closures. And while the AN/ANI archives have not been exhausted (there are thousands more to review) I did not find and still have not found a single example where a contested admin action was reverted on the basis of a no consensus outcome being reached in the discussion."

We can also not find any current policy basis for this, and the NOCON section is supposed to report what other policies say, not make up stuff on its own.

Therefore, this is wrong, and I think we should remove it. Of course, if some other policy develops a statement about what ought to happen, then a matching sentence (with link) could be re-added later, but for now, it's wrong, and IMO we should remove it.

Does anyone object? WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:51, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

  • I object to it's removal on the basis of an internal comment that itself came into existence well after the long stand policy provision. My objection is unequivocal, and policy based. I will extend these regards after work which is why I can not extend them now; I must get ready and soon leave to work. Thank you.--John Cline (talk) 10:42, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
    John, if I put an erroneous statement into a policy, and it takes people a long time to notice that it doesn't really describe reality, then a sensible response is to remove it and not to say that the error has been there for so long, and the discovery that it's wrong is so new, that we should keep the wrong statement in the policy. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:05, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
    I am not suggesting that a wrong statement should be kept. I am suggesting that the provision has existed long enough, without objection that it has acquired a strong consensus through editing and that its retention/removal deserves community wide ascent. This local discussion does not meet the standard of participation that policy requires for such a substantive change and, quite frankly, undermines the efforts at Wikipedia:Consensus/No consensus RfC 2022 which was to put this question (albeit in neutral form) to the wider community at large. I do not acquiesce that "no consensus" is out of Wp:Consensus's scope, whereas, the policy says of itself: "This policy describes how consensus is understood on Wikipedia, how to determine whether it has been achieved (and how to proceed if it has not)". How to proceed when consensus has not been achieved is exactly what is described at Wikipedia:Consensus § No consensus. I take umbrage with the notion that '“No consensus” is when the participants give up, and do something else.' If anything, "No consensus" is a degree of uncertainty so great that it becomes actionable in and of itself (hence the "No consensus" outcome and the resultant actions engendered by such a discussion's closure).--John Cline (talk) 04:16, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
    Merely existing is not proof that it has acquired any consensus, and especially not strong consensus.
    I think the complex RFC page that you have put hours into is likely to be a waste of time. It's wrong, we all know that it's wrong, and it should be removed. Applying a bunch of bureaucratic effort to prove that it's wrong, that we all know it's wrong, and that it should be removed is not actually helpful. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:45, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
    I am not talking about "mere existence", I'm talking about Wikipedia:Consensus § Through editing of a highly active, thoroughly watched, heavily viewed page.[5] In my opinion, deferring its removal to the community's discretion is not unreasonable bureaucracy, it's reasonable prudence and good stewardship.--John Cline (talk) 10:11, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
    So I can put it in, but if it sits there long enough, then this whole group isn't sufficient to take it out? We have RFCs end with fewer people commenting than we've already got in this discussion. Also, the policy on editing policies says that we didn't actually need to have this discussion at all. It is not reasonable prudence and good stewardship to retain statements that are known to be factually wrong in a page. Note that the statement is a statement of fact, about what (allegedly) actually happens. It is not a rule that says what ought to happen. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:05, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
    The provision existed long in time, but was not much discussed. I considered it harmless bloat of no consequence. This “policy” is one of the funny policies that set not rules, but instead exist as forums for philosophical Wikipedians to debate in a high language. My efforts here have been to keep it simple, and I for example claim some credit for the simplicity of the current first diagram. The intended audience of this policy is newcomers, and old Wikipedians who try to embed complicated concepts into a basic policy are not helping achieve its primary purpose.
    On “no consensus” is “out-of-scope”, it has to be. The primary reference, implied, of this policy is the article Consensus decision-making. If you think “consensus” includes the concept of “no consensus”, then I challenge you to add that content to the mainspace article. It does not. Consensus is a goal, and it is nebulous, and when it gets complicated it involves modifying the question more than finessing the answer. Forcing “consensus” to apply to binary decisions means compromising its meaning. The accepted result is called Rough consensus, a qualified consensus, which is not an unqualified consensus, although the group may, by consensus, agree that certain decisions are decided by rough consensus.
    The leading line of this policy “Decisions on Wikipedia are primarily made by consensus…” is indeed quite a challenge to how administrators, unilaterally or at ANI, make decisions. It is patently not “consensus decision-making”, but is authoritative big man decision-making, which would seem to be incompatible with consensus, except that it mostly works harmoniously with consensus, I guess because virtually all admins are committed believers in the project, and who respect policy as agreed by consensus.
    “No consensus” is when the participants give up, and do something else. Finding consensus in the face of committed disagreement can take a lot of time and effort. “Something else” usually is “rough consensus”, but sometimes admins take executive decisions, such as blocking disruptive users, on the assumption that if discussed it would be supported by consensus. This behaviour by our administrators works, almost always. How it works is complicated, and beyond the scope of this policy. Sorry, but I do not respect your right to take umbrage with this. Disagree, sure, take umbrage, no. SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:51, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
    Perhaps I misunderstood your statement and wrongly took it as blaming the "no consensus" outcome on the discussion's participants for having given up. That being said, I will disengage from the discussion and monitor it from here as an observer and reader.--John Cline (talk) 10:51, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
    Yeah likely. If a community wide true consensus was required for every administrative action, then administration would be hamstrung. SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:17, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
  • I support its removal, sending it as an observation to some other page. “No consensus” is out of scope for WP:Consensus, which is about the importance of consensus, and how to find it. “No consensus” is when the participants give up, and do something else.
John’s survey of AN/ANI sounds right, but AN/ANI is poorly representative. Whether contested administrator actions stand in the face of “no consensus” from the wider community is a job for WP:XRV to discover. I think John’s observation will stand, but it is not rooted in WP:Consensus. SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:36, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
I understand that John looked into this precisely because the outcomes at XRV did not match the description in NOCON. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:02, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
I should say, the observation of the opposite, that admin actions are sticky when discussion is “no consensus”, should be recorded and discussed elsewhere.
The downstream consequences of giving up on WP:Consensus and proceeding with executive administrative decisions is not something that belongs under to title Wikipedia:Consensus. SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:59, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
It's possible that it should be recorded (somewhere), but for right now, I really just want to get the false statement out of this page. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:51, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
Agree. I suggest Wikipedia talk:Administrators as the right place to dump the cut text. It does not belong in the WP:Consensus policy page. SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:49, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
I've left a note there. Thanks for the suggestion. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:17, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
  • I support removal because that matches my experience of what happens in practice, and apparently the stats bear this out as well. Policy should be descriptive unless there is some strong outside reason (e.g. legal changes, WMF resolutions) why the current practice cannot continue. I'm not aware anything of this nature regarding this matter, nor have I seen anything else that convinces me that there is an actual problem with the current practice. Thryduulf (talk) 00:13, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Comment: This is a policy, and so it sets policy and doesn't just summarize ones from elsewhere. And so deleting something from it is changing policy. It may not be the most likely place for it, but I don't think that there is a better place for it at the moment. Just because this is underused is not a reason to delete it. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 18:42, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

That's not true in theory, and it is definitely not true in this case. There are many policies that say "WP:Other-page says _____", and that does not mean that the contents of WP:Other-page are now declared to be policy. If you look in the NOCON section, you will see that it says "This section summarizes existing policies and guidelines. It does not make any new rules. If this page and the more specific policy or guideline disagree, then this one should be changed to conform with the more specific page." WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:22, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
@WhatamIdoing: I think that you misunderstood what I said. I merely said that what is directly described in a policy is policy. I did not say or imply that mentioning another page in a policy makes the other page policy. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 15:49, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
So if a policy page says "Rare historical sources may even be available only in special museum collections and archives", then it's Wikipedia's policy that some sources may be available only in museums?
And if someone adds something to a policy page, and you think that is policy, then how do you square that POV with WP:PGCHANGE, which says the opposite? ("Editing a policy/guideline/essay page does not in itself imply an immediate change to accepted practice", emphasis added.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:16, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
Being underused is no one’s reason for removing it. Being wrong is a reason for removing it. Not enjoying consensus support is a sufficient reason for its removal. Even if it were right, policy pages need focus, so that they effectively communicate to their intended audience what they purport to communicate. The focus of WP:Consensus does not include downstream consequences of admin actions that do not enjoy consensus support. SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:54, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Support removal policy summarizes practice, and does not prescribe it. This is out of line with practice, so it should be removed. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:20, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Support removal this isn't general practice at all. For example if a contested admin closure of a deletion discussion is brought to deletion review and the discussion doesn't produce a consensus to overturn it then the closure usually stands. If a contested block is brought to WP:AN and there's no consensus about whether the block was a good idea then it will probably stand unless an individual admin takes a decision themselves to unblock. Hut 8.5 11:26, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Support removal until someone produces multiple examples showing that retaining an administrative action led to a poor outcome. If someone is appealing a block and there is no clear consensus, should the block be removed? I find it hard to believe that a bad block would lead to no consensus to unblock. A contested admin action will attract lots of attention and a lack of consensus would mean the admin action was at least reasonable. Johnuniq (talk) 02:43, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

What should be done when consensus goes against existing Wikipedia policy?

I've encountered a situation recently, where the consensus went against Wikipedia policy. Which has the higher rule? I would have thought that if consensus goes against policy, then the policy should be the overriding factor, and that first the policy should be changed before letting it be overridden by what could be a temporary consensus. At least, this is how the legal framework works (i.e. the law must be changed first, and existing laws cannot be simply ignored because they are unpopular). Rebroad (talk) 17:57, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

That's only true insofar as policy is non-enforceable, because Wikipedia has no rigid rules. Always remember that WP:IAR is policy, too; you cannot rationally enforce rules without incurring in a logical contradiction. Following rules for the sake of it is against Wikipedia policy. We as a community have built the core of our collaboration practice so that it doesn't work as a legal system even if at times looks like it does - (except for concerns of the actual legal ramifications of managing a public service, and probably for the new code of conduct, which do work as legal processes and are enforceable).
I concur with Blueboar and Butwhatdoiknow that policy reflects good practices, not dictates them. A strong consensus achieved in good faith when examining a specific case is a very good reason to change policy to reflect it and encompass the new case.
The best outcome is when that consensus arrives from having knowledgeable people assessing relevant policy, and deciding that the consensus they reach is the best course of action even if it doesn't literally match the letter of the rules. Diego (talk) 09:51, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Also, "Against policy" is usually somebody's subjective opinion. North8000 (talk) 10:47, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

@North8000 usually? If so, it’s because so many new editors don’t know much about our policies. Of course policy should reflect good practice. Doug Weller talk 18:04, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
@Doug Weller: I think that there is a far more common scenario. Editors are in a content debate/ dispute and in the debate, each is trying to come up with wiki-reasons to say that their preferred result should prevail. Then they interpret a policy as being applicable and say that the policy dictates that their preferred outcome should prevail and conversely, that the outcome that they oppose violates policy. And in reality, it's a matter of interpretation or creative interpretation and is not clear-cut.North8000 (talk) 18:22, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

adding clause addressing longstanding text

I think we need to establish a firm Status quo ante bellum policy. I needs to be clear that in dispute the text before conflict stays. I propose this to be added under WP:IMPLICIT

During a content dispute, the text should generally be restored to the status quo ante bellum, or the state prior to any conflict. Longstanding text is understood as implicit consensus.

If this already exist in some capacity let me know, as far as I'm aware this is just been an unwritten rule for a while that needs to be written in policy. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 02:25, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

  • I'd suggest instead you look at modifying NOCON; if this is changed in IMPLICIT instead, the caveats from NOCON (eg BLP) should be carried over. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:31, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
  • Your text covers two topics: (1) what content prevails during a discussion and (2) the weight editors should give to existing text. (It looks like Nikkimaria's comments relate to (3): what happens when a discussion ends without consensus.)
With regard to (1), the text you are looking for can be found within wp:QUO, but that is just an essay. I'd have no objection to the appropriate part of QUO being migrated to WP:DISCUSSCONSENSUS.
With regard to (2), I fear that adding the text would do little more than encourage wp:Status quo stonewalling. What would be the countervailing benefit?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Butwhatdoiknow (talk • contribs) 08:12, March 7, 2022
  • I would strongly oppose establishing such policy. As Butwhatdoiknow said, it would give incentives to block a version of the page with disruptive changes and refuse to discuss improvements. When a page is under heavy discussion, it means that someone has concerns with it, which may or may not be legitimate. People interested in keeping it unchanged should actively address those concerns and discuss them in detail each time, and not encouraged to merely pointing to policy as a way to justify stagnation. Diego (talk) 10:17, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
I wonder how many people read WP:IMPLICIT. So, first of all, what that section says is that consensus is a process that usually happens implicitly, i.e., without big discussions. You improve an article; your edits turn up in my watchlist, so I see your work and decide to add my own bit to the article; you see what I did, and it inspires you to work on the article some more.
There isn't a kind of result that is implicit. Text, whether long-standing or otherwise, is never "implicit consensus" itself. (That doesn't even make grammatical sense. People can have a consensus, but text can't be a consensus.) We presume that silence means consent, up until the moment when someone stops being silent.
So what you've proposed is that once we have evidence that there might be no consensus for the current version – at the moment that the "implicit" process needs to convert to an "active" one – we should double down on our possibly false and completely unsupported assumption that consensus ever existed for the prior version. This feels like a bad idea.
Also, you might be interested in m:The Wrong Version. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:51, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Edit summaries are edit warring

User:Chris troutman, I think you need to look at the sentence you just reverted back into place with fresh eyes. It says:

"Edit summaries are useful, but do not try to discuss disputes across multiple edit summaries; that is generally viewed as edit warring and may incur sanctions."

I removed the bit about using edit summaries to communicate as being "generally viewed as edit warring" (and the link, because the same policy is linked in the sentence immediately before that one). Notice the complete absence of anything in that sentence about "repeated reverting". This sentence does not say, as you put it in your edit summary, that ""no consensus for this" repeated reverting and discussion in edit summaries (like this) is going to look like edit warring". This sentence says only that "discussion in edit summaries (like this) is going to look like edit warring".

I agree that repeated reverting is going to look like edit warring.

I do not agree that discussion via edit summaries is going to look like edit warring.

It's the repeated reverting that's the problem, not the edit summaries. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:55, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

@WhatamIdoing: It says "do not try to discuss disputes across multiple edit summaries" [emphasis mine]; the discussion and the edits are across multiple reverts. Removing the text that you had weakens the warning not to continually revert to the preferred version while arguing via edit summary. Further, your edit summary seemed to say that the assertion was false, and it is not. Since the sentence used the word "multiple", it did not imply a single edit summary. Chris Troutman (talk) 03:48, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
The sentence does not say that the edits are across multiple reverts. The sentence, as written, says that if "discussion across multiple edit summaries" looks like this:
  • Alice: Clarifying this paragraph.
  • Bob: Tagging this, because it looks like this source is about widgets, not thingies.
  • Alice: Adding information about thingies originally being called widgets. Bob, does that address your concern?
  • Bob: Self-reverting addition of tag. I'm satisfied.
There's a "dispute" (Bob thought Alice's source failed verification), it involves "multiple edit summaries", and there is no admin in the entire community who will interpret that as edit warring.
Therefore, it is untrue that "discuss[ing] disputes across multiple edit summaries [...] is generally viewed as edit warring". This is true if and only if the editors were additionally performing repeated reversions, and it would be true in that case because of the repeated reversions, not because of their edit summaries.
If you wanted to have a sentence that was actually true, then it would probably look something like this (including the existing immediately preceding sentence for context):
Repeated reversions are contrary to Wikipedia policy under Edit warring, except for specific policy-based material (such as BLP exceptions) and for reversions of vandalism. This is true even if editors are using edit summaries to "discuss" the dispute every time they revert.
Does that make sense? WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:27, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
I don't read it the way you seem to and I don't think the original content needed changing, but I am fine with your formulation above. Chris Troutman (talk) 19:20, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
Chris, would you like to make that change? WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:41, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
@WhatamIdoing:  Done Chris Troutman (talk) 22:07, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

New policy creation? WP:STALEMATE

Consensus is Wikipedia's friend. It is the backbone of discussion and the statute which decides all that is done here. However, sometimes I feel it fails to accurately represent the problem at hand. There are certain situations in which stalemates should be enough to continue with the implementation of guidelines/policies (see WP:LEADCITE).

WP: STALEMATE would address two issues: the relatively minor issue of what to do when stalemate happens, and the controversial issue of what to do when consensus isn't needed to proceed (WP:MINORCONSENT?) I think there is a need for a policy such as this, as sometimes stalemate proves that a problem is important enough to be addressed. This would apply only to specific policies and guidelines, and consensus would take precedent in most cases. What do yall think? Is it serious enough to pursue? 2ple (talk) 00:45, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

  • I have found that many stalemates arise in one of two situations: 1) The question was framed as a binary “chose A or B” - without exploring the possibility of other outcomes (C, D, E etc). 2) Editors are not actually seeking consensus, but to “win” a disagreement. Thus, neither “side” looks for compromise. Blueboar (talk) 10:30, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose: We already have policies dealing with this. First Dispute Resolution to try to work out the stalemate and, second, WP:NOCONSENSUS that says what happens if it can't be resolved. It needs to be remembered that due to the purpose of Wikipedia as an encyclopedia and the fundamental wiki nature of the decision-making process here that "no consensus" is a perfectly acceptable result to a proposed change. To add a new policy when this has already been carefully dealt with elsewhere would just be rule creep. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 18:42, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
    The point of WP:STALEMATE would be A) to outline how to proceed in the case of stalemate (which I know is already addressed in multiple policies, but this would consolidate and elaborate) and B) a second policy, separate from consensus, that details situations in which stalemate is enough to proceed. Been reading through ANIs and policy talk pages and I have realized that the need for a policy to cite in those situations is abundant. WP:NOCONSENSUS is good, but it mainly details what to revert/put back, and doesn't focus on what to add. 2ple (talk) 20:03, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
    You don't need to add to policy to achieve A, just write an explanatory essay. Here's a start of what to include: wp:NOCON, wp:ONUS, and wp:BURDEN. I'm not sure what you mean by "enough to proceed" in your description of B. Is it "how to determine that you have reached the point of 'no consensus'"? - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 21:36, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
    No, even earlier than that. The point when the argument is argued by more than, say, five people, and it's getting nowhere. Not the point of no consensus. 2ple (talk) 00:22, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
    And what do you have in mind that someone would do to "proceed" at that point? - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 00:36, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
    It is entirely dependent on the situation. See below one example. 2ple (talk) 03:44, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
    Please provide a better way to find "below one example." Perhaps the date and time that you posted it. - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 04:51, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
    03:43, 12 May 2022 2ple (talk) 13:10, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
    Thanks. - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 16:44, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
    I'm having trouble seeing the difference between "getting nowhere" and "no consensus." Regardless, if what you do at that point is entirely dependent on the situation then how can you write text that covers all situations? To better illustrate what you have in mind, consider, drafting sample text on one of your sandbox pages and linking to that in this conversation. - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 16:44, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
    User:2ple/sandbox I don't have time to finish it now, and would really appreciate if people could help me finish it/fix it. 2ple (talk) 21:30, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

I also don't think that it's a good idea. Essentially For the reasons given by TransporterMan, but also responding on your points. First, "impasse" covers a zillion situations with many variables that are relevant to what should happen next. Second, the idea of trying to create a "roadmap" for those and enshrine the roadmap as a policy is IMO not a good or viable idea. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 20:16, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

It wouldn't be a roadmap per se. I envision something that looks like WP:NOCON, i.e. a list. 2ple (talk) 20:31, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
All you need is a five word statement: “TRY TO FIND A COMPROMISE” Blueboar (talk) 20:50, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
I'm not sure how this would be different from NOCON. Can you give me an example of a situation in which we have both a stalemate and a solid consensus? WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:05, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
A: This is controversial, we should cite it
B: But it's in the lead, let's not
A's argument: It's a controversial statement in the lead of a BLP, and the lead is the most visible part of the page
B's argument: Cites clutter the lead, any relevant citations can be found in the body
A's rebuttal: Yes, but controversial stuff deserve citations, especially in long articles where it's hard to find them
B's rebuttal: Yes, but...
A and B both grow into groups that argue over whether or not to cite in the lead.
If this happens, the problem has been adressed. In this situation, don't you think that the cite should be put in, at least in the case of BLPs? There might not be consensus over whether or not to cite in the lead, but there is consensus that the statement is controversial. Shouldn't this be enough to proceed? 2ple (talk) 03:43, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
Do you intend that this new policy would give a more in-depth list of what to do in the case of specific disagreements? That is, the policy would just say For BLPs if there is disagreement over whether to include a citation in the lead, it should be included (or similar)? — HTGS (talk) 00:00, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
@2ple, I asked for a stalemate with a solid consensus. You provided me an example of a stalemate with no consensus. A and B have not agreed; there is no consensus.
Did you mean "a stalemate about one thing (e.g., whether to put citations in the lead) but a consensus about a technically separate question (e.g., whether this statement in the lead is contentious matter about a living person)"? WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:58, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
Yes. 2ple (talk) 03:00, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
Essentially. See User:2ple/sandbox 2ple (talk) 03:06, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
I don't think that (the current draft in your sandbox) will achieve your goal. Consider, e.g., your advice about "lead sections of BLPs that are not worded neutrally": Such disputes are usually about whether it is worded neutrally. It is rare to encounter a situation in which editors agree that it is not worded neutrally and agree enough about how to fix it that it's actually possible for them to take your advice about re-writing it. If you encounter that, then actual/original WP:BRD might help (but not Wikipedia:What editors mean when they say you have to follow BRD – I suggest going back through BRD's page history and reading some of the version from ~15 years ago to figure out why its one-on-one negotiation tactic might help in this sort of "stuck" situation).
I suspect that the suggestion from @HTGS to add "For BLPs if there is disagreement over whether to include a citation in the lead, it should be included" is more likely to solve your actual problem. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:27, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
@2ple: In that case I don’t see why a new page (or section) is needed. The ultimate goal of yours fits fine into what NOCON is, at least conceptually (that is, assuming it passes agreement here). — HTGS (talk) 02:10, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose, wrong policy. WP:Consensus is about consensus and how to get there. What to do in the absence of consensus, and formalities of decisions to give up declaring “no consensus” so as to move on to something productive, will reference WP:Consensus, but it is not WP:Consensus. The proposal has merit, but it belongs at Wikipedia:Editing policy. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:27, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
  • See the discussion linked below. We already have people arguing over a contradiction between WP:NOCON and WP:ONUS; adding STALEMATE would just give us a third policy that could contradict both of them! Either way we would need to resolve that dispute before we could write anything meaningful. --Aquillion (talk) 18:16, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

NOCON / ONUS

I've reverted the addition of text in NOCON referencing ONUS, partially because the removal of corresponding text at ONUS gave the impression that the edit was subordinating NOCON to ONUS, partially because it could risk undermining an important policy, and partially because I don't think ONUS is currently well-written enough that we should be directing people to it as a way to resolve disputes. Either way, I don't think we should make any edits connecting / contrasting the two until the dispute at ONUS is resolved. (To avoid duplicating discussion, replies should probably be at the discussion on WP:V; I'm just including a note here to explain my revert on the page where it happened.) --Aquillion (talk) 21:41, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Does consensus expire?

"Consensus can change", but does it expire spontaneously without being challenged? I found no results searching the archives. Thanks! Flatscan (talk) 04:35, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

WP:EDITCONSENSUS provides: "An edit has presumed consensus until it is disputed or reverted. Should another editor revise that edit then the new edit will have presumed consensus until it meets with disagreement." - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 04:56, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
@Flatscan, even if it did, you wouldn't know until it was challenged. Note that "challenge" usually looks like someone just editing the article in ways that they believe will improve it. It almost never looks like someone saying "I challenge the consensus about ____ in this article". WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:48, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for the replies. I was thinking of a request for comment about a policy/guideline interpretation. Due to wide publicizing and participation, it would start with a high level of consensus, but it would be archived and rarely read, even if cited. Flatscan (talk) 04:22, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
So we wouldn't say that it "expires", but Wikipedia:Consensus can change, and it can change without anyone saying anything. Our processes/systems cause some difficulties in this area. Imagine an RFC from years ago. It settled some question, based on the information available at the time and the views of the participants. But over the years, other editors begin working on that subject. They are unaware of the previous discussions, including the RFC. There is new information, and there are other people, with different views. They make changes that are "against" the old RFC.
What happens next? Well, there are three possibilities:
  • Nobody objects, so nobody cares whether the new changes contradict the old RFC (assuming anyone remembers it happened).
  • Somebody objects but doesn't know about the old RFC. A normal/new discussion happens and reaches its result in the normal fashion.
  • Somebody who remembers the old RFC objects and accuses the editors of editing "against consensus".
This last one can be unpleasant at a personal level, but the solution is the same as the second situation: Have a normal/new discussion, and see what agreement is reached this time.
It is important to remember that even the most well-attended discussion only determines what we thought at the time; it does not lay down Wikipedia:The Truth forever. This is why RFC results are not enshrined as a binding decision on all editors forever. We only rarely document the results of an RFC in ways that keep it visible beyond the normal archiving length of a talk page (here's one of those rare examples, from 2005). Not privileging the results of past discussions helps us remember that consensus can change, and that we should do the best by the articles that we can do today, instead of enforcing past decisions. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:23, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
Consensus doesn’t necessarily expire, but it could do. Consensus is presumed to endure unless successfully challenged or it is demonstrated to have changed, and then, the preferred terminology is that “consensus has changed”, not “expired”. It’s possible that a decision was taken with a sunset clause, which would lead to meaning of “expired”. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:42, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Move NOCON to WP:Editing policy

I propose to move the entire NOCON section to WP:Editing policy. It is out of scope here. It speaks to how one should edit if there is not consensus. Not consensus is not in scope for consensus. Of course, NOCON will cite WP:Consensus, but rules laid down by it are not based on the meaning of consensus and how to get to consensus. SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:07, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

@SmokeyJoe, I think I'd rather see the whole section on a separate page, titled something like Wikipedia:What happens when there is no consensus. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:31, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
I don't think NOCON should be moved out of Consensus without also moving ONUS out of V. Kolya Butternut (talk) 23:45, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
Why? WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:28, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
Disagree, that is an unrelated issue. SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:56, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
I don't think we can separate this issue from the ongoing ONUS dipsute. Kolya Butternut (talk) 14:22, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
Do you object to moving it to its own page, or do you object to moving it to a different policy? WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:20, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
V needs ONUS. In my experience it is one of the more helpful bits of policy when dealing with newer editors. It is how we explain to newer editors the entire concept that just because we can find a source for how many poops a person's dog takes each day doesn't mean we need to include that in the BLP. "Although this is verifiable, it does not need to be included unless we can persuade others why." The two ideas (V and ONUS) need to be in the same short snippet of policy so that newer editors see the clear connection. valereee (talk) 17:34, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
I don't know how much of WT:V you've read, but I am not proposing we move the first part of the section, which I would leave with just the WP:VNOT shortcut. I don't think we should be moving NOCON anywhere while there is a dispute between NOCON and ONUS. Kolya Butternut (talk) 19:10, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
Bless your heart. Here's what the entire section consists of right now. Literally all mentions of ONUS -- only 3 on the entire page at V -- are in this tiny section:
==Other issues==
===Verifiability does not guarantee inclusion===
Shortcuts
"WP:ONUS" redirects here. For the responsibility to demonstrate verifiability, see WP:BURDEN.
Main page: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not § Encyclopedic content
See also: WP:UNDUE, WP:PAGEDECIDE, WP:PRESERVE, WP:SUMMARY, and WP:IINFO
While information must be verifiable for inclusion in an article, not all verifiable information must be included. Consensus may determine that certain information does not improve an article. Such information should be omitted or presented instead in a different article. The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content.
So that's the entire coverage of ONUS at V. What were you proposing we move? valereee (talk) 19:22, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
I would ask that you familiarize yourself with at least some of the many discussions at WT:V. Kolya Butternut (talk) 19:32, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
Always so kind. I've stated my opinion, from the standpoint of a content creator who commonly deals with new editors who don't understand policy, that V needs ONUS, and why. I've asked you to clarify exactly what you propose. Instead you prefer -- twice, now -- to simply dismiss as uninformed an opinion that doesn't coincide with your own. valereee (talk) 19:48, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
I am mostly agreeing with you, but you have misinterpreted my comments and have unnecessarily escalated this discussion due to feelings you are holding onto about me, as demonstrated by your rude comments (one retracted as of this comment), "always so kind", "bless your heart", "fine, don't answer", and "how many poops a person's dog takes each day".[6] I would be happy to discuss this with someone else who is less personally involved with me. Kolya Butternut (talk) 20:36, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
@Kolya Butternut, I pull back comments because I want to be kinder. Often. You can find my contributions history littered with me revising a talk comment with something like, "Softer" or "Kinder" or "Unnecessary" or "no need to be mean". I have no idea what the dog poop comment means, it was an example that as far as I know has nothing to do with you. I pulled back the 'fine, don't answer' because, as I said in the edit summary, I actually rethought that and hoped you would. I simply reacted to your accusations, and really 'Bless your heart' is pretty mild. 'Always so kind' ditto, in response to a second accusation. And I do not consider us to be at all personally involved. valereee (talk) 20:43, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
Here's one from three days ago: Special:Diff/1095333776. Me deciding to pull back on a talk comment because it felt unnecessarily mean. valereee (talk) 20:53, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
User:WhatamIdoing, that might be a good idea. I still think that WP:Editing policy should be the root of policy on proceeding after having the result of “no consensus”, but a separate page for the meat of advice might be a very good idea, for keeping new ideas in one page history is one example. Your suggestion is maybe too long. Maybe WP:Proceeding without consensus. WP:Proceeding with no consensus. What happens when there is no consensus? I think that on a formal declaration of a “no consensus”, unfortunately usually nothing happens. SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:56, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
There have long been concerns about "Consensus" having content about what some editors consider to be its opposite, and I the Editing policy is relevant. A {{Main}} summary approach could be useful. I think another point that we haven't made clear is that a true, lasting no-consensus-either-way situation is pretty uncommon. Often when editors say "no consensus" they mean something closer to "consensus for the other side". WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:23, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
At XfD and RM, there’s a lot of “no consensus”. In effect it means “let’s leave it for a while”. SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:26, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
That's part of the problem here, it's not one size fits all, main deletion discussions, for example, are deciding whether a topic should be deleted, not technically anything within the content of the topic should be in, stay, or go. ONUS generally assumes you are dealing with viable topics and its focus is bits of content, not topic viability, but Deletion discussions cannot assume that, their focus is overall viability, where the default of no consensus, basically defaults to 'possibly viable', so the topic stays. Contrast that where the issue is a disagreement about: Relevance of bit of content, or POV, or NOR, or BLP, or CVIO, where no consensus means disputed relevance, disputed POV, disputed OR, disputed BLP, disputed CVIO. What's at stake for content in articles is different, than whether the article should exist, at all. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:59, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
Still, SmokeyJoe captures the essence, I think, nocon just means we'll get back to this (or not) and meanwhile it stays as is.Selfstudier (talk) 13:01, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
Maybe there's something exceptional with WP:XFD or WP:RM but for most articles it would be wrong to change policy which requires reversion of insertions done without consensus. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:00, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
@[[user:Peter Gulutzan]], you refer to a "policy which requires reversion of insertions done without consensus" Which policy is that? - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 15:21, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
  • No such policy (else we have to delete WP:BRD, which is all about editing without a clear consensus), and I think Peter didn't quite mean it the way that he wrote it. CHALLENGE permits the removal of insertions of unsourced content; ONUS permits the removal of sourced content unless/until there is consensus to retain it.
There are times when the policies favor removal, such as: BLP requires the removal of unsourced and poorly sourced contentious matter about a living person. COPYVIO requires the removal of copyright violations. NPOV requires or at least encourages the removal of UNDUE emphasis (although this may be achieved through a partial removal, rather than wholesale reverting).
I agree with @Alanscottwalker: What to do when you can't agree is not a one-size-fits-all rule. It's far more complicated than saying "Oh, we always default to whatever version someone claims is the 'status quo'" QUO itself limits its reach to "During a dispute discussion". It does not say what to do when the discussion ends with no agreement either way. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:18, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
  • The policy is WP:ONUS "The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content." so once the inserter fails the reversion by the inserter's opponent stands. When there are two options and one has been excluded, the remaining one is the only option, so I believe "requires" is a reasonable word. WP:BRD seems to make the same requirement but is not a policy. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 13:54, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
    @Peter Gulutzan, I think the concern with your wording ("requires reversion of insertions done without consensus") is this:
  • Alice boldly adds something.
  • Bob sees it and believes there is no consensus for the addition.
Is there a policy that says Bob is actually required to revert Alice? The Wikipedia:Editing policy gives editors many options, and reversion is only one of the options. Maybe Bob could start a discussion first. Maybe Bob could refine or improve the edit. Maybe Bob could decide to ignore it.
AFAICT none of our policies actually require any individual editors to revert anything, if they don't want to.
What the policies do require, in the end, is for other editors to accept that Bob is permitted to revert, if he chooses to do so. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:02, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
  • Peter Gulutzan, ONUS specifically applies only to insertions that are "disputed," not to all insertions. Did you mean to imply that in your characterization ("policy which requires reversion of insertions done without consensus") or is there a policy that requires consensus before an editor can make an insertion? - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 16:13, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
You're correct of course, I'm sorry for not being clear that this only applies when the insertion is disputed. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 17:05, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
User:WhatamIdoing, why? - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 15:40, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
I wrote NOCON originally as a handy central location for finding out what all the different "defaults" were. For example: If there's no consensus at AFD, we keep the article; if there's no consensus about an ==External link==, we remove the link. I thought it would be convenient; I'm not sure that it actually is convenient. I'm pretty certain that it's not strictly necessary.
Then there's the problem of what to do with no consensus in articles. This isn't defined elsewhere (so including it here is technically a violation of NOCON's internal rules). I didn't add it because conversations at the time suggested that there wasn't a single rule. I think that subsequent discussions have proven that sentiment correct. I think the solution to what's called the ONUS-vs-NOCON conflict (which is not a common situation), but which really is a problem with a very complex situation being summarized in one simplistic sentence, is going to involve putting a lot more words on the page and is going to involve a lot of trying things out until we identify a greater percentage of the unusual situations. Right now, NOCON is about 10% of this page. I think it will expand significantly, and I would not want it to be (e.g.,) 25% of this page.
So: it's not necessary; it's of doubtful practical value; the current version is partially wrong/incomplete; it might overwhelm the page. I think that is more than enough reasons to consider moving it elsewhere. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:44, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
I think NOCON is good and important to be in a definite location. SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:46, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
  • Whether we move it to another page or not… NOCON does have one glaring omission - It presents only two options (keep or remove/delete)… but there is often a third option: “Suggest compromises until consensus is reached.” This needs to be included. Blueboar (talk) 18:46, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
    @Blueboar, this assumes there's often room for compromise. In discussions where I'm arguing ONUS, there more often isn't. I wouldn't be arguing ONUS if there were room for compromise. I don't think I'm unusual in that. valereee (talk) 21:05, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
    Sometimes not reaching an agreement is a temporary situation. Sometimes it's not. Sometimes compromises are the best approach. Sometimes it's not really possible. If someone wants to include a specific picture (e.g., because I took the photo and I'm really proud of it), then you can't realistically compromise on including my photo halfway. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:46, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
    But you might be able to reach a compromise consensus on including a similar but slightly different photo.
I’m not saying that a compromise is always possible, I am noting that we don’t even mention the possibility. Too often, we get bogged down debating “should the article contain X - Yes/No” and we forget to explore alternatives to X that everyone could live with. Blueboar (talk) 13:32, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
@Blueboar, to provide an example: FWIW: I wouldn't use ONUS here in this discussion we'r having. There is room for compromise on whether we need to somehow include that compromise might be something to consider. I wouldn't want us to, for instance, include wording on finding compromise in the section on 'verifiability does not guarantee inclusion' because in such a short section, it takes on too much authority. However, what I could agree on is that we might include a link to Wikipedia:Compromise in the headers along with the other see also links there. :D So in this case, yes, compromise is a possibility, and I wouldn't argue ONUS. valereee (talk) 13:44, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
I wasn’t discussing ONUS… I was commenting on NOCON. Blueboar (talk) 14:19, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
lol...I was still back in a previous tangent, sorry! valereee (talk) 14:20, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
Blueboar, you've missed the key point. Choosing "a similar but slightly different photo" means "my picture isn't in the article". If my goal is to have my own photo in the article, then choosing any photo that isn't mine isn't "compromise"; it's "losing". WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:58, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
By the time we reach NOCON, we've already been told of the importance of compromise Through editing and Through discussion. Then in the first line of NOCON, we're told it occurs after WP:DGF stalls or fails, a link that also reminds us once again about compromise. With that said, I'm not opposed to the suggestion necessarily, as having it stated explicitly could still be helpful. Just wanted to be mindful of taking potential bloat into consideration. On the other hand, this is a good opportunity to indicate that the consensus-building process is a cycle that can repeat itself; it does not necessarily end. --GoneIn60 (talk) 15:19, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Question

How does a person[7] get consensus[8] in a discussion[9] that[10] appears[11][12] to[13] get[14][15][16] disrupted?[17][18][19] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.74.87.245 (talk) 06:17, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

It might be appropriate to read Wikipedia:How to lose. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:25, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

On adding a tag to direct people to this talk page

It is my opinion that NOCON and ONUS conflict with each other, in one (fortunately rare) circumstance. This has been discussed at length both here and at WT:V for several years now (e.g., Wikipedia talk:Consensus/Archive 20#more clearly defined "no consensus" policy? in 2017, Wikipedia talk:Consensus/Archive 20#Regarding consensus on removal of content in 2018, Wikipedia talk:Consensus/Archive 21#NOCONSENSUS in article pages -- recent edits, and ONUS in 2020, and many more). I think it would be appropriate to add a small inline template to the relevant sentence, so that editors can find the current discussion.

I first thought I'd be specific, so I added Template:Contradict-inline. Kolya Butternut reverted that 11 minutes later with an edit summary that said "No consensus that there's a contradiction." I don't think that this template actually requires a consensus that the contradiction exists – after all, the point of a maintenance tag is to identify a concern and then resolve it, and not to document that everyone agrees that a problem exists – but, sure.

So then I changed the tag to Template:Disputed inline, because surely nobody can disagree that this is disputed. I am disputing this; therefore it is disputed. But Kolya promptly reverted that, too, with an edit summary that says "Please do not define the dispute for everyone. Not everyone agrees there is a dispute between these policies. Please do not tag again without discussion."

So here I am: May I please have written permission to add a small inline tag to one sentence on this page, so that any interested editors can find the relevant discussion above? WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:31, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Your tag wasn't a simple disputed tag.
The tags were discussed here: WT:V#Dispute_tags_here_and_on_WP:NOCON Kolya Butternut (talk) 02:39, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
I hadn't seen that discussion. I still believe that it is in everyone's best interest for editors to be aware of these discussions, and not just the handful of people who watch these pages closely. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:55, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

History of NOCON

This was added on October 12, 2012: In discussions of proposals to add, modify or delete textual material, a lack of consensus commonly results in retaining the text as it was prior to the proposal.[20] Kolya Butternut (talk) 10:59, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Do NOCON and ONUS contradict?

Split from section above.[21] Kolya Butternut (talk) 09:46, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

What do you believe is the contradiction? Kolya Butternut (talk) 02:39, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

I believe I have explained the contradiction multiple times. You might find this story to be a useful summary if you have forgotten them. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:55, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
As HighInBC said when ONUS was first added, "any change challenged needs consensus".[22] As I said at WT:V, any change to consensus needs consensus, whether it's to add, remove, or change. I believe this dispute is really about implicit consensus. Kolya Butternut (talk) 03:32, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
We're talking about a tag in Wikipedia space, not content in mainspace. Why do you think ONUS applies? - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 04:20, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
I'm talking about the policy itself now, not the tags. Kolya Butternut (talk) 04:25, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
Okay, why are you talking about the policy if the subject of this discussion is whether to add a tag or not? - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 05:51, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
I've split the section and refactored the comments. Kolya Butternut (talk) 09:40, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
  • I do not believe WP:V's WP:ONUS and WP:NOCON contradict. First comment is that both are stylistically complicated by being exceptions to the focus of the policy they sit in, which means both are a rough fit at the edges. Second, is that WP:ONUS has subtle language that admits status quo ante, which is a strong traditional principle, and I believe there is a consensus that in the absence of consensus that status quo ante remains. To dispute status quo ante, you must demonstrate long-standing opposition. Third comment is that WP:NOCON is not policy-speak rule-setting, but a listing of examples that show what usually happens when consensus is proving elusive. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:07, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Yes, on the face of it they often conflict. The fuzzy wikipedia system somewhat handles/resolves/redefines that, (basically agreeing with SmokeyJoe) but relying on that is not a good idea. We should carefully fix the conflict my changing or eliminating wp:onus. North8000 (talk) 12:13, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

I think NOCON should be moved to WP:Editing policy, where should be stated briefly and then point to a supplemental essay to go into detail.
I think ONUS could be improved by making the text speak more plainly, by separating the concepts of "including" from "to include" from "included". ONUS does not speak directly to material already there. It speaks directly only to current editing to add something new. However, this is the wrong page to talk about improvements to ONUS. SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:23, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
  • I believe they conflict as written. It is only when personal interpretations, based on things like precedent or historical context, are injected into the equation – hidden meanings if you will – do we find a way in which they don't. Less experienced editors aren't going to glean those anecdotal accounts from the text; they are going to take the words at face value. And in that regard, there is a contradiction in certain situations, with one described well in WhatamIdoing's example above. I believe the phrase "to include disputed content" in ONUS is interpreted by some to mean "to change the last stable version", and when interpreted in this manner, there is no contradiction with NOCON. It conveniently shifts the onus to the challenger as needed to get out of the jam.
    The problem, of course, is that we can't all agree on that interpretation. Team "stable version" rides the notion that presumed consensus eventually becomes achieved consensus without discussion, but at what point does that happen? No one ever seems to have a clear answer. IMPLICITCONSENSUS just says presumed consensus goes out the window as soon as a dispute occurs. So naturally, others consider this a reset of sorts that shifts the responsibility back to content supporters (and thus, validates what ONUS actually says about inclusion). NOCON, on the other hand, leans toward keeping the onus on challengers. Out of the three in this specific kind of situation, NOCON seems like the odd one out. --GoneIn60 (talk) 15:12, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
There is no contradiction with respect to contested insertions. WP:NOCON's "version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit" -- notice the word "or" -- means we either go back to status quo ante propositionem (the complaint about the bold edit) or status quo ante editionem (the bold edit). So it's leaving it up to WP:ONUS to decide which one applies. WP:ONUS does decide: when the bold edit was an insertion, it can be reverted. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 16:33, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Copy editing nutshell

User:Thinker78, why do you not agree with the change? - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 02:22, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

The previous version emphasized much more the role of consensus in editorial decisions in Wikipedia. Your edit downgraded such emphasis to a mere casual delimitation of the process. Thinker78 (talk) 02:27, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
Got it. How about this: Consensus, Wikipedia's fundamental method of editorial decision making, is marked by addressing editors' legitimate concerns through a process of compromise while following Wikipedia policies. - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 04:25, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
"Consensus is Wikipedia's fundamental method of editorial decision making, and is marked by addressing editors' legitimate concerns through a process of compromise while following Wikipedia policies." Important to keep "is", per my previous argument. --Thinker78 (talk) 15:35, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
It is not clear to me that the first "is" adds any emphasis to the sentence, but let's say we've reached agreement on this version. - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 16:28, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Another proposed change: Consensus is Wikipedia's fundamental method of editorial decision making, and is marked by addressing editors' legitimate concerns through a process of compromise while following Wikipedia policies. - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 16:28, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Sounds good. Thinker78 (talk) 01:07, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

I, for one, disagree with the conduct policy of "consensus".

The person with the ongoing logical reasoning should win. Altanner1991 (talk) 15:56, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

  • If your arguments are indeed logical, you will convince enough other people and consensus will support you. Blueboar (talk) 16:01, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
  • Altanner1991, the way we decide which ongoing logical reasoning is the right one is via consensus. Valereee (talk) 16:04, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
    You are correct because people would endlessly give illogical reasoning. I should modify my argument to be more correct: you are entirely correct about the principle of consensus per-se. My thinking was about the "closing" procedures in any debate, so I would have to present my argument freshly and in another context. Since the noticeboards and similar procedures are likely to be more fair than the average article talk page discussion, I will close my argument on that note.
    Thank you for your thoughts. Altanner1991 (talk) 16:07, 31 July 2022 (UTC); edited 08:45, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Please step away from the concept of "winning." Consensus, as the policy states, "involve[s] an effort to incorporate all editors' legitimate concerns." Unfortunately, many editors do not make this effort. - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 22:57, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
    That's a very awesome and very poignant principle, thank you. Altanner1991 (talk) 13:51, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

orh

There is wrong information on a article called "orh" That article is about od rajput. They have equated od rajput with oda chasa. These two has no connection at all. There is no source or proof on this. This is misleading. Pls check this. Studentlife123 (talk) 11:02, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

The problem is that there is a cited source that equates od rajput with oda chasa. Now, it might be that this cited source is flawed in some way (I don’t know the topic well enough to determine that)… but if you want to argue that this source is flawed, you need to come up with alternative sources to explain why the source is flawed. Blueboar (talk) 12:23, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
@Studentlife123: I advise you to read how to reach consensus when you disagree with someone and to check the dispute resolution process at WP:DISPUTE. Cheers! Thinker78 (talk) 22:06, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

No sir ,the cited source has no mention of od rajput .the source said the chasa has a sub group name oda .no mention of od rajput. There is no source says any connection between od rajput and oda chasa. It just sounds same. Oda chasa are from odra kingdom of odisha. Odia people are known as Oda. https://historyofodisha.in/odra/ Studentlife123 (talk) 03:46, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/international-journal-of-asian-studies/article/genealogies-of-the-paika-rebellion-heterogeneities-and-linkages/4F1D10668F4ED9EE67FA01845047B201/share/ac52e489f0fa78d01a79aae993316ba1a10bf295 This source will prove oda is a synonym of odia. There are oda paika in paika rebellion and oda khandayat. Page 10 .last paragraph. Studentlife123 (talk) 04:31, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

I am not able to share a article. Please search odisha origin by Dr cb Patel. Pls read the article of odisha govt. Magazine website. Pls sir. Studentlife123 (talk) 12:46, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

This discussion is best have in the article talk page or in a relevant venue. This page is to talk about the consensus policy. Cheers! Thinker78 (talk) 00:59, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Edits to .30-06 caliber

Manufacturers own blueprint have a tolerance range for bullet projectile of .3090 minus .0030 thus making the .30-06 caliber a range of .306 to .309. Someone removed a CORRECT caliber designation. I simply edited to correct the incorrect edit. Mine was reversed yet the other was not. Apoc41 (talk) 01:04, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

All you need to do it go to the talk page of the article, and provide some references to show that this is the designation. That is the correct place for this discussion. Once you open a section on that talk page, you can post your references supporting this designation and discuss it with the other editors and gain consensus. Canterbury Tail talk 01:11, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

WP:NOCON and policy pages.

WP:NOCON says that a no-consensus outcome for articles normally results in the disputed text being kept. It currently says nothing about what we do for no-consensus outcomes regarding policy pages. On numerous occasions in the past we've ended up with disputed text on a policy page that was added without discussion long in the past, which never had an affirmative consensus, and where discussions result in no consensus outcomes. My feeling is that all policy (outside of a few non-negotiable core points) should require affirmative consensus at all times; a policy without an affirmative consensus backing it isn't policy and shouldn't be enforced. Therefore, I suggest we add a point to WP:NOCON saying that a no-consensus outcome for disputed text on policy pages results in the disputed text being removed or trimmed down to whatever minimal version a consensus exists for. --Aquillion (talk) 21:02, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

An affirmative-consensus requirement would seem to contradict WP:PGBOLD. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:47, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
I think what Aquillion means here is more like an affirmative-consensus-when-challenged requirement. It would still fit BRD, but would not fit a bold edit that got left for ten years then discussed with a resultant unclear consensus.
But really, this sort of change would be choosing to be explicitly and actively anti-CREEP (anti-rule?), rather than agnostic by mission. — HTGS (talk) 10:14, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
Yes. Often when we see discussions with unclear consensus on policy pages, they are regarding proposed changes - eg "I think instead of X this policy should say Y". An unclear consensus outcome to such a discussion doesn't automatically mean we should have a policy that says neither X nor Y. (Plus with increasing edit age it can be tricky to track down where there might have been affirmative consensus). Nikkimaria (talk) 02:27, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
This change would only affect WP:RFCs, which only happen when something has been challenged. There would still be the presumption of consensus for things that haven't been challenged. --Aquillion (talk) 19:37, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
I still think that NOCON should be sent elsewhere, namely WP:Editing policy. To a simple reading, “no consensus” is outside the scope of “consensus”. This policy is about the importance of consensus and how to get there. No consensus is about what happens when we decide to give up trying to get there, on some specific thing. It’s about how to edit without consensus. WP:Editing policy seems suited. SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:01, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
Yes, policy almost by definition is written down consensus so it shouldn't prescribe anything that doesn't reflect a community consensus. Galobtter (pingó mió) 02:43, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

Re: NOCON

Currently WP:NOCON says:

  • In discussions of proposals to add, modify, or remove material in articles, a lack of consensus commonly results in retaining the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit.

This certainly was common practice when it was written, but given the recent discussions about ONUS, I have to ask whether this is still practice? Have we shifted to NOT retaining when there is no consensus? Blueboar (talk) 15:22, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

The discussion at ONUS suggests that a lack of consensus commonly results in any of a number of outcomes and neither NOCON or ONUS reflect "the" common practice. - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 18:01, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
Fair enough… but if NOCON no longer reflects common practice we should probably amend it.
So… what IS common practice these days? My personal sense of actual practice is that we retain less often than we used to, but are not quite at “usually omit” (except in BLP situations). Can we clarify? When do we retain and when do we omit? Blueboar (talk) 20:36, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
Based on the discussion at ONUS, I doubt very much that we can clarify. - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 23:44, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
Can we agree that it's common practice to retain longstanding material pending dispute resolution? WP:QUO I guess? Kolya Butternut (talk) 23:51, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
That’s part of what I am asking… that used to be common practice, but I am not sure whether that is still common practice. Practice seems to have shifted (or, at least, to be shifting) away from retention. Blueboar (talk) 00:02, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
We could agree to that, but I don't think it helps us with NOCON (which says what happens when discussion fails). - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 01:40, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
Maybe practice is "shifting" (without stats that's hard to know), but policy is to not retain. ONUS is policy, QUO is merely an essay. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 16:44, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
“but if NOCON no longer reflects common practice we should probably amend it.”
I suggest removing it. Split to an essay. Summarise in WP:Editing policy.
WP:Consensus is about consensus decision-making and how, on Wikipedia, it is found. NOCON concerns itself with not-consensus and when editors (justifiably usually) decide to give up trying (on the specific small question) and what to do. It’s after a fork to another road. SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:37, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
Again, changing NOCON will affect the huge ONUS dispute. If anything is out of place it is the last sentence of ONUS, which is used as a conduct policy. Kolya Butternut (talk) 01:12, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
Did you mean to place this post in #Revert number 3? - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 01:28, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
Again, I encourage you to start a new "Delete NOCON" section to raise these issues. - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 01:29, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
There is one serious argument against NOCON. Consider this situation: Some user finds a serious problem with some text. That may be WP:REDFLAG violation, WP:NOR violation etc. This issue has never been discussed before, simply because noone noticed the problem. If the discussion of the problem doesn't lead to a consensus, this problematic text stays, even if some users merely object to its removal without providing serious arguments. They usually cite NOCON: if the text is long standing, and some users disagree with its removal, NOCON ostensibly takes effect.
This situation is pretty common, especially in low importance articles, which means low quality content continues to grow in Wikipedia. I think we must clearly stipulate that if no consensus is achieved about compliance of some text with our core content policies (at least WP:V and WP:NOR; WP:NPOV is a little bit more tricky), it should be deleted.
It other words, in all discussions about compliance of some text with our content policies an explicit consensus must be achieved about compliance, not about non-compliance. The burden of proof of compliance should be on those who wants to keep the text.
It seems the main problem of NOCON is that it does not clearly discriminate two cases:
  • (i) deletion vs keeping of some text when both new and old versions comply with our policy; In that case, "no consensus" means "keep a long standing version".
  • (ii) deletion vs keeping of the text that violates our policy; In that case, "no consensus that some version complies with the policy" means "it does not comply", and it should be removed, no matter if it is a long standing or a new version.
Paul Siebert (talk) 20:29, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

In the numerous discussions about NOCON above, we often give examples where two editors (A and B… or Alice and Bob… etc) are in a dispute. This raises a philosophical question…can just two editors EVER form a “consensus”? Sure, two editors can agree… or disagree… but is that agreement/disagreement enough to say there is “consensus’ or “no consensus”. Don’t we need more than just two editors to opine before we can say whether something has a “consensus”? Blueboar (talk) 12:47, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

  • No, we don't need more than two. In fact, we don't even need two. One person can opine (make a bold edit) and the edit has consensus until and unless another editor raises an objection. wp:SILENCE.
That said, if one editor does raise a concern then - unless one or more additional editors join in - the original editor and the objecting editor can reach a consensus to resolve the objecting editor's concern. And that consensus prevails until and unless a third editor raises an objection. - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 17:13, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
  • It's an intriguing question. The number of participants is irrelevant in the ability to achieve "consensus", although a minimum of two editors is required to determine "no consensus". However, the more participation that results in consensus, generally the more resistant that consensus is to change (in the short term anyway). --GoneIn60 (talk) 02:10, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
  • I think that depends on the article's level. About a couple weeks ago, I proposed some change on the WWII talk page, and two users supported it, with no opposition. However, I am still not sure if there is a consensus, because that is a high profile article that is being watchlisted by thousands of users. However, is some article is much less popular, an agreement between two editors may form a consensus. Wikipedia is highly heterogeneous, so it would be deeply incorrect to propose simple uniform criteria.
I would say, if we want to propose some concrete figure, it should be derived from the number of users who were active in this concrete article during the last year.
And, with regard to "no consensus", it is tricky. Consider two different situations:
  • A user A says the text X does not comply with WP:REDFLAG, and it should be removed, a user B disagrees, and .
  • A user A says the text X is not relevant to the article's topic, and it should be removed, a user B disagrees.
In both cases, there is no consensus, but in the first case the text should be removed per WP:V, in the second case it should stay per WP:NOCON. Paul Siebert (talk) 02:15, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
  • But shouldn’t users A and B seek out a third opinion in both cases? Surely at least one more editor should be consulted before saying whether a consensus exists or not. Blueboar (talk) 21:51, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
    That is not a solution. If "A" and "B" are not individual users, but two groups of users, that doesn't change anything. For example, we frequently have a situation when, during some RfC, one group of users ("the group A") says that the text doesn't comply with REDFLAG, and another group of users ("the group B") maintains that everything is ok. In that case, I see two different interpretations of the RfC's outcome:
    1. "There is NO CONSENSUS that the edit X violates REDFLAG", and
    2. "There is NO CONSENSUS that the edit X complies with REDFLAG"
    Formally, both conclusions are equally legitimate, but their consequences are different. In the first case, the edit X stays if it is an old edit (per NOCON, if there is no consensus, an old version is restored), and it goes if it is a new edit (for the same reason).
    In the second case, the edit X is always removed, because the users failed to come to consensus that it complies with our policy.
    In my opinion, the second approach is much more reasonable, because I see no reason why the text that looks problematic from the point of view of our policy becomes less problematic merely because the violation has been unnoticed for a couple of years. Paul Siebert (talk) 00:32, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

"Wikipedia:Presumed consensus" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Wikipedia:Presumed consensus and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 December 30 § Wikipedia:Presumed consensus until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:27, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

How long does it take for an edit to acquire silent consensus?

“An edit has can be presumed to have consensus until it is disputed or reverted”.

This statement implies that implied silent consensus occurs immediately. I’d doesn’t. It takes time. More precisely, it takes evidence of acceptance. Pageviews? Subsequent edits? SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:19, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

  • "presumed consensus exists only in the absence of a dispute" I take this as the status quo is best during a content dispute... the status quo being the version that has evidence of being longstanding..... as in years over weeks or months. Moxy- 03:33, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
  • It does occur immediately. And it ends as soon as it's edited. Per PGBOLD, that's the case even for policy pages ("you should not remove any change solely on the grounds that there was no formal discussion indicating consensus for the change before it was made" (italics in original)).
That said, I think most of us accept that, particularly for policies, the fact that text has been in place for some time does add a feather or two to the scale when discussing a change. However, we need to be very careful to avoid status quo calcification. - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 03:53, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
  • Time is a piss poor metric for determining consensus… for the simple reason that the number of page views an article gets over time varies greatly from article to article. Some get hundreds of views a day… but others get one or two views a year.
A much better metric would be subsequent edits… if lots of edits (by different editors) have taken place after some bit of content was added, and none of those edits have reverted/changed/challenged that particular bit of content, then we can say the content has a degree of “silent” consensus. If it is reverted/changed/challenged by the next editor to view the page (no matter how much time has passed) we can not say it had “silent” consensus. Blueboar (talk) 14:23, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
Yes… once an edit is perceived as having “silent consensus”, editors use this to argue that the text should not be changed or reverted without a clear and explicitly discussed consensus to change or revert. And any future BOLD editing is labeled as disruptive, and rejected out of hand. Perhaps those who make this sort of argument misunderstand the policy and shouldn’t do so… but far too many editors do make this argument nevertheless. It is quite common in content disputes. Blueboar (talk) 17:54, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
So, whether or not it should happen, often "presumed consensus" (which evaporates when edited or disputed) becomes "silent consensus" (which doesn't) after some undefined matric is met. Is that what you are saying? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 18:09, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
Ah, but these editors don’t believe that a “silent consensus” actually does evaporate upon being edited. They argue that the text is “long standing” and thus must be preserved until you hit them over the head with a metaphorical two-by-four in the form of a full and complete discussion that unequivocally determines that a change has consensus. Blueboar (talk) 20:12, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
These hypothetical editors also believe, I hear you saying, that there is an interim period when edits do evaporate upon being edited. So for those editors there are two states for edits not previously changed or objected to and the dividing line is some undefined metric based on views, edits, or time. Do I have that right? - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 21:10, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
Correct… the way many editors think, a recently made BOLD edit does not have any presumption of consensus… but one made a while ago can gain that presumption due to silence. Blueboar (talk) 08:42, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
  • Time as a metric is bad, but isn't it also nonexistent? I do not know of any PAG that says longstandingness is definable or significant. WP:CRP mentions it but I'm glad that essay only applies for special page restrictions. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:14, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
  • Time is a piss poor metric for determining consensus. A much better metric is subsequent edits. I agree with Blueboar. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:43, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
    Are you saying that before a sufficient number of subsequent edits the original edit has no consensus? If so, how would you describe its state during that period? What would you call it? - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 23:12, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
    Yes. An edit that no one else ever reads cannot be said to represent consensus. Further edits in the same direction demonstrate approval.
    In the meantime, what would I call it? How about “dynamic”? Consensus implies stability. If in doubt, use the talk page. SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:18, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
    Wait, is the test you are proposing based on edit numbers or view numbers? Or maybe you are saying consensus can be established by either one? - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 01:38, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
    I don’t wholly disagree with you, but I think you are exploring the wrong path. The determination of consensus, where there is disagreement, is not subject to tests, algorithms, or rules. We know it when we see it. It’s different every time. In the most beautiful cases, the question was amended before the consensus statement is agreed, and even those holding minority positions explicitly agree to the final statement representing consensus. Sometimes Wikipedia produces a “false consensus”, typically involving those disagreeing giving up out of exhaustion. Accordingly, in wide recognition that this is a bad thing, Wikipedia:Drop the stick is a powerful rebuttal to someone who tries too hard. The outcome is neither “consensus”, nor “no consensus”. Often, the answer is “not now”, this is not the current priority. Consensus is always the goal, but it may be a very distant goal that we take small steps towards. SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:37, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
    I'm sorry, I've evidently misunderstood the purpose of this section. It begins with you asking when a dynamic edit becomes a silent consensus edit and giving some possible criteria. I meant my "what is your test?" question to find out which criteria you believe are appropriate and how you would apply those criteria.
    Maybe I should have asked the underlying question: "what happens when a dynamic edit becomes a silent consensus edit?" Does it make any difference in how a BOLD edit is treated? - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 15:29, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Consensus/Archive_22&oldid=1162959354"