Sign saying "optional"
BRD is optional, but complying with Wikipedia:Editing policy § Talking and ing and Wikipedia:Edit war is mandatory.

The BOLD, revert, discuss cycle (BRD) is an optional method of seeking consensus. This process is not mandated by Wikipedia policy, but it can be useful for identifying objections, keeping discussion moving forward and helping to break deadlocks. In other situations, you may have better success with alternatives to this approach. Care and diplomacy should be exercised. Some ors will see any reversion as a challenge, so be considerate and patient.

Bold ing is a fundamental principle of Wikipedia. All ors are welcome to make positive contributions. It's how new information is added to Wikipedia. When in doubt, ! Either the will get the attention of interested ors, or you will simply improve the page. Either is a good outcome.

Revert an if it is not an improvement, and only if you cannot immediately refine it. Consider reverting only when necessary. BRD does not encourage reverting, but recognizes that reversions happen. When reverting, be specific about your reasons in the summary and use links if needed. Look at the article's history and its talk page to see if a discussion has begun. If not, you may begin one. (See Wikipedia:Wikipedia abbreviations for a glossary of common abbreviations you might see.)

Discuss your bold with the person who reverted you. To follow BRD specifically, instead of one of the many alternatives, you must not restore your bold , make a different to this part of the page, or engage in back-and-forth reverting. Talk to that one person until the two of you have reached an agreement.

Cycle. To avoid bogging down in discussion, when you have a better understanding of the reverter's concerns, you may attempt a new that reasonably addresses some aspect of those concerns. You can try this even if the discussion has not reached an explicit conclusion, but be sure you don't engage in any kind of warring.

General overview[]

It is often hard to find out who to talk with to gain consensus. By making a bold you attract the attention of people who are genuinely interested in a page, and have it on their watchlist. You can then discuss your issues with them. Compare Wikipedia:Consensus.
When to use
While ing a particular page that many ors are discussing with little to no progress being made, or when an or's concerns are not addressed on the talk page after a reasonable amount of effort.
How to proceed
Discover a Very Interested Person (VIP), and reach a compromise or consensus with that person, in one-on-one discussion.
  1. Be bold, and make what you currently believe to be the optimal changes based on your best effort. Your change might involve re-writing, rearranging, adding or removing information.
  2. Wait until someone reverts your . You have now discovered your first VIP.
  3. Discuss the changes you would like to make with this VIP, perhaps using other forms of Wikipedia dispute resolution as needed, and reach an agreement. Apply your agreement. When reverts have stopped, you are done.

Use cases[]

Consensus has gotten stuck. BRD to the rescue!

BRD is most useful for pages where seeking and achieving consensus in advance of the bold could be difficult, perhaps because it is not clear which other ors are watching or sufficiently interested in the page, though there are other suitable methods. BRD helps ors who have a good grasp of a subject to rapidly engage discussion.

Examples cases for use include where:

BRD is best used by experienced Wikipedia ors. It may require more diplomacy and skill to use successfully than other methods, and has more potential for failure. Using BRD in volatile situations is discouraged.

In general, BRD fails if:

BRD is especially successful where:

In short: boldly negotiate where no one has negotiated before.

What BRD is not[]


Making bold s may sometimes draw a response from an interested or, who may have the article on their watchlist. If no one responds, you have the silent consensus to continue ing. If your is reverted, the BRD cycle has been initiated by the reverting or.

After someone reverts your change, thus taking a stand for the existing version or against the change, you can proceed toward a consensus with the challenging or through discussion on a talk page. While discussing the disputed content, neither ors should revert or change the content being discussed until a compromise or consensus is reached. Each pass through the cycle may find a new, interested or to work with, or new issue being disputed. If you follow the process as it is intended each time, you should eventually achieve consensus with all parties. As such, BRD is in general not an end unto itself; it moves the process past a blockage, and helps people get back to cooperative ing.

If the BRD process works ideally (sometimes it does not), people will after a time begin to refrain from outright reversion, and s will start to flow more naturally.

For each step in the cycle, here are some points to remember.




Bold (again)[]

Edit warring[]

Additional considerations[]


"BOLD, revert, discuss" doesn't work well in all situations. It is ideally suited to disputes that involve only a few people, all of whom are interested in making progress. There are many other options, and some may be more suitable for other situations.

Several dispute resolution processes may also be useful to break a deadlock.

See also[]