 | This is an explanatory essay about the BOLD, revert, discuss cycle (BRD) page. This page provides additional information about concepts in the page(s) it supplements. This page is not one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community. |
 | This page in a nutshell: This is a simplified version of the BRD cycle, boiled down to a three step flowchart of the content creation process that aims to encourage discussion and collaboration instead of edit warring. |
This is a shortened version of the BOLD, revert, discuss cycle (BRD) page with focus on the crux of BRD and how it can be used to encourage discussion and collaboration instead of edit warring.
The focus here is not on the motivations of the one making the BOLD edit, as all editors have a right to make bold edits for many reasons. We should start with the assumption that the editor thinks (maybe mistakenly) their edit will improve the article. REVERSION of any BOLD edit is an objection that should be viewed as a stop sign and immediate detour pointing to the DISCUSSION page where the involved editors can vet the edit and work out their differences. Edit warring is always wrong and should be nipped in the bud, so stick to discussion. All editing of that content in the article should be stopped during this time, leaving the status quo version of that content in place.
This page describes what is nearly always the best procedure when an edit is reverted, but there are exceptions to every rule, and the BRD page has suggestions for exceptional situations where BRD may not work or be the best move.