Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)

 Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous 

• Table of contents
• First discussion
• Jump to bottom
• New topic
• All village pumps

"WP:VPP" redirects here. For proposals, see Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals).

The policy section of the village pump is intended for discussions about already-proposed policies and guidelines, as well as changes to existing ones. Discussions often begin on other pages and are subsequently moved or referenced here to ensure greater visibility and broader participation.

• If you wish to propose something new that is not a policy or guideline, use Village pump (proposals). Alternatively, for drafting with a more focused group, consider starting the discussion on the talk page of a relevant WikiProject, the Manual of Style, or another relevant project page.
• For questions about how to apply existing policies or guidelines, refer to one of the many Wikipedia:Noticeboards.
• If you want to inquire about what the policy is on a specific topic, visit the Help desk or the Teahouse.
• This is not the place to resolve disputes regarding the implementation of policies. For such cases, consult Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.
• For proposals for new or amended speedy deletion criteria, use Wikipedia talk:Speedy deletion.

Please see this FAQ page for a list of frequently rejected or ignored proposals. Discussions are automatically archived after 7 days of inactivity. To keep this page's size accessible, discussions with more than about 100 comments should be split to a separate page.

« Archives, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196, 197, 198, 199, 200, 201, 202, 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 209, 210, 211, 212

Don't revert due solely to "no consensus"

WP:DRNC should be more of a formal policy. Some editors revert without providing any rationale for the revert and do not participate in talk page discussions. I have seen this happen many times. Even when new changes are introduced, editors revert them, saying "no consensus". They do not explain why it needs consensus or why they object to the change.

WP:CCC and WP:EDITCON says something similar.

Could we establish a more formal policy regarding this for editors who revert? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cinaroot (talk • contribs) 23:54, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

If the material or revert is disputed by the editor claiming no consensus, and there are no other editors involved, making it a a 50/50 split, what is wrong with that? Isn't that how the process is supposed to work, through BRD? DN (talk) 00:14, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

We don't want editors to revert with no reason (citing "no consensus"). No consensus isn't a reason to revert; consensus isn't based on a show of opinions but the balance of policy based arguments. When editors revert due to "no consensus", they are effectively saying "I (or some number of people) disagree, but I (we) don't have a reason for it". Katzrockso (talk) 00:20, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

Absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence, though. If someone want to make a change, shouldn't they be the ones responsible for building consensus? Personally, I always try to add at least some specific details as to why I don't agree with changes, but I'm not sure why I need to do the work for someone else's requested change. I don't think that's being petty or nit-picking. DN (talk) 00:26, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

Yes, this ties back to the dozens of discussions we have been having on ONUS lately. If an editor provides a reason to revert (they have to have some sort of reason, even one that the other editor doesn't find very convincing), the ONUS is now on the person wanting to include the disputed content. "No consensus" isn't a reason.

Editors need to provide an actual reason objecting to the change because otherwise this explicitly endorses stonewalling as a legitimate tactic. Katzrockso (talk) 00:47, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

Ah, I think I get it now. DN (talk) 04:46, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

I sort of agree but I don't think this rises to the level of needing a policy or guideline. I find it kind of annoying when editors revert with "no consensus" and nothing else but I don't think it should be prohibited. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 00:32, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

I support adding one sentence about DRNC to WP:CON if there's nothing to that effect already. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 00:31, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

Currently, it has one sentence that says should generally avoid terse explanations (such as "against consensus") - but it's more of a directive. But it should be more stern that an editor cannot revert saying there is no consensus (especially for new content). They should always give an explanation. Maybe it was because it was previously discussed and no consensus was formed. But editors should be clear about that.

@Asilvering recently said this It doesn't give license to editors to revert for no reason other than a lack of discussion; - maybe you have some thoughts on this? 🐈Cinaroot   00:42, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

My comment was specifically in the context of WP:CTOP remedies. -- asilvering (talk) 03:12, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

• Sharply oppose. I think the essay is frankly incorrect, as is WP:ONLYREVERT. Their advice is just simply wrong. Reverting to the stable version in case of doubt is the standard for controlled versioning systems in general. Changes need to be actively justified. --Trovatore (talk) 00:46, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

  WP:BEBOLD is policy (technically a guideline) and "this is an improvement to the article" is an active justification for a change. Katzrockso (talk) 00:49, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

  My point is that there is already too many editors who think that reversion is a personal affront or that complete reverts are to be avoided. That isn't true. I would agree with the narrow point that "no consensus" by itself is not a good edit summary for a revert. However "I don't think this is an improvement" is good enough note: just "not an improvement" is enough; doesn't have to be "actually worse", and at that point the editor who wants the change should usually open a discussion on the talk page. --Trovatore (talk) 00:53, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

  Yes, I agree that "I don't think this is an improvement" should be good enough to trigger ONUS and require the editor wanting to include the material to obtain a consensus. Katzrockso (talk) 01:07, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

  “No Consensus” might not be a good reason to revert… but it is perfectly fine as a request for editors to engage in a discussion to determine whether the material has consensus (or not). Blueboar (talk) 16:38, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

  Regarding reversion: Yes. While I may have an internal emotional reaction to a revert, it's a revert. It's not (at least not supposed to be) a personal affront, it's just working on an article.----3family6 (Talk to me|See what I have done) 13:02, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

  If you have a doubt, simply explain what your doubt is in the edit summary when reverting. "no consensus" or "talk first" is never a valid reason. 🐈Cinaroot   00:55, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

  Are we really just talking about edit summaries here? If that's all that's at stake I don't care much. I agree that those edit summaries by themselves are not great. My point is that, other things being equal, the preference should be for the stable version, and any change has to add some identifiable value to overcome that preference. I don't want the language around edit summaries to make editors even more resistant than they already are to reverts. --Trovatore (talk) 01:01, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

  Yes - WP:ONUS still stands. But the reverting editor needs to provide a valid reason in the edit summary. Without which it's disruptive. 🐈Cinaroot   01:06, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

  Given the volume of edit wars and reverts, I hardly think editors are too resistant to revert.

  Also, being cautious of reverting is a good thing. Research has found that new editors have their edits reverted is one of the top reasons we have such poor editor retention. Given the slowly declining number of editors and lackadaisical emphasis on editor retention on Wikipedia, I hardly think editors are too resistant to revert. Katzrockso (talk) 01:10, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

  If someone leaves just because their edit was reverted then that's on them for not respecting WP:OWN. Gnomingstuff (talk) 03:01, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

  Not really. The user research indicates that many of these editors believed that their contributions just aren't good enough, so they give up. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:09, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

I wouldn't mind language that is more explicit that reversions should cite reasons policy/MOS/etc reasons, rather than process/workflow reasons why a reversion is justified. At the same time, we should be more explicit that once something is reverted, it is not acceptable for editors to simply restore the material without showing a clear consensus to restore or an clear effort to address teh problem. If material is removed for say a claim of OR or failing WP:V then an edit note+ changes that address the OR/V concerns would be acceptable. If the challenge is something more complex or weight then editors who wish to restore must start a talk page discussion (or respond if one already exists) and shouldn't restore until it's clear a new consensus has been reached. Restoring without a clearly addressing the concern or a clear talk page consensus for inclusion should be seen as problematic editing/editor behavior. While I do see some cases of editors reverting just saying "NOCON" it seems to be something that is often reverted by others. More frequently I see good faith objections that should be viewed as NOCON, ignored because say 2 editors have implicitly decided 2:1 makes for a consensus. Springee (talk) 04:36, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

I don’t want to place a burden on editors who revert when vandalism is evident. They are able to revert without needing to provide a reason. However, all other explicit reverts should have clearly stated reasons. I don’t want to hinder the BRD process either. For example, if editor A reverts with reason X, then editor B can correct that and restore the content without any discussion. We already have a policy like WP:ONUS to discourage the restoration of disputed content. My suggestion is to more strictly discourage or ban revert with phrases like "talk first," "no consensus" or "discuss first" etc.. while they take a break. Many editors who revert may take hours or even days or don't respond at all, which can slow down the editing process. I want to prohibit such practice. That is no good - I see no reason to do this. 🐈Cinaroot   05:18, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose. While it is pretty obviously true that one shouldn't revert solely due to no consensus, I oppose making this obvious behavioral principle into a practical rule. How would such a rule be enforced or practiced? Would every revert have to include a substantive policy rationale? That might sound attractive in the abstract, but in practice many reverts are routine cleanup: restoring clearer wording, removing awkward additions, undoing unexplained changes, or returning to a version that was otherwise simply better. A brief summary, like "discuss first", "restored better version", or even "restored consensus version" should be enough. The problem with formalizing DNRC is that it risks shifting the burden onto editors doing ordinary cleanup, including in cases where the reverted edit itself gave no substantive reason. I agree that reverts solely due to no consensus are poor practice, especially in real content disputes where the objection is not apparent. But that should be handled as advice about good editing and communication, not elevated into a rule that creates a new procedural basis for restoring disputed changes.Sławomir Biały (talk) 08:54, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

  If it’s so obvious - why do editors keep doing it? No - not "substantive policy rationale" - but reasonable policy rationale or just a sound or better rationale. Something like “I think this is not a good idea because of XYZ". If it’s an unexplained change - just say it’s "unexplained changes". Reverts solely due to no consensus is never a good practice. There is always something better you can say to help the editor whose edit is being reverted. 🐈Cinaroot   10:19, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

  Reverts solely due to no consensus is never a good practice. is an opinion you are entitled to, but that doesn't make it objectively correct or mean that this opinion needs to be codified as a policy. Thryduulf (talk) 10:23, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

  I agree that in many cases "no consensus" is a poor rationale in an edit summary (although I am reluctant to say "always" here: I would think that certain things require affirmative consensus or are against explicit affirmative consensus such as the outcome of an RfC). My primary objection is to turn what is an essay on typical best-practices into a procedural basis for restoring content based on that edit summary. I mean, if an editor can put disputed content in with no edit summary at all, why should the burden for removing that content be asymmetric in such cases? That seems to create exactly the wrong incentive: editors would litigate revert summaries rather than the merits of the content. Sławomir Biały (talk) 10:30, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

  You can always say "this is against an RFC - consensus required" or “Its already reverted once - the page is under affirmative consensus restriction - Please use talk" - if an editor placed a content without an edit summary - and you do not understand the edit - just say "unexplained changes" - if it’s pure vandalism - just revert without any reason. No problem there. My reason for a policy change is to prevent stonewalling and discourage bad behavior by editors.

  If such a policy exists - it can be used to revert editors who stonewall. It will also encourage good behavior by the community. If you provide something more- than "no consensus or take it to talk" - then the editor who you reverted will not have a reason to reinstate disputed content per WP:ONUS. 🐈Cinaroot   19:16, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

• Just no I edit the front page so that it displays a blinking marquee directing people to buy Musk Coins. Someone reverts me because there is no consensus to include such blatant promotion on Wikipedia. I could now restore the blinking marque because 'no consensus isn't a reason to revert, therefore this must stay.' Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 09:07, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

  The reason for reverting here is not "no consensus", but rather - "it is a blatant promotion and needs consensus" . There is a difference. The later tells the editor that promotion is not allowed. "no consensus" tells nothing. 🐈Cinaroot   10:12, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

  So the proposal is to create a cause of action to reinstate disputed content because an edit summary is too terse? Sławomir Biały (talk) 10:17, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

  Are you saying that editors have some kind of right to revert because they have no valid reason to revert and just want to make it harder for the edit to be made because they just don’t like it? 🐈Cinaroot   10:23, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

  That is not what @Sławomir Biały is saying at all, try reading their comment again. Thryduulf (talk) 10:25, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

  Cinaroot's point is that an edit summary of "no consensus" is inappropriate, because it gives no information on why the change is disputed. You're also attacking a strawman, because there is explicit consensus against including such blatant promotion on Wikipedia. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 14:39, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose. In addition to the above good points, there are situations where reverting due to a lack of consensus can be appropriate. For example when there is an ongoing discussion seeking a consensus about this, or when a very recent discussion found no consensus for the change that was made (e.g. a proposal to change X to Y is made, the subsequent discussion found no consensus to make that change, but an editor made it anyway). Thryduulf (talk) 09:45, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

  You can always say - "there is ongoing discussion seeking a consensus about this" or "very recent discussion found no consensus for the change". Now that's helpful to the editor whose edit is being reverted. But saying "no consensus", "take it to talk" etc... is never acceptable. 🐈Cinaroot   10:08, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

  While in some contexts other edit summaries might be more helpful the examples are not wrong and in other contexts will be more than sufficient for other editors to fully understand what is going on and why. Also, there is no practical difference between "take it to talk" and "I disagree with this change, we should discuss it first". Thryduulf (talk) 10:22, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

  Whatever is your disagreement - you can always give some hints and briefly explain your thinking and then ask to take it to talk. You might not think "take it to talk" is not a big deal - but it is to the editor whose edit is being reverted. It’s very discouraging especially if they are new to Wikipedia. If an edit is contentious - say this edit is contentious edit - we need to discuss. That’s all 🐈Cinaroot   10:39, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

  "take it to talk" and "this edit is a contentious edit - we need to discuss" mean exactly the same thing. The former might not make as much sense to a very new editor as the latter, but to an experienced editor the latter might be seen as patronising. This means that whether one is (more) appropriate than the other is context dependent and thus not at all appropriate for the bright-line policy you seek. Thryduulf (talk) 10:43, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

  Is "take it to talk" not patronizing to an experienced editor? If anyone is willing to give me one edit - that say "no consensus" or "take it to talk" - then if I can’t come up with a better edit summary for it- I will shut up. I continue to believe that - there is always something better you can say - other than "no consensus" or "take to talk" etc.. 🐈Cinaroot   10:52, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

  Is "take it to talk" not patronizing to an experienced editor? Not in every situation, no.

  continue to believe that - there is always something better you can say - other than "no consensus" or "take to talk" etc.. that's your opinion, and you are entitled to it. I and most of the other people contributing to this discussion disagree. Even if nobody did disagree though that still wouldn't make it automatically suitable for a policy. Thryduulf (talk) 11:03, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

  But your point is understandable. Would you agree that editors should be free to revert edits saying "take it talk" if they do not understand why? 🐈Cinaroot   10:55, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

  Absolutely not. If you don't understand why reverting someone because you don't understand (or don't like) their edit summary is an fundamentally atrocious idea then Wikipedia is not the project for you. Thryduulf (talk) 11:05, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

  That's exactly my point — no editor has some inane right to say "take it to talk". Wikipedia is not a dictatorship either. It’s also as atrocious to revert someone without giving a sound or better rationale. I have made my point. Ty 🐈Cinaroot   11:12, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

  You have made your point, but almost nobody has agreed with you and you have either not listened to or not understood the points other people have made. Thryduulf (talk) 11:18, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

  I agree with Cinaroot. Reverting with an edit summary of "no consensus for this change, please discuss" is one of the most common strategies for status quo stonewalling. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 14:44, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

  Just because it is sometimes used inappropriately does not mean we need a policy prohibiting all it's uses. Thryduulf (talk) 15:09, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

  "Take it to talk" is always acceptable, and should be done more often. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:26, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

  Please point to me some examples that you have used it yourself or seen it recently. 🐈Cinaroot   10:29, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

  That's the whole point of talk pages. See WP:BRD for best practice. Don't encourage communication by edit summary. I will not answer questions that you should be perfectly capable of answering yourself. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:42, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

  Don't encourage communication by edit summary. Is this for real? Where does it say that?

  BRD says In the edit summary of your revert, briefly explain why you reverted.

  You're suggesting that people should simply revert more by saying “Take it to talk.” Can you not see how that will lead to more disruption? If they "Take it to talk" - you still need to provide a reason. Can't you just provide it in edit summary in the first place. 🐈Cinaroot   11:02, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

  We have trouble policing edit summaries, so I think that's why 'the rules' have generally remained loose. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:27, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

  I don’t know if it should be heavily policed. But it needs to be said - so that editors don’t abuse it and use it for stonewalling. If someone is stonewalling - policy can be used to revert them. Yes - sometimes people revert it without providing edit summaries if they think it’s obvious. Sometimes people make mistakes by not providing edit summaries. But if an editor routinely does it and is being disruptive - policy can be used against them. But it will also encourage good behavior if we are more stern about it. 🐈Cinaroot   18:55, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

  It seems like a really bad idea to restore some bit of content because one feels the objecting editor is just stonewalling. If they are stonewalling it should be easy to get a consensus to include the content. If such a consensus can't be reached then we should assume the problem is real and use other dispute resolution methods, ideally getting more editors involved. Sometimes a claim of stonewalling is nothing more than both sides can't agree but their is just 1 vs 2. I can think of a case where editors seemed very convinced I was totally wrong to object to some content[1]. When a RfC was run the results were overwhelmingly against those editors[2]. Springee (talk) 19:09, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

• I don't think it can encourage people to revert each other; that sort of has to be decided by consensus and our other policies. The reason to spell it out is for user conduct disputes. Simply being in the minority isn't a conduct issue, obviously. Even being a bit stubborn is reasonable (as Springee referenced above, you might be proven right, either due to WP:CCC or seeking wider opinions.) But when someone is constantly stubborn in 1AM situations across a variety of articles, and they're making arguments that seem clearly structured to drag out discussions rather than reach consensus, that's a conduct issue; integrating WP:DRNC more clearly into policy would make it easier to deal with those situations and would, indirectly, encourage people to be more communicative in ways that would hopefully avoid situations escalating to the point where they need to be dealt with as conduct issues in the first place. But we shouldn't have policies that just say "if the other editor uses bad argument XYZ, you win automatically and should immediately revert their edits"; that doesn't work and just makes the problem worse. --Aquillion (talk) 18:00, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

• "Take it to talk" is not acceptable when the reverting editor refuses to take it to talk. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 13:28, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

  

  Don't tell someone else to 'take it to talk' unless you're prepared to join the discussion yourself.

  Do we need an anti-get out of jail free card rule for such edit summaries? WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:51, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

• I agree with Cinaroot in principle, but think WP:EDITCON is the place to make a small tweak rather than promoting the essay. As a general principle, I'd like to spell out somewhere (whether related to documentation of consensus or somewhere else) that there must be a reason for disputing content. That is, it isn't disputed because I reverted; it's disputed because I had a reason to revert it. The threshold for that reason must be very, very low, but you do need a reason other than "it's a change and I'm undoing the change because it's a change" (barring extraordinary contentious articles that need such barriers). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:20, 17 May 2026 (UTC)
• Oppose and the essay is wrong - I'm with Trovatore here. That essay is just wrong. It's totally fine to revert due to a lack of consensus. That a change lacks consensus is a perfectly good reason to revert it. Headbomb's example of changing the front page to advertise crypto is instructive: all changes on Wikipedia require consensus, and while sometimes a change can be taken to have consensus simply by being an improvement, this is not necessarily true. In particular, reverting due to no consensus is a crucial part of the WP:BRD cycle. If you couldn't revert just because you disagreed that a change was an improvement any bold change would stay forever with no option to revert. Loki (talk) 14:32, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

  Headbomb's example is a strawman. There is explicit consensus against including such blatant promotion on Wikipedia. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 14:42, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

  +1 "what if I revert for an obvious reason" is not an argument for "no reason is required" — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:50, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

  Maybe I’m guilty of reverting thinking it’s obvious. But it might be obvious to you. But not to the editor whose edit is being reverted. Again - if it’s obvious vandalism - no reason is required to revert. 🐈Cinaroot   19:39, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

  Ideally even reverting vandalism should include an edit summary that states as much. I'm not sure I've always followed that rule but I suspect everyone would agree that ideally we should always include some level of edit summary. Springee (talk) 23:15, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

  In the specific situation of obvious vandalism, some editors avoid explanations as a Wikipedia:Revert, block, ignore tactic. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:49, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose If the edit summary is insufficient in some way, it can be questioned either on the reverter's talk page or on the article talk page.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:45, 17 May 2026 (UTC)
• Short, blunt edit summaries like “No Consensus” or “Discuss first” should not be seen as justification for a removal of text, but as requests to engage in further discussion about the removed text. Such summaries should begin a conversation, not end one. If you don’t understand an edit summary… ASK! Blueboar (talk) 16:11, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

  That's WP:STONEWALLING, which is disruptive/tendentious. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 16:19, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

  It is only stonewalling if the reverting editor ENDS the conversation with “no consensus”. But if we BEGIN with “no consensus” and discuss, we often find that a new consensus can be quickly established. Reaching that new consensus might mean some compromising… but that is how consensus building works. Blueboar (talk) 16:53, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

  I think such short summaries may be OK if another editor has already restored without showing consensus. They shouldn't be the only justification for an initial revert/removal. I would be careful about "stonewalling". I think that is often a claim used by editors who don't want to follow the process to gain consensus. Springee (talk) 16:54, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

  Again… Such terse summaries should not be considered a Justification at all… they are a request to join in a discussion where the “justifications” (for and against the edit) can be more fully outlined and discussed. They start the consensus building process, they don’t end it. Blueboar (talk) 18:58, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

  Agreed. DN (talk) 23:35, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

  "should not be seen as justification for a removal of text" But if the summary is not accompanied by any other rationale (in the summary or on the talk page) then its hard to see it as not being the reverter's justification.

  "but as requests to engage in further discussion." If the reverter says nothing more, there is no discussion to continue. - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 00:34, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

Oppose DRNC is best practice, but I don't think it should be in policy. If there has just been an extensie discussion on the talk page, directing a new editor to that discussion is justified. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:57, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

Even if there haven’t been previous discussions… an edit summary requesting that a discussion take place is perfectly reasonable. I agree that we shouldn’t leave a terse summary and then walk away, but it is fine to start a conversation with one. Blueboar (talk) 19:05, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

But they do walk away. I think experienced editors are so averse to my proposal because they don’t want the burden of explaining a revert on them or just revert, and the other person might not take it to talk or discourage bold edits altogether or someone else might explain it for them on talk. 🐈Cinaroot   19:24, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

I agree that many editors seem to have an aversion to starting discussions. It's just astonishing to see people say things that amount to "No, my WP:UPPERCASE says you have to start the discussion, and I don't have to do anything". WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:26, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

Yup… I would love to have a WP:STOPWIKILAWYERING policy that (among other things) says: “When there is a dispute, if the other guy doesn’t start a discussion, YOU should do so.” Blueboar (talk) 19:44, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

"If you have reverted someone else's edit or are otherwise in a dispute, do not to tell the other editor to start a discussion. Instead, start the discussion yourself, and invite them to join you. Do this even if all you can think of to say is 'I didn't like that last edit' or '@User, we should talk about this instead of risking an edit war." ? WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:18, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

"an edit summary requesting that a discussion take place" But isn't better to just start the discussion yourself? - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 23:21, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

It depends. If you understand why someone might want to add/remove that material and can clearly express why you disagree with the inclusion/exclusion or whatever else your objection is with relevance to that, then yes, starting the discussion yourself is usually going to be best. However if you don't understand the motivation behind the edit then you're as likely to begin a discussion with a bunch of strawmen as anything relevant, which is liable to get the discussion off on the wrong foot and less likely to lead to a quick and easy consensus (e.g. due to other editors getting the wrong impression when they skimread). Thryduulf (talk) 01:08, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

If you don't understand an edit, then why not just start a discussion with "what was the motivation for this edit"? SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 01:15, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

Because the answer to that will be something like "because it improves the article". Asking instead "Why do you think this edit improves the article?" is liable to come off as aggressive. Thryduulf (talk) 02:33, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

I don't think that's the likely response. I think the likely response will provide a little more detail, like "because I thought the article should include ____". WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:35, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

How does such a question come off as aggressive? You're just politely asking another editor for the motivation behind an edit, because every edit should be made with the intent to improve Wikipedia. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 13:34, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

I think that we need to define "no consensus" before we can have a sensible conversation. I oppose reverts for "no consensus" when the meaning is "Bold editing is not allowed here, so you must get written permission before changing this page". But I can accept reverts for "no consensus" when the meaning is "The RFC literally closed as 'no consensus' yesterday, so why are you implementing your failed proposal as if you had consensus for it?!" WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:20, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

Yup, it discourages bold editing. If it’s against a recently closed RFC - it’s most likely that the editor didn’t know. So just say “it’s against an RFC - here is the link - get consensus" - problem solved. Again, "no consensus" is never a good edit summary in 99 or 100% of the time. 🐈Cinaroot   19:27, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

Why does everything need to be spelled out in an edit summary?

If there is a previous RFC, I think it fine to summarize a revert with a terse “Not consensus” - as long as you follow up with a talk page thread pointing to that previous RFC. Blueboar (talk) 19:58, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

Why not? Why do you need to as long as you follow up? Why that editor has to wait for you to as long as you follow up

No sir - Reverting is Not a inherent Right - Your comments are only reaffirming how the community thinks and why a change might be warranted. Experienced editors are becoming more comfortable treating reverting as a default tool, when it should be a last resort. This attitude — that you can revert first and explain later — is exactly what discourages editors from contributing and is disruptive. 🐈Cinaroot   20:19, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

I absolutely disagree with your contention that reverting should be a “last resort”. Editing involves both adding, and removing material. Removing is just as important as adding. That’s why we are called “editors” and not “writers”. Blueboar (talk) 20:50, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

Yah - maybe you are right about the last resort part - but if it’s a first resort - then explain in edit summary. 🐈Cinaroot   21:25, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

I think there's an important difference between "reverting" and "removing". WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:45, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

This is a strawman argument. No one will complain about an editor who supplements a "no consensus" edit summary with a talk page post pointing to the prior consensus. - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 23:25, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

True enough, but there are also editors who think that they shouldn't ever have to supplement their "no consensus" edit summary with a talk page post of any kind. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:47, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

Edit summaries used to be short - so short that the generated part sometimes filled up the whole summary. WMF lifted the size to allow longer edit summaries. But carrying on a discussion through edit summaries is a really bad idea, because edit summaries are much harder to search than talk pages. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:49, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

And there is still a limit on the size of edit summaries, just a slightly higher limit than there used to be. I don't understand why the OP is so obsessed with the idea of communicating via edit summaries rather than talk pages. Phil Bridger (talk) 08:35, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

Maybe because that's where most of the communication actually happens. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:10, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

It may do, but as soon as someone wants to say something that doesn't fit in an edit summary we get problems. Policy should steer people away from such problems. Edit summaries are not designed for this—not least because it is impossible to leave an edit summary without editing the article—but talk pages are. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:36, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

Communication shouldn't happen in edit summaries. The purpose of edit summaries is to briefly describe what changes were made (and, if not obvious from context, briefly explain why). An edit summary is a statement of fact, not a conversation. Thryduulf (talk) 19:26, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

Communication does happen in edit summaries, and there's no value to telling editors that they "shouldn't" do so. The only way to stop this will be to get rid of edit summaries. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:50, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

While you might think there is no value is discouraging using edit summaries for something it was not intended for and is ill-suited for, that is very different to explicitly mandating using edit summaries for that purpose (which is what the OP apparently desires). Thryduulf (talk) 10:59, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

I think the OP desires to prevent the common stonewalling strategy where an editor reverts with an edit summary saying "discuss first" but then never participates in discussion. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 13:24, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

This proposal will not (and indeed cannot) achieve that aim. Thryduulf (talk) 13:28, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

Why not? SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 13:30, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

Because such an editor will just use a different edit summary and continue to refuse to meaningfully discuss anything. Thryduulf (talk) 13:39, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

That's fair. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 13:40, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

No, there is some important value to this. Establishing a general principle that all edits must have rationales, and that "no consensus" or "take it to talk" are not sufficient, means that an editor's history of such edits can be used as an argument that they're WP:STONEWALLing or making tendentious edits on WP:AE or WP:ANI. And beyond that, the threat of that eventuality would encourage editors to generally be more communicative. AE and ANI are not, like, rubber stamps for policy; they're not going to ban someone for occasionally saying "take it to talk" in situations where the reason is glaringly obvious. But stonewalling and tendentious editing are some of the most frustrating and hardest-to-prove behaviors, so having another clear identifier for one of the tactics that enables them, coupled with at least a general "do not do this" guidance, might help at both discouraging them and making it easier to identify editors who do not respond to discouragement. --Aquillion (talk) 02:12, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

There is clearly not consensus that an edit summary of "take it to talk" or "no consensus" is not sufficient. A pattern of reverting while refusing to explain or participate in discussion may be evidence of WP:STONEWALLing or tendentious editing, but that depends on the surrounding conduct, not on any particular edit summary. Sławomir Biały (talk) 12:37, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

The purpose of edit summaries is to briefly describe what changes were made (and, if not obvious from context, briefly explain why). That's a form of communication between editors. Edit summaries are a form of communication by definiton, as they communicate to other editors the reasons for making a change. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 13:32, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

Technically true but irrelevant to this context, which is about discussion of reasons for disagreeing with the addition or removal of content because one or more editors feels that a consensus is required before making that change. Thryduulf (talk) 13:41, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

I don't think it's completely irrelevant. "Rv duplicate" tells you exactly what the "reasons for disagreeing with the addition" are. But even "no consensus" (which I hate, and would cheerfully put an AbuseFilter warning on if it weren't so expensive) tells you something. It's unclear whether it communicates something closer to "Danger, frayed nerves and twitchy trigger fingers around here" or "The editor who reverted me is an entitled jerk who will be the first up against the wall when the revolution comes", but it does communicate some useful information. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:47, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose. The essay is sometimes right and sometimes not right. WP:ONUS is the only real guiding policy in this area, along with WP:3RR. (And despite what some think, WP:BRD has never been any sort of guideline or policy, except in limited areas such as WP:RMUM). Either way, we don't need extra WP:CREEP or confusion, so keeping this as an essay is just fine.  — Amakuru (talk) 20:59, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

  Not asking to make the entire essay a formal policy. Just the core idea - with caveats if they exist. 🐈Cinaroot   21:28, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

• WP:ONUS is the only real guiding policy in this area - it certainly is not. We have literal years of discussions about this on the contradiction between ONUS and NOCON on Wikipedia talk:Verifiability, none of which have ever reached a consensus, but one thing that everyone has always agreed on (as far as I know) is that a revert of just "rv. per ONUS" with no further explanation is never appropriate; someone who does that constantly should and will be blocked for failing to communicate properly when editing. As a general rule I'm shocked that people are giving ONUS so much weight; to me, it is a heavily-disputed policy which we've never really managed to reach a consensus on in any real respect, meaning that it is usually a poor idea to cite it in discussions for any purpose beyond the most trival meaning of "verifiability does not guarentee inclusion" (which was its original purpose and original intent.) --Aquillion (talk) 19:22, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

  Actually, the original “verifiability does not guarantee inclusion” section (as I first wrote it) was distinct from ONUS. My original language merely noted that verifiable information could be removed when there is consensus to remove it. In my original language the unstated assumption was that an actual consensus to remove existed that we could point to. The assumption was that there wasn’t a dispute.

  ONUS on the other hand, assumes that there is a dispute. It is focused on a different scenario. That is one reason why I eventually split ONUS and “VNOT” into two distinct sections. Blueboar (talk) 19:59, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose "a more formal policy." Support recommending wp:DRNC as a best practice. - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 23:15, 17 May 2026 (UTC)
• Oppose Blunty, there's already enough bureaucratic nonsense that prevents well-meaning editors retaining the status quo against POV newcomers who want to use our policies against us. We don't need to give them more ammo. Even the original essay is flawed in this manner. — Czello ^(music) 11:13, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

  Irony is that - your reply itself reads as bureaucratic. "POV newcomers" - "use our policies against us", "retaining the status quo" etc.

  "We (established editors) are right"

  "They (newcomers) are trouble"

  "We shouldn't have to explain ourselves"

  The irony is huge — complaining about bureaucracy while defending the bureaucratic behavior: reverting without reasonable explanation or saying "discuss first" etc...

  And I'm not saying people, including myself, won’t make mistakes by reverting without adequate edit summary. But it sucks - how experienced editors frequently abuse their privileges by reverting without adequate explanation and making it hard for other editors who have different POV.

  Community can change..... I know it’s hard. But you guys can learn to write better edit summaries. 🐈Cinaroot   22:55, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

  I am also concerned about the tendency to believe that our articles are good. Some reviewers look for near-perfection in the additions, without considering that the "mediocre" new contribution might have been the best thing in the whole article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:55, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

  When I'm talking specifically about POV newcomers - yes, I do believe that. They generally are trouble, and we generally know what's best for our articles. This isn't at all about them having a different POV - they shouldn't be bringing any POV at all into the article. Retaining the status quo should be easier, not harder, in the face of that. — Czello ^(music) 13:38, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

  What about when the article is already bad? If an article is full of the Republicrat POV, then maybe what we actually need is someone to "push" a little Demican POV into the article. Retaining the status quo should only be easy if the article is in good shape to begin with. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:05, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

  Firstly I don't think the solution to POV is more POV from a different side of the isle. But in answer to the broader question - yes, the article needs to be fixed, and TA editors are capable of doing that (though, again, not by bringing POV and creating a POV battlefield), but we don't need additional policies that are going to make it harder to protect the good articles. — Czello ^(music) 08:34, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

  When editors are following the advice in Wikipedia:Consensus (e.g., making "an effort to address editors' legitimate concerns through a process of compromise") – which I will grant does not necessarily happen as often as we could wish in POV-oriented articles – then sometimes what we really need is "more POV from a different side", so that the existing "winner" can't have it all his way.

  I wonder, if you clicked on Special:Random a few times, how many of those articles you would describe as "the good articles". WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:55, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

  On that first point we fundamentally disagree. A POV article is rarely improved by introducing more POV; the solution is bringing it back to neutrality. I think what you're describing sounds more like WP:FALSEBALANCE.

  On your second point, though, I think most articles on Random are passable at least and not improved by POV editors. However, the articles I'm talking about are rarely come across on Random; most articles don't invite POV, but those that do are the ones which become battlegrounds for it. — Czello ^(music) 07:18, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

  When the POV article fails the NPOV policy due to missing information, then "introducing more of the missing POV" and "bringing it back to neutrality" are the same thing. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:53, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

  No, that'd be WP:FALSEBALANCE. We remove the existing POV. — Czello ^(music) 06:34, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

  So you have an article that presents everything from the POV of the deontologists. I say the solution (per WP:YESPOV) is adding information about the missing consequentialist POV. You say that adding information about the missing POV is a FALSEBALANCE, and that the solution is – blanking the article? Because that's what will happen in we "remove the existing POV". Maybe you'd like to re-consider your statement? WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:47, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

  If it's a legitimate opposing view like that then it's fine. But that's not what I'm talking about, and we've gone way off topic. I'm simply talking about not making it harder for decent editors to protect articles against drive-by POV editors. That's all. — Czello ^(music) 17:43, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

• I feel like the underlying policy, if there is one, would be something like "you should provide a policy-compliant rationale for your reverts" (and some things, like "no consensus" on its own, are not enough.) But stating it like that makes it clear, I think, that we'd have to be careful - it's a reasonable guideline, and I think it reflects overarching practice; someone who constantly goes around reverting stuff without a valid reason is going to face sanctions eventually, and "no consensus" is not itself a valid reason in a vacuum. When there's a clear established consensus or when an edit is obviously, clearly controversial and the history on the page makes that context clear it's more reasonable, but even then, it'd be better to point to the existing consensus or lay out the skeleton of the argument against that edit to progress discussions. Perhaps if we were going to boil this down to an underlying principle or guideline, that would be it - reverts (of non-vandalism, when dealing with stuff that is contested) should, when possible, focus on progressing discussion, presenting your argument, etc. Sometimes this is difficult but a revert that makes no attempt to move things forwards is a potential indicator of WP:STONEWALLing or other issues and cuts at the worst sort of revert-warring. --Aquillion (talk) 01:59, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

Also, I vaguely alluded to this above, but another possibility to actionize this principle would be to add it to WP:STONEWALL and / or WP:TEND as a possible indicator of stonewalling or tendentious editing (ie. editors may use "rv, no consensus" to stonewall by making discussions difficult; or they may use it for reverts where they don't want to articulate their reasons because those reasons are not appropriate, ie. tendentious.) Adding it there avoids the issue of making it a hard-and-fast rule - nobody would accept the idea that an editor is tendentious solely because they occasionally use inappropriately terse edit summaries. But it would turn it into another valuable point that could be used to make the case for larger misconduct, while also generally encouraging editors to be more communicative. --Aquillion (talk) 02:15, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

WP:STONEWALL could get a line about "Constantly telling people to start a discussion, but not participating constructively in those discussions". WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:08, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

Define constructively, and I might support that. DN (talk) 03:21, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

I'd define it from the second sentence in Wikipedia:Consensus: An editor's participation is constructive if they're making an effort to address editors' legitimate concerns through a process of compromise while following Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.

But STONEWALL doesn't really need to figure out whose behavior is constructive. It really just needs to be able to figure out whose behavior is clearly unconstructive, and that's usually easier (e.g., WP:IDHT, inappropriate accusations of vandalism, WP:REHASHing the same points endlessly, demanding that there be WP:NORFC, etc.). WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:42, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

One case where I have seen editors reverting with instruction to seek consensus on the talk page is where the variety of English has been changed. The reverting editor is strictly following our guideline: Unjustified changes from one acceptable, consistently applied style in an article to a different style may generally be reverted. Seek opportunities for commonality to avoid disputes over style. If you believe an alternative style would be more appropriate for a particular article, seek consensus by discussing this at the article's talk page (MOS:STYLERET) Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:14, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

This is probably happening with a lot of WP:STYLEVAR or WP:CITEVAR disputes, as that's the community's chosen procedure for such cases. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:24, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

I made a proposal at WP:TEND that is slightly inspired by this, here, although as I was writing it out I realized the broader point that vague or misleading edit summaries are a potential indicator of tendentious editing is actually more important than the question of whether WP:DRNC edits are vague. --Aquillion (talk)

There is a huge difference between a “misleading” edit summary and a terse or “vague” summary. So no. Blueboar (talk) 11:51, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose WP:BRD is not called WP:BD. While reversion for no reason should be minimized, if the editor believes the modification is actively making an article worse, reversion can be justified. Having what may be detrimental content in an article for potentially weeks to months while it is debated is not a net positive. "No consensus" generally implies "I believe this is detrimental and consensus should be established". ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 08:58, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

“vague” summaries - break

I have realized what is bothering me about this thread. People are using edit summaries to convey the wrong type of information. Edit summaries are great for telling other editors what someone did in an edit (“added info”, "reverted”, “copy edit”, etc.)… But they are not great for explaining why someone did it. If the why isn’t blatantly obvious… or if there is any question as to why someone made an edit, that should be explained or asked about on the talk page, not in the edit summary. Blueboar (talk) 12:20, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

I don't know about that. Looking at some of your recent edit summaries in articles [3][4][5][6][7] I see several edit summaries that concisely indicate why instead of what. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:34, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

I’m not saying you can’t explain “why” in an edit summary… I am saying that an edit summary is not the best place to do so. I am saying that the talk page is a better place to explain “why”. We should be encouraging more use of talk pages for explanations - and not encouraging using edit summaries for this. Especially for anything close to complex. Blueboar (talk) 19:27, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

When the "why" can be easily explained in edit summary form, it's more efficient. Other editors see the change and its reason in the same diff, whereas the other editors are less likely to go hunting on the talk page to see if there's an explanation there. The talk page is probably best for a complex "why", but isn't the best place when a simple "why" can be stated in the edit summary. I don't think we want to state that the talk page is always preferred for the "why". Schazjmd (talk) 14:12, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

Nor should we mandate that the edit summary always explain the why. With this edit I didn't need more than the edit summary and a talk page section would have been overkill, but if someone disagreed with that edit for reasons that cannot be expressed in a few words I would expect them to use the talk page. Similarly, if someone did disagree in a concise manner but I disagreed with that then I would take it to the talk page not an edit summary. If in doubt though, the talk page is the better place than the edit summary. Thryduulf (talk) 14:24, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

In a general sense, most additions of new material only need a "what" summary, because the "why" -- that this is additional material that belongs in the article -- is implied. "Why" is largely needed for deletions and changes to existing material. And in 90%+ of the cases, the edit summary can make clear why or it will be clear between the edit summary and the diff, which is just as easy to get to as an individual talk page message. While there are certainly times where a very brief summary and "see Talk" is called for ("this was cited to seven different sources, each not valid for a different reason, see Talk"), they are very much in the minority. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 14:30, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

I agree with Nat. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:58, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

Well, 'trim" or "tighten" [prose] or "copyedit" seem quite popular edit summaries in changing material but they are also short. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:28, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

People explain `why` an edit was made all the time using edit summaries.

I made a bold edit to WP:CCC - I explained `what` and `why` in edit summary.

Not going to use talk to explain every edit I made. So instead of spending little effort explaining in edit summary - you want people to make more effort explaining in talk? This is not at all helpful. 🐈Cinaroot   05:16, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

It seems to me that as long as edit summaries are optional, an editor who feels that leaving one has become too laborious a process will opt to leave none at all...or worse, will leave one that's more unhelpful than what they might have used for a summary otherwise. Similarly for the Talk page, especially, I suspect, for newer editors. DonIago (talk) 13:29, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

I disagree in general: in many cases, what was changed is more easily described directly by the diff. As an edit summary is a brief overview of the change, often it's more suitable to use it to describe the motivation for the change. There will of course be cases where a full description is lengthy, and so the edit summary can only provide an outline, with more details provided as needed on the talk page. isaacl (talk) 03:19, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

• In general, this discussion is about reverts or removals (and by removals we mean contested removals, which are generally reverts.) Per WP:REVEXP, you're supposed to explain those. This is particularly relevant to WP:ONUS because many people have started to use it as a rationale to revert or remove things with no further explanations beyond demanding that people get consensus. As a general rule, I don't think that that's collaborative behavior. Additions don't usually require explanations because it is a given that if something is verifiable and due then adding it has at least a reasonable potential to be an improvement (and those things can be inferred from associated sourcing.) Uncontroversial copyediting also doesn't usually require an explanation because the advantage to simple fixes is obvious. But reverts and removals generally do, as do contested or obviously-controversial changes that alter the direction of the text. --Aquillion (talk) 17:50, 24 May 2026 (UTC)
• Much has been made above of editors reverting (whether because of "no consensus" or otherwise) and then not participating in talk page discussion. Could we please have some examples of this? And how this change could fix it? Phil Bridger (talk) 21:29, 25 May 2026 (UTC)
• Support, for what it's worth - I've definitely seen this. It serves to lock-in the initial position of a page and prevents the page from evolving at all. The people who do it often aren't even opposed to the edit you are making - they just believe that there's a formal process that has to be followed in all cases on Wikipedia which famously(ish) isn't that, and that RFCs closed by an admin (or even a team of admins) are the only way in which a consensus can possibly arise.

It's hard to give examples of this without sparking unnecessary drama with the people who do it though. FOARP (talk) 12:12, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

• Support, but I may end up opposing depending on the exact language of the proposal. If the reverter (and everyone else) declines to give a substantive reason at the talk page after being asked for one, then that should definitely be against policy. The reason might be merely a couple words, like "already discussed", or "too wordy", or "violates NPOV" or something like that. But reverts need to be actively justified, just like challenged changes need to be actively justified. An edit summary like "against consensus" doesn't say why it's allegedly against consensus, and should not count as an explanation. It's more like a power flex than an explanation. Anythingyouwant (talk) 09:57, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

Grokipedia

Though the new AI policy technically only applies to editing, Grokipedia is an AI-generated encyclopedia. Would its use as a reference be prohibited according to the rules on AI? (also, since it's a Wikipedia clone, it'd likely cause citogenesis).

--ISometimesEatBananas (talk) 22:02, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

Yes, Grokipedia is prohibited for use as a reference, per the guideline on sources produced by machine learning and per the citogenesis concerns you mentioned. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 22:08, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

Thanks, I was curious. --ISometimesEatBananas (talk) 11:49, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

It is also considered a "wikipedia" Which is against policies. Tornado Elliott (Yelp for help?) 12:37, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

Grokipedia is not (considered) a Wikipedia. Wikipedias are an example of wiki, wikis in turn are (almost always) examples of user-generated content. It is user-generated content that is regarded as unreliable. Grokipedia is not directly user-generated content (although as a partial derivative of Wikipedia it does contain such content) but that is only a minor consideration in why it is considered unreliable, the major ones being that it is a combination of machine learning (WP:RSML) and a derivative of Wikipedia (see WP:CIRCULAR and WP:CITOGENESIS). Thryduulf (talk) 13:15, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

okay, good to know! Tornado Elliott (Yelp for help?) 13:38, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

I'm also 100% sure it has digested all of Wikipedia and often spits out barely reworked versions of the same page. Citing it would be just like citing a Wikipedia clone. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 05:35, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

Yes, it's prohibited. Grokipedia is not a reliable source, just like Wikipedia is not a reliable source. But a Grokipedia article might be an excellent place to look for reliable sources. I would even suggest that a link should be automatically put atop every Wikipedia article's talk page, cross-referencing Grokipedia (and any other pertinent online encyclopedia), to help Wikipedia editors find stuff they may have missed. Anythingyouwant (talk) 10:04, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

That could be a useful suggestion for links to Britannica and similar works. The existing Template:Authority control might be a good place for it. However, including Grokipedia in such a feature wouldn't add value for our readers, because its content is AI generated and/or a (possibly outdated or redacted) copy of the Wikipedia article which would link to it. Certes (talk) 10:53, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

I will check out VPI. I have very rarely visited Grokipedia, but did just now to check your assertion. I've recently been doing a little work on the Wikipedia BLP for journalist Nick Bilton, and I found lots of in-depth analysis of his work at Grokipedia just now, that's not in his Wikipedia BLP. As you can imagine, a journalist does a lot of writing, and Grokipedia is able to read a lot faster than I can. Anyway, I haven't incorporated any of Grokipedia's sources into the Wikipedia BLP, and probably won't because I don't have time to do all the reading that Grokipedia did, but if I had more time I would likely do so. Anythingyouwant (talk) 11:37, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

Frankly, given the explicit views of Grokipedia's founder, even using it to look for more sources would likely be ill-advised, as said views pretty much require it use unreliable sources. Beyond the standard caveats of LLMs being good at looking correct well beyond their abilities to be correct, I'd trust the source assessment of just about any other LLM before that of Grok. Sesquilinear (talk) 20:43, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

True. Even LLMs released in good faith make innocent errors, which can be hard to spot as we mistake confidence for competence. Then we have LLMs from providers with an agenda to push, which can open a whole new level of incorrectness. Certes (talk) 21:25, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

Expanding WP:FAIT

I feel that FAIT is a useful and important informational page for explaining issues with certain kinds of edits (mass-edits that didn't get pre-approval, or moving a page and then editing the redirect, or things of that nature.) But right now it's just a description of a single ArbCom finding from years back. Should it be expanded into a proper guideline, or policy, or at least a more detailed informational page? There's probably a bit more we could say about what types of FAIT actions tend to occur, ways to deal with them, what policies touch on them, and how to avoid them, in general. --Aquillion (talk) 22:17, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

I suggest starting with an essay. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:21, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

I guess that'd be the normal approach; the problem is that I can't really write it at WP:FAIT, which is already an information page. It feels weird to write an essay elsewhere with the ultimate goal of merging it into FAIT. --Aquillion (talk) 14:52, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

The info page could be expanded if it meets the WP:INFOPAGES standard. —Bagumba (talk) 15:21, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

You could write something at Wikipedia:What is a fait accompli or Wikipedia:Fait accompli in practice, and the link to it at the short page.

Alternatively, you could just expand that page. The official ArbCom bit doesn't need to be (almost) the only thing on that page. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:17, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

I did something similar with Wikipedia:At wit's end (i.e., an essay trying to explain an old ARBCOM finding). FOARP (talk) 20:56, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

I agree with the previous suggestions to expand the page. It has 123 incoming links: fewer chances to introduce a misunderstanding than I expected. If the changes make the {{Information page}} summary inaccurate, a {{redirect-multi}} pointing to WP:Arbitration/Index/Principles#Fait accompli can replace it. Flatscan (talk) 04:24, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

Agreed. DN (talk) 04:28, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

Should Wikipedia link to porn sites?

I am resisting attempts to include an uninformative Infobox including a direct link to the site at the motherless.com page. This is not just another mainstream porn site like Pornhub, xvideos etc, which have strong moderation and policies against illegal content. The content is user provided and historically at least has not been well moderated. It has a well-deserved dodgy reputation and has hosted plenty of illegal content, including in the recent past content related to drug-induced sexual abuse of intimate partners (per the CNN report). In my opinion Wikipedia should not directly link to sites like this. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 07:13, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

Are we sure that website isn't already blacklisted? —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^MUSHROOM 07:17, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

Seems not, maybe should be, but it's not a spam link as such. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 07:19, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

Being a spam link isn't the only reason websites are put on those lists. For example, all URL shorteners are globally blacklisted as an anti-circumvention measure, and I'm pretty certain shock sites also get blacklisted. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^MUSHROOM 07:21, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

OK I added it to the proposed additions to the spam blacklist. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 08:10, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

Worth pointing out that linking to porn sites in general is not the same as Motherless specifically. I don't think there should be any prohibition on linking to porn sites generally, but there is obviously a case for Motherless given the illegality of some of its content. Though, then again, the URL is literally the article name, so there's that. — Czello ^(music) 08:19, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

I don't see a reason to not follow the guideline for an official link, since we also allow shock sites to have the official link (see our articles on Ogrish.com or Goregrish.com as examples). Giving an official link back to the official site of an article is helpful to readers, regardless of how distasteful the content of that site may be.

Awshort (talk) 08:22, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

WP:ELNO #3 states Sites containing malware, malicious scripts, trojan exploits, or content that is illegal to access in the United States. So yes, it should be removed, though as mentioned above that is somewhat moot given the article title. Black Kite (talk) 08:32, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

True, but it also states in the same section Except for a link to an official page of the article's subject and further down These links are normally exempt from the links normally to be avoided, but they are not exempt from the restrictions on linking.

Regarding our restrictions on linking to sites that violate copyright, it seems Motherless is one of the adult sites that complies with takedown requests (see Stanford), but also removes anything deemed illegal or did at one time (see Bloomberg) - But the court affirmed a lower court’s ruling that Lange’s screening out and removing obviously illegal content, such as infringing material and child pornography, granted him safe harbor protection.

The latest CNN update posted May 15 says Update: One week after being taken offline, Motherless has returned. On its website, Motherless said it had “strengthened our moderation systems and processes to more effectively prevent illegal content.” On May 15, a cursory CNN search found that several terms previously identified during our investigation appear to be now banned in English, however not in other languages. Motherless has previously deleted videos and banned other search terms related to DFSA following the work of investigative journalists in Germany on this issue.

That seems to be the exact response we as editors would want to show if a site is doing its part to remove illegal content, no?

Awshort (talk) 13:25, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

"content that is illegal to access in the United States" != "some content that is illegal to access in the United States". All websites with user-submitted content (Twitter, Reddit, Wayback Machine, etc.) have some content that is illegal under US law, because moderation is never perfect, but we still link to them because the majority of content is legit. I don't see why Motherless should be treated differently because most content there is also legit.--~2026-31844-41 (talk) 16:02, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

Per CNN, the site describes itself as a moral free file host where anything legal is hosted forever (emphasis added). The original CNN investigation only said the legality of some material was in serious doubt, not that it had definitely uncovered illegal videos on the site. As ~2026-31844-41 points out, all websites with user-submitted content have some content that is illegal under US law, because moderation is never perfect. Motherless.com should be treated no differently than Reddit or Facebook in this regard. ~Sangdeboeuf (talk) 03:13, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

They claim that anything they host is legal. But in practice much of it is not, and this has resulted in frequent court cases. Besides the obviously gross illegal material, they also frequently host copyvio. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 11:17, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

also frequently host copyvio. Anna's Archive, Z-Library, The Pirate Bay, etc. all have links in the infoboxes to their respective websites. Some1 (talk) 13:52, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

In practice much of it is not – how much is much? 25 percent? 50 percent? 75 percent? Got a source? ~Sangdeboeuf (talk) 15:42, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

I guess I should read more carefully, because the phrase except for a link to an official page of the article's subject renders this whole question moot. ~Sangdeboeuf (talk) 07:09, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

Besides the obviously gross illegal material, they also frequently host copyvio

Can you provide sources to back this up? They have a noted history (per the CNN update and the appeals court links in my previous reply, and seemingly this) of actively removing anything that is illegal when notified, policing the content themselves, as well as removing copyrighted content.

Awshort (talk) 18:28, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

From the discussion on this, this site seems to simply be a not well moderated file hosting site. As long as linked content from this site in a specific instance is not in direct violation of Wikipedia policy, and also per WP:CENSOR, this content clearly should be allowed on Wikipedia. Ilov3gam3z (talk) 16:01, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

Before that CNN report, I would question whether we should have an article about this subject at all (perhaps a link to a detail in the Amanda Todd article). Now that it's here, plus the follow-ups, plus the other networks that have picked up the story, etc., I'd say it's primarily notable for illegal activity. I don't think we need to delve into the wikilaw particulars to decide that is not a site we want to connect readers to. That said, by covering the subject at all, we're providing the URL regardless, so whether we also include a hyperlink doesn't really make much of a difference. Here's an outside-the-box thought: since the investigation that confers notability on the subject is also about a Telegram group, is this worth proposing a merge into drug-facilitated sexual assault, at which point an official link becomes moot? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:19, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

Could you provide links to some of those sources? There's currently a lot of social media misinformation about a purported "online rape academy" connected with the website, despite the original CNN report never definitively claiming to have found illegal material there. Meanwhile, Snopes quotes a journalist saying there were dozens of Telegram groups with up to 70,000 members and rape videos reaching millions of views. Yet so far no one has suggested we shouldn't link to Telegram.org. ~Sangdeboeuf (talk) 15:30, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

Telegram is behind registration wall, not on open Internet. Telegram app doesn't even use HTTP. Akishima Yuka (talk) 13:00, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

One option that we've used in similar circumstances is to provide the link in the infobox, but make it non-clickable: |website=motherless.com . WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:13, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

This is probably the best middle-ground solution. I support this wholeheartedly. Ilov3gam3z (talk) 19:00, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

I'd agree with this. Akishima Yuka (talk) 13:03, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

Support non-clickable, it's a good idea. How difficult is it to copy and paste? Anythingyouwant (talk) 10:10, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

I think we're kidding ourselves when the link is in the title... non-clickable is probably the best option. Also, for the general principle, illegality has never stopped us before; we link tons and tons of piracy sites in their articles, The Pirate Bay, Anna's Archive, etc. PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:40, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

Bewildering how they seemingly collectively did not notice the fact that the article name is the link... ~2026-32233-31 (talk) 19:46, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

Both myself and Czello pointed that out above. Black Kite (talk) 19:49, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

MaxBrowne2 opposes a direct link, a clickable one. Akishima Yuka (talk) 13:02, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

Clarifying The Policy About AI

I think that Wikipedia needs to create a page that clearly outlines the policy on the use of AI, according to community consensus. Currently, community consensus opposes a complete ban on the use of AI. However, the policies and limits of AI use are vague other than "Don't generate an entire article with Chat-GPT." I believe that a policy stating that you are permitted to use AI to help write a Wikipedia article, presuming that you proofread and fact check the AI's output, to ensure its accuracy and quality. ~2026-31586-13 (talk) 18:22, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

The thing is even if that happened people seeking shortcuts to actually doing the research, writing the article, or actually reviewing and editing raw LLM output would still just vomit out raw LLM output onto Wikipedia. Per Brandolini's law, actually reviewing and editing raw LLM output to be acceptable for Wikipedia would take as much time as simply editing the article without using an LLM. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^MUSHROOM 18:27, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

We have such a policy, WP:NEWLLM. It explicitly prohibits stuff like you are permitted to use AI to help write a Wikipedia article, presuming that you proofread and fact check the AI's output, to ensure its accuracy and quality.

So, what you are actually asking is for us to change our policy. Gnomingstuff (talk) 18:37, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

Just curious, where did you see these vague policies about AI? We have a list of relevant policies and guidelines, which shows up in Wikipedia:Artificial intelligence, Wikipedia:Artificial intelligence resources and Wikipedia:WikiProject AI Cleanup/Policies, and which is pretty clear about what is/isn't allowed. Chaotic Enby (in solidarity · talk · contribs) 18:49, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

I think it is pretty clear as it is;

• ..., the use of LLMs to generate or rewrite article content is prohibited, ...
  — WP:NOLLM guideline

• The use of  AI writing tools ..., is generally prohibited ...
  — WP:EPAI policy

See WP:AIPOLICY and WP:AIGUIDELINE for a full list.

--gurkubondinn 12:14, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

Should we allow stewards to view deleted pages for non-steward roles?

The English Wikipedia's global rights policy says about stewards: "They may use their global rollback permission on the English Wikipedia, and may use Special:Undelete to view deleted revisions in the course of their duties as stewards. ... According to m:Stewards, stewards will not use their technical access when there are local users who can use that access, except in emergencies."

I propose changing view deleted revisions in the course of their duties as stewards to view deleted revisions to combat abuse (Option 1).

An alternative, more concise option would be to replace

They may use their global rollback permission on the English Wikipedia, and may use Special:Undelete to view deleted revisions in the course of their duties as stewards.

with

They may use their global rollback permission and may view deleted revisions on the English Wikipedia. (Option 2)

An English Wikipedia SPI clerk, A09, was elected as a steward this year. As our policy says stewards may view deleted revisions only "in the course of their duties as stewards" and SPI clerking is not a steward duty, A09 has refrained from using his steward access to view deleted revisions for SPI. However, I believe stewards can be trusted to view deleted revisions here, and it would be incredibly useful for A09 to be allowed to do so. Therefore, I think we should broaden the language of our policy to allow stewards to view deleted pages whenever they are combatting abuse, be that on behalf of the English Wikipedia or on behalf of the global community. Toadspike [Talk] 11:24, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

I'll refrain from commenting as I'm indifferent regardless of the outcome :) Best, A09|(talk) 11:33, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

Are there any steward duties where viewing deleted revisions is necessary/useful but which are not combatting abuse? My guess is that it might be relevant when determining if someone is eligible for vanishing? If so then I oppose the proposal and suggest instead adding language about combatting abuse rather than replacing the existing wording. Thryduulf (talk) 11:37, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

Ah, so you would prefer view deleted revisions in the course of their duties as stewards or to combat abuse? Let's call that Option 3. (At that point I find Option 2 much cleaner, though; I can't imagine anything that falls outside of Option 3 worth using so many extra words to prohibit.) Toadspike [Talk] 11:56, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

• Generally, if we're going to elect people to do difficult stuff like this, we need to not bind their hands.—S Marshall T/C 11:51, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

Deleted content is presumably hidden from view mainly to 'protect' the general reader and possibly also casual editors from stuff that isn't fit to be seen, but anyone with advanced roles/perms can IMO be trusted to see it. (In fact, I've argued in the past that NPP/AfC reviewers would find this a useful ability in identifying socks, determining G4 speedy cases, etc., but that's a separate argument.) So yeah, I'm in favour. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:03, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

Deletion is also used to protect other parties, such as in cases of copyright violation and sensitive/personal information. The latter cases are the ones I would expect needing higher security. ~2026-32802-12 (talk) 13:52, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

To my mind, that still comes within the 'not fit for general consumption but okay for users with advanced perms to see' rationale. If an admin can see a deleted copyvio, I can't think why a steward shouldn't be able to. And if something is so sensitive or bad that neither admins nor stewards should be able to see it, oversighters are there to deal with it. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:23, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

Though our global rights policy says stewards should only use oversight to suppress abusive usernames or in emergencies, they theoretically have access to that tool as well, so I don't find the "access to private information" argument convincing. Anyone who can be trusted to (occasionally) see oversighted information can be trusted to see deleted information. Toadspike [Talk] 14:50, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

Stewards have full permissions on every project, but we don't use it. So yes, we could see oversighted content, but we're not nosey enough to abuse this privilege. A09|(talk) 15:01, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

Eh, I know plenty of stewards who have looked at content I suppressed because it came up in a list. Or they just stumble across it. The joke I’ve made before is that the quickest way to get a ton of eyes on something is to revdel or suppress it because people are nosey. It’s not an issue: the view function of the steward role is a legitimate exercise in oversight of even large projects against abuse, and serves as a check against the local functionary group as you have additional people with the capacity to report to ombuds. That’s why I think this is a pointless policy change. Stewards have been clicking on crossed out revisions on en.wiki for decades at this point and no one has thought anything of it. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:14, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

Option 2. Seconding DoubleGrazing on this one. Sadly, we can't extend this to NPP or AfC reviewers, as the WMF requires an RfA-like process to get access to viewdeleted for legal reasons, but stewards definitely fit the bill. Chaotic Enby (in solidarity · talk · contribs) 13:51, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

• Does this matter? It’s a non-logged action that I’m sure they do anyway without needing permission, and that I’m all but positive that in the entire history of en.wiki no one has spent a second thinking about until today. Seems like an update of policy for the sake of updating policy. Oppose updates because there’s no need to create a policy to permit something that is unenforceable to prohibit. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:02, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

  @TonyBallioni At least one English Wikipedia functionary told A09 that he is not allowed to view deleted revisions here outside of his steward duties, and Xaosflux disagrees below that this is already allowed. "No one has spent a second thinking about [this] until today" is sadly not true. Nosy stewards indeed cannot be prohibited, but writing on-wiki comparisons of deleted pages to extant ones can be. I'd prefer if we rebalanced this in favor of useful work. Toadspike [Talk] 15:36, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

  Again, how is that point of view enforceable? Even if someone takes a less commonsense approach and insists that for something to be actionable on-wiki an admin has to view the diffs… an admin has to view them to block anyway. Maybe they shouldn’t post on-wiki prudentially if they are concerned with a there being controversy in a specific case, but for socks stewards have much easier ways to communicate with local CUs than SPI, so again, it doesn’t really matter. Strongly opposed to any change here as it will have the practical effect of further restricting what can be done by making it appear we have to list out everything explicitly. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:47, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

  We can go the Ninth Amendment way. Chaotic Enby (in solidarity · talk · contribs) 18:12, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

  Yah, that’s kinda my point. By listing out something that has been done forever and that to the best of my knowledge is not controversial, you’re essentially making it harder to use tools in a commonsense way. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:17, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

• Seems fine as is. If someone wants to do some local adminining, WP:RFA is right around the corner. — xaosflux ^Talk 15:21, 2 June 2026 (UTC)
• I trust our stewards to view deleted revisions for any purpose they think is appropriate, and we should update our policies to allow that. Tazerdadog (talk) 16:04, 2 June 2026 (UTC)
• Option 2, though I wish that a less rigid approach had been taken in the first place. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:24, 7 June 2026 (UTC)
• Option 2 Seems sensible. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:53, 7 June 2026 (UTC)
• Option 2, and I agree with WAID. To Tony's point, I think this change removes an unenforceable policy—the limitation to only using viewdelete for steward stuff. Best, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 01:00, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

Elections

There is a discussion regarding policy on Election-related articles at Wikipedia talk:Notability (events)#Discussion on Elections, and I would appreciate it if any of you who are interested chimed in. Thank you! Commandant Quacks-a-lot (talk) 12:34, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

Image Browsing, and image hiding

Recently, the Reader Growth team announced rolling out Image Browsing as a beta feature for mobile users. This feature displays a carousel of images on top of articles, with each image being clickable to access a more detailed view.

Image Browsing provides controls to hide a specific image from a page, with either class=notpageimage excluding it from thumbnail previews, or class=noviewer excluding it from MediaViewer. The carousel can also be disabled from a page, with the magic word __NOMEDIAVIEWERCAROUSEL__, and logged-in users have access to a preference turning off the feature everywhere.

The choice of where to place these controls carries policy implications, and ties back to repeated discussions about the possibility of a "hide images" functionality. On its face, it would make sense to hide unexpected images of gore or pornography that the feature would suddenly bring at the top of an article. However, to take more extreme examples, some of our readers may also wish for pages on queer topics, or featuring religious imagery, to hide images they perceive as offensive. Drawing the line, or figuring out whether a line should be drawn at all, is certainly not an easy question, but it is one the community should address before the full rollout of the feature.

Pinging @MMiller (WMF) and @SherryYang-WMF who may be able to answer any technical questions. Chaotic Enby (in solidarity · talk · contribs) 14:49, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

I'm not sure it's possible to neutrally choose which images to exclude and include, especially if the images are divorced from their broader context in the article. It may be best to restrict image hiding to only ones which would be duplicates or would be low quality when scaled, it's a neutral approach at least.

As an aside, the whole feature feels like scope creep. Maybe needing to curate sufficiently pleasant image carousels for mobile Image Browsing users is just part of what being an encyclopedia means now, but it doesn't feel that way to me. I'm also unimpressed with some of the stated reasoning for the feature, like the bold claim that Many new readers are visual learners, as though it were settled fact (it's not, the concept of learning styles is academically contentious, at worst it's regarded as harmful myth). fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 02:24, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

I agree with you about the fact that learning styles is, um, a word I'm not going to say in polite company. However, as a reader, I have to confess that I've sometimes just gone straight for the pictures (especially if the subject is one that lends itself to images). So I think I'm probably going to use this feature a lot, and curating which images sounds fine by me; I'm not worried about scope creep.

Just to go back on track: I'm hoping nothing other than maybe something "consider hiding unexpected gorey, sexual, or hateful images" is needed at this stage; I think we might need to settle the more subjective matters of offense/NPOV on an article by article basis for a while, and then we'll ideally see what proves contentious and what we need site-wide guidance on.

In terms of more firm rules, maybe something about taking into account BLP context might be a good idea to figure out now; if we have a mugshot of a person, it may or may not be a good idea to include that image at the very top of the article. For some high profile examples, let's consider Justin Bieber. His mugshots are in the article; should we put those at the top? If we pretend he's alive for a few minutes, how about O. J. Simpson's? How about Ted Stevens? (Again, pretend he's alive for a moment). Does that change if you ask yourself whether or not the mugshots should appear at the tops of Murder of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ron Goldman or Trial of Ted Stevens? GreenLipstickLesbian💌🧸 03:06, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

The stated goal of Image Browsing is to [make] it easier for a wider variety of new readers to find Wikipedia useful to learn from, it's supposed to be a learning tool, but is it a neutral tool if it necessitates exclusion of entire categories of otherwise encyclopedic content, or puts extra emphasis on that which is "safe"? If this is a lens through which many mobile users are expected to learn, then the idea that it will be a non-neutral one feels fundamentally wrong. I think if we find ourselves needing to answer questions of "which due information do we need to excise here for palatability", then something has gone awry.

I'm not sure the answer for the mugshot hypotheticals, but I also don't think we should be put in a position where that's a question we need to ask. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 04:14, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

It's a question we already need to ask when adding mugshots and such to leads. Honestly, I already view some articles by leafing through all the images; this just seems like a better version of that. Especially if it means there's a path to letting me cut out those random not-really-related to the article images that show up at the bottom of the page; think [8] or [9]. GreenLipstickLesbian💌🧸 04:30, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

The difference as I see it is that adding a mugshot to the lead is an opt-in process dependent on an editor first choosing to do so, and the lead also provides space for needed contextualization. Image Browsing's opt-out nature forces the question while also not appearing to provide the same space for context.

If this was something editors could choose to toggle on per-article (and allow registered editors like yourself to toggle always-on), rather than off, I don't think I'd have an objection. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 05:33, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

But readers can already do what the image merry go round does, just with no ability for enWiki editors to curate what they see? And with no ability to toggle the system off per article? GreenLipstickLesbian💌🧸 06:02, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

That begs the question of why the carousel exists then, if readers can already do what it does, and I think the answer is that it's fulfilling a different purpose. It's targeting engagement and retention by placing a much larger emphasis on images than exists currently, while also canonizing the gallery as an intended primary co-medium for parsing an article (or to quote, before, visual learners would still need to interact with mostly textual content, now they have the opportunity to balance text with images ... fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 06:43, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

Putting aside the PR speak for a minute: Trying to increase reader retention ain't a bad thing. Giving enWiki editors more power over a system people have already hacked out because they like using it ain't a bad thing. Letting interested readers skip directly to galleries ain't a bad thing. GreenLipstickLesbian💌🧸 06:49, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

^This. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:40, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for all the thoughtful engagement here @GreenLipstickLesbian. First, I agree with what you said about this feature being meant to provide readers a way to access images more easily (7-8% of readers engaged with the feature during our experiment, which is quite high for mobile web) while also giving editors control to help curate the carousel. Also, with respect to the discussion about mugshots, are there instances when the class=notpageimage would not be sufficient for mugshots or similar use cases (i.e., the community would be okay with the image showing up in the thumbnail for search but not in the carousel)? Interested to hear your perspective on how applying that tool might work and/or where you might need a different one. SherryYang-WMF (talk) 18:37, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

Thanks @Fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four for your feedback. To the question of needing to curate images specifically to the mobile image browsing carousel, that is not our intent here. The carousel will automatically bring in the images already in the article, honoring all exclusions already defined by editors for MultiMediaViewer. We hope that following the same logic will allow the feature to bypass issues on images with NSFW, gore, and other areas that require editor oversight to ensure both neutrality for article content and safety for readers. So ideally, this will not result in scope creep for editors on either existing or future articles since editors are already doing that MMV work.

There will of course remain questions around potential specific cases (BLPs as mentioned below are a good one), and we expect to have to hash these out together. As you mentioned, too, we still very much want the carousel to adhere to neutrality guidelines. Do you think we would need a different set of tools from the image class exclusions (like class=notpageimage and class=noviewer) to do that? SherryYang-WMF (talk) 18:45, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

The automation/opt-out nature is the problem, we should not be automatically extracting and flattening encyclopedic content, and then presenting this inadequately contextualized repackaging as a valid way to engage with a subject. The idea that we now have to bypass issues on images with NSFW within articles where said images were determined to be encyclopedic, is bad. That's not a neutral approach.

But in the interest of providing feedback for reality as-is, reusing class=notpageimage, a class intended to choose which images to hide outside an article, to determine which images to hide inside an article (the carousel is very much part of the article, and is intended as a learning tool after all) is plainly a misuse of the feature. Even if it was an appropriate use it still leads to unintuitive results, no 53rd Fighter Squadron insignia on 53rd Fighter Squadron, no communist symbols on bans on communist symbols, lots of penises on human penis except the lead one, etc. For that last one consider that lead images are often the ones tagged as notpageimage, and lead images are also selected to be of least shock value, so another issue with misusing notclasspage can be that potentially shocking imagery in the carousel automatically ends up more concentrated. Though maybe this is all of little concern, since the tag is so rarely used.

class=noviewer is never used to exclude "NSFW" images, there is a policy that might have something to say about that. It's used to exclude low-quality, repetitive, or less-relevant images, such as at sexual intercourse where it hides an icon and not, say, any sexual intercourse.

I believe the best solution is giving full control to the editors, which would mean making this a per-page opt-in feature at most.​ fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 02:27, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

The policy linked to does not prevent curating which images appear and where they appear on Wikipedia. Indeed, the MOS:SHOCK pages you go on to link to, and our guidelines on offensive material very much support the idea that Wikipedians are capable of editorial choices regarding shock/offence/safe-for-work/appropriateness/etc. Any discussion about how the images on such an image browsing carousel could best be curated would be infinitely better if that policy was actually forbidden from being mentioned, per xkcd: "someone once said that defending a position by citing free speech [i.e., WP:NOTCENSORED] is sort of the ultimate concession; you're saying that the most compelling thing you can say for your position is that it's not literally illegal to express." Colin°^Talk 07:21, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

Thanks @Fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four and @Colin for this discussion. I really appreciate the care around interpreting policy for our new feature! One quick clarification: as they do currently, images with class=notpageimage and/or class=noviewer will still appear within the article. We would not interfere with editor discretion on content like that. Exclusion from the carousel will not remove images or alter their placement within the article.

Also yes, the usage of those tags is fairly low right now. We would like to give control to editors on whether/which images are shown, so we are hoping this beta period can serve as a jumping off point for that.

SherryYang-WMF (talk) 17:24, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

As stated, the carousel is part of the article, it shows up big and bold right at the top, and is explicitly intended as a lens through which visual learners [sic] may engage with a subject. Images are encyclopedic content, encyclopedic content should not be automatically flattened and decontextualized in this way.

@Colin the positioning of all potentially objectionable imagery on the project is the result of editorial discretion, I agree that this is a good thing. However, this new feature takes those past considered choices, and disregards them by flatten all images to the top of articles by default. I don't believe reusing notpageimage or noviewer alleviates any issues with this on-by-default approach, partly because those features have undesirable side effects since they were intended for different purposes, partly because they are so very rarely used to being with.

(And for what it's worth, I don't believe using noviewer to exclude relevant content from media viewer (not talking about the carousel) is appropriate. If a reader chooses to open an image, they should get the same enriched experience for that image as any other. If they choose to flip through all images on a page, they should be allowed to.) fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 23:13, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

@Fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four, I see that you use the desktop site (so none of this will affect you personally, just in case that wasn't already clear). When you go to an article with pictures showing, and you click on one of the pictures, what happens? What do you see on your screen? WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:43, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

So to be clear - this is an effort to increase viewership/learning by linking/ directing readers away from English Wikipedia to Commons before the lead of articles to random (yet related) file information pages?Moxy🍁 05:25, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

Sort of. The metric of success is the number of readers who use an image ("engage further with the image they selected") to leave the article ("promising clickthrough rate, which we think signals reader benefit"). However, clicking that image technically goes to the media viewer, not Commons. Not included in the brief summary at mw:Readers/Reader Growth/Image Browsing are metrics on whether the x was clicked following which readers engaged further with the article. CMD (talk) 07:18, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

I'm going thru the options at that page.... I see we have millions of articles to go through to choose which images are seen (if we don't want the default selection). is it possible to make an image link to the relevant page? Like if someone sees the Jack pine painting at the top of the Canada article is it possible for us to provide a link to that The Jack Pine article rather than to a media page that takes our readers away from anything educational? Basically will there be a |link=The Jack pine type option as we have right now with our images?Moxy🍁 11:51, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

As is currently the case with images embedded within the prose, I think it's desirable for editors to make any appropriate follow up links visible as a linked phrase in the image caption. This will handle the image carousel too. isaacl (talk) 17:15, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

@Moxy thanks for the note. I just want to confirm that this feature is not intended to draw readership away from Wikipedia or toward Commons. Readers will be able to open a close-up detail view of the image while staying on the same article page, so that if they finish looking at the images and dismiss the detail view, they are still in the article and can keep reading. SherryYang-WMF (talk) 18:49, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

Ok that makes more sense Moxy🍁 00:31, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

Thank you to everyone who has shared feedback here! Your input is already helping us make improvements to the Image Browsing feature. To that end, as we announced on VPT, we are aiming to get the carousel into beta on Monday, Jun 8, at which point logged-in users who opt into the beta can test the feature (Note: all you have to do to see it is opt in to beta; images from the article page will automatically show unless excluded via the image classes, so no editorial effort needed to seed the carousel). Our hope is that seeing the feature in beta will help volunteers visualize the experience ahead of full rollout, helping to clarify some of the questions we've seen come up and grounding the discussions around how to use the image exclusions. We'll be continuing to listen for questions and suggestions here, thanks again! SherryYang-WMF (talk) 22:26, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

You're welcome! Jun 6 is a Saturday, so did you mean Monday, Jun 8? Chaotic Enby (in solidarity · talk · contribs) 22:45, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

Ack! Yes, correcting that above as well--thanks for catching! SherryYang-WMF (talk) 22:49, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

Simple factual question here. Does this functionality take readers to an article that uses a particular image? That way, the captioning of the image goes through all the Wikipedia verifiability checks. If not, we are exposed to all the captioning errors that you find on Commons, where there is no principle of verifiability. If the latter, this is not a very good learning tool. ThoughtIdRetired _TIR 07:42, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

The feature adds an image carousel at the top of articles that consists of the images used in the article. So readers are already viewing the article where those images are used. isaacl (talk) 08:25, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

Sounds like it needs a reasonably prominent "skip down to the content" button, i.e. a button that takes you directly to the first paragraph of the lead. (Long infoboxes need this, as well.)—S Marshall T/C 14:53, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

Thanks @S Marshall. I hear you on wanting to be able to skip past an image carousel and/or long infobox (super interesting idea, which the mobile apps have implemented a version of already!) to get into article text. Just to clarify, since the carousel has the images arranged horizontally, it does not push the article lead below the fold and the lead will still be easily visible so readers who want to head straight there can do so. Also, if you want to turn off the carousel permanently for your account, you can do so (during beta, this will be found in Preferences → Beta Features, and after the beta period, this will be found in mobile settings via the hamburger menu at the top of the page).

During the rollout, we will monitor for indications that we need more off ramps beyond letting logged-in readers opt out. SherryYang-WMF (talk) 20:36, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

I haven't been following this - apologies. Am I right in saying it applies only to mobile web users (typically users who don't have the iphone or Android apps installed) on their phones? MichaelMaggs (talk) 15:12, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

That's right, it's linked to the mobile web browser. Presumably a mobile user without the app who views an article in Desktop mode will also not see the carousel. CMD (talk) 15:22, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

Thanks @MichaelMaggs and @CMD, you’re both right–only readers on mobile web (using Minerva skin, not viewing the page in Desktop mode, and not on the mobile apps) will see this feature. SherryYang-WMF (talk) 19:09, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

Are there plans to expand this feature to the mobile app in the future? What proportion of mobile users use the app vs a web browser? Chaotic Enby (in solidarity · talk · contribs) 19:45, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

@Chaotic Enby-- interestingly, this feature was partially inspired by the mobile apps -- right now, if you tap the big image at the top of an article on the mobile app, you can scroll horizontally across the various images in the article. We saw that that was a popular thing that mobile app readers do, which helped prompt us to think about this for the web. Now that we've built the web experience, it's more fully featured than the app experience, so maybe we'll have learnings/improvements to bring back to the apps.

Regarding the proportion of app vs. mobile web: the mobile apps only represent single-digit percents of our reader traffic. You can see the proportions with this graph. This is sort of a bigger conversation, but a lot of our product plans right now have to do with the fact that there are lots of people out there who would be happy users of our mobile apps but they don't even know they exist. For instance, whenever we mention our mobile apps in our social channels (e.g. Instagram) there are all these fans of Wikipedia commenting like, "You guys have an app??? How did I not know??" MMiller (WMF) (talk) 21:15, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

@MMiller (WMF) elsewhere, I see that the rollout of this beta feature was slated for last week, but I don't see it among the beta features? I assume the rollout was delayed? I have some possible concerns but I'd have to see it in action to say definitively. I did go and test drive the app thanks to this conversation...which revealed a major bug imo. When clicking on an image in the app, it displays the file's description text from Commons, not the local caption. That may have been by design, but if so, that's a bad design. The Commons captions are typically poor quality, not appropriately localized, and not customized to the article. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 05:43, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

Commons captions are not just poor quality, many are simply wrong. More importantly, there is no policy of verifiability in Commons. If this initiative really shows Commons captions, it goes against one of the Core content policies. Surely that is unacceptable. ThoughtIdRetired _TIR 07:48, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

Wondering if we can do what we do for short description vis-a-vis wikidata where we can update the caption in commons from enwiki's interface? – robertsky (talk) 13:02, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

The issue is that the captions on Commons and on en.wp should not always be the same as they serve different purposes - those on Commons are to describe the image on its own terms while those on en.wp describe the image in the context in which it is used in the specific article. For example File:SandrineNosbé (cropped).jpg is captioned "Sandrine Nosbé in 2024" when used on Sandrine Nosbé and "Handbag over the shoulder" when used on Handbag. Thryduulf (talk) 13:18, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

Agreed. Commons needs to keep the original caption. That's also important for archival photos. For example, there is a large archive of historical German photos which keep the original caption for archival purposes (and which of course notes the original caption may be incorrect or biased), but I would not typically use the original on an EnWiki article (because they were frequently written by a Nazi or a GDR officer for propaganda purposes). I also don't think WikiData is the solution, as WD also doesn't require verifiability and isn't situation specific (a la the handbag example). CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 17:45, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

Hi @CaptainEek you’re correct that we delayed the rollout and are now aiming for Monday. That’s a very helpful flag on the Apps, we’ve shared with the team and created a Phab task for work addressing this.

I appreciate the concern about Commons captions that you, @ThoughtIdRetired, @Robertsky, and others on this thread raised and want to address that here for our mobile web Image Browsing feature: the captions we show when readers tap on the images in the carousel will come from the language wiki’s article. There are no instances where we show Commons captions outside Commons for images on mobile web (as with current image detail views in article, readers can tap Details to go to the Commons page with all the context provided there). You can test this on testwiki (please note testwiki behavior does not always match behavior on real wikis because we have to “fake” the content for testing) here: https://test.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triton_(moon) SherryYang-WMF (talk) 18:43, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

On testwiki, https://test.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Triton_(moon)&useskin=Minerva&mobileaction=toggle_view_mobile one caption (or no useful caption) is shown when one clicks on a picture in the carousel, but another caption when the picture is first clicked on down in the article (and then again in the carousel). Maybe the action for clicking in the carousel should be the same as clicking on the original image thumbnail.

A nice feature would be being able to jump from the carousel to (the section) where the image is shown in the article: currently, the carousel pictures sit in a vacuum, there's little context provided. Ponor (talk) 15:00, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

Hi @Ponor, I wasn't able to reproduce this issue with the images we tried in the testwiki article. Sometimes testwiki can be finicky. Could you point us to which image triggered this discrepancy or say more about the steps you took?

We did include a “jump to section” option in our test, but it saw low engagement (only 1.5% of readers who tapped into the Detail View then selected View in Article, roughly a fifth of the 7.5% who wanted to see the image at full size). As a result, it’s not in this initial version of rollout but we’re definitely still looking for more ways to improve the feature. SherryYang-WMF (talk) 19:11, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

@SherryYang-WMF I think it has to do with whether the section where the image is is collapsed or expanded. I'm only seeing the issue on my phone. Steps to reproduce: on your phone, load testwiki:Triton (moon); all sections should be collapsed; click on the first image in the carousel; the caption is "Unknown authorUnknown author · Public domain" (this is not a typo!); close the viewer; uncover "Discovery and naming" and click on the carousel image again; the caption now gets another line, saying "William Lassell, the discoverer of Triton"; collapse the section again and click on the first image in the carousel: back to one line, no description. Tested in Firefox Beta for Android and Chrome for Android. Ponor (talk) 19:39, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

@Ponor thanks for that info! We recently fixed a bug related to lazy loading of images that sounds similar. I wonder whether there's some peculiarity with how the fix may have reached testwiki. The engineering team are done for the week at this point but I'll keep an eye on this issue. SherryYang-WMF (talk) 21:30, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:Speedy deletion § Proposal to expand G8 to pages that are completely blank and have no use for Wikipedia

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Speedy deletion § Proposal to expand G8 to pages that are completely blank and have no use for Wikipedia. RaschenTechner (talk) 18:04, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

Proposed edit to the BLP

Hello, at the BLP talk page, I proposed adding 17 words to the policy. That was a couple days ago, and there's been no comment. So here I am!

I would like to suggest a small modification: "A living person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until convicted by a court of law, and upon conviction there is an exception to the usual BLP policy on the inclusion of denials." This would clarify an exception to the usual BLP policy ("If the subject has denied such allegations, their denial(s) should be reported too"). We shouldn't feel obliged to always include denials of convicted people.

This small modification matches what the essay WP:NOTMANDY has said for years: "the Biographies of Living Persons (BLP) policy does not require denials be mentioned if a person has been 'convicted by a court of law', in which case they can be presumed guilty" (N.B. I was the lead author of that essay). Of course, this BLP clarification would still allow denials to be included in the rare case of convicted people whose denials are still reported after conviction, in reliable sources. Nor would this clarification apply in the rare case that a conviction is overturned (i.e. the clarification applies "upon" conviction, not forever "after" conviction).

Thoughts? Anythingyouwant (talk) 09:43, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

Have you considered the possibility of a wrongful conviction? Why wouldn't we include denials, such as:

• He was convicted but plans to appeal.
• He was convicted but continues to claim that he is innocent.

Even including a sentence such as "He entered a plea of not guilty" is including the accused's denial of the allegations in the article.

I think that a small change might be appropriate: It might be better to say that "their denial(s) should normally be reported too". I wouldn't weaken it beyond that. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:00, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

If there’s RS reporting about a wrongful conviction or an appeal, then that can be included per usual Wikipedia editing rules. But most convicted felons will always say they’re innocent, I don’t see the point in including that, the presumption of innocence no longer applies to people who have been convicted. I feel that invariably requiring a denial be included in a BLP even for convicted felons leads to people just ignoring WP:DENIALS altogether. There is also not generally a tradition among journalists or scholars of mentioning denials of people who have been convicted. Note that I haven’t suggested any change to the language of WP:DENIALS, but you’ve done so; I think your insertion of the word “normally” would make more people ignore WP:DENIALS than already ignore it…which is the exact opposite of what I’m trying accomplish. Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:13, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Administrator elections/May 2026/RFC workshop

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Administrator elections/May 2026/RFC workshop. Chaotic Enby (in solidarity · talk · contribs) 14:35, 7 June 2026 (UTC)