This page is within the scope of WikiProject Editor Retention, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of efforts to improve editor retention on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
My suggestion is to change the current title to "BOLD, discuss, re-edit", and the current content likewise. I suppose everyone understands the underlying reasons; just look at the discussions above here and at the pump.
This page in a nutshell: Making bold edits is encouraged, as it will result in either improving an article, or stimulating discussion. If your edit gets re-edited, do not re-edit back. Instead, if discussion cannot achieve a local consensus, ask for a superior level of consensus.
I have thought something similar for some years, and was considering writing a new essay to be perhaps called "BOLD, discuss, revert". I am rather tired, as are I suspect some others, of users who feel that it's not just acceptable to revert a good faith edit, but that this essay encourages the use of the revert tool before a discussion. I don't think it is ever acceptable to revert a good faith edit simply due to disagreement or not understanding the reasons for it (usually described in edit summaries as "no consensus" or - ironically - "discuss first") - discussion should take place before reverting, not after. I don't think, though, that this essay should be changed; there are some people who misunderstand or misuse it, but the principles behind it are sound: "If you are reverted, don't revert back; discuss first". SilkTork✔Tea time 09:47, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
I've reverted a note added by @SilkTork: that was unclear and IMO doesn't correspond to the spirit of the BRD procedure. First, the terms "BRDRDRD" and "BRDCE" are not explained and take a time to figure out what they're talking about. Second, achieving an explicit full consensus before resuming editing is not a requirement of either BRD nor WP:EDITCONSENSUS.
The idea of being BOLD is that the new edit might be the one that achieves consensus; BRD is about making informed edits instead of pure edit warring, not to stop editing altogether. BRD is a cycle, so following your terminology the proper procedure would be "BRDBRD...BRDBC", not "BRDCE". Diego (talk) 12:35, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
It wasn't my note, it was a pre-existing essay note by User:GTBacchus that has been linked from this page for five years. I simply merged it in, as it was rather short, and hardly worth its own page. Your revert is an example of why reverting first and discussing afterwards is rarely the best option. ;-) Think of like: Do we shoot first and ask questions afterwards? Or do we ask questions first and then decide the best option? In this case you didn't ask questions, you just shot! Because you didn't ask questions, you didn't understand the situation, and your revert put in a link to Wikipedia:A note regarding BRD which redirects back here, even though you had just removed all the content related to that redirect. Now, if you feel the note isn't clear enough, then removing it from Wikipedia is not the way we do things. We prefer folks to attempt to improve, and move things forward. No worries, we live and learn, and next time you probably won't be so quick on the revert trigger!
Anyway. From my understanding of the note, it is saying that BRD doesn't mean we should discuss revert discuss revert discuss revert, as that is an edit war, it is saying we should discuss until we get consensus and then make the edit, or the amended edit. There are four options open to us now: 1) Restore the edit with the same wording, 2) Restore the edit and improve the wording, 3) Restore the Wikipedia:A note regarding BRD page, 4) Delete the Wikipedia:A note regarding BRD page. Well, there is the fifth option of leaving things as they currently stand with a See also link that simply redirects back to this essay, but that's not really a viable option. I am not on Wikipedia much these days, so I won't have time to help you sort out the situation. I'll leave it up to you as you are a well meaning editor, and I trust you to do the right thing. (PS, I turned off ping years ago - if you do wish to discuss this matter with me, please leave a note on my talkpage). SilkTork✔Tea time 09:42, 22 January 2016 (UTC)