Wikipedia talk:Consensus

Start an RFC re ONUS location?

• Ok, it looks like there is enough initial support for the idea of moving ONUS out of WP:V that I think we can begin to formulate an official RFC on it.

Where to move it to and whether to also move NOCON can be a sub-question to ask at the RFC.

Since this has the potential to involve multiple PAGs (WP:V, WP:Consensus, WP:EP), I am thinking that the RFC should take place at the Village Pump (policy)… any objections to that? Blueboar (talk) 13:42, 27 December 2025 (UTC)

• No objection. Regarding where to move it to, I suggest offering a new separate page as an option (as an alternative to squabbling over EP vs. Consensus). - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 18:11, 27 December 2025 (UTC)

  Offering multiple options has a lot of potential for a split vote. I'd rather have a single proposal.

  It might be worth getting the WT:Editing policy#Move NOCON to this page? section officially summarized first. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:49, 27 December 2025 (UTC)

  I am fine with that. No need to rush. Blueboar (talk) 20:08, 27 December 2025 (UTC)

  First of all, consensus is not an election result.

  Putting that aside, let's say the RFC has two questions: 1. Should ONUS be removed from V? 2. Should ONUS be placed in EP? What happens if there is a consensus to move ONUS but not one to move it to EP? Does ONUS stay were it is? - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 00:50, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

• Perhaps ask:

• 1) should ONUS be moved?

  2) if moved, where should it be moved to? Blueboar (talk) 02:32, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

  If you want to be successful in moving it, then this has a better chance:

  1) Informal talks with editors about where to move the ONUS sentence and shortcut to

  2) Start an RFC proposing that we move the ONUS sentence and shortcut to whatever page was selected in the previous discussion.

  I don't know that any process has a high likelihood of success, but I believe that would be your best chance. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:41, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

  I prefer my proposal which was to move the ONUS shortcut to a new section at Consensus (and leave the text at V the same), so both ONUS and NOCON would be there. This would be the simplest solution. (I'm repeating my 02:04, 18 April 2025 comment at WT:EP.) Kolya Butternut (talk) 00:55, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

  Out of curiosity, WHY do you think that sentence belongs in WP:V (as opposed to some other PAG page)? Blueboar (talk) 02:28, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

  I've disussed this to death. I don't know where to begin. I don't know if you've read my proposal and the prevous discussions, starting with the linked WT:EP discussion above. Kolya Butternut (talk) 03:39, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

  (Oversimplified summary:

  Kolya wants ONUS expanded so it applies to all changes. ONUS currently says that if Alice removes Bob's cited addition, then Bob has to convince everyone to let him restore it. Kolya would like it to say that if Alice wants to change an article, and Bob disagrees, then it's Alice's job to convince everyone to let her change the article. As a "change" includes edits unrelated to verifiability (e.g., rearranging sections), it would not make sense to keep such an expanded version in WP:V.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:13, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

  Yeah no, WAID's interpretation of ONUS is her own. My proposal does not change policy; it only moves things around. Kolya Butternut (talk) 05:02, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

  WP:ONUS says:

  • The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content.

  Your proposal says:

  • The onus to achieve consensus for changes to consensus is on those seeking the change.

  I don't think those are the same thing, and therefore your proposal would constitute a change to the policy. You might try to argue that it's not a significant change, or that it's a change that better aligns the written policy with community practice, but if it's actually no change, then you would be satisfied with the existing wording, and you wouldn't be "concerned that...would somehow lead to longstanding content being removed more easily". I know that even after @JzG directly told you that he really did mean "include" instead of "add", you still wanted to know if maybe he actually meant "add" anyway, which suggests that you understand that "include" is not exactly the same thing as "change". WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:41, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

  This is why I wanted to focus on location rather than language. Even if we accept Kolya’s suggested language we still have an instruction about consensus in a policy about verifiability. The instruction is still misplaced. Blueboar (talk) 13:36, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

  Blueboar, please listen to what I am saying and not WhatamIdoing's narrative of what I am saying. WAID is coming from a place of believing that you can remove longstanding content with implicit consensus and then the onus to restore it is on those wanting to restore it. In actuality, the purpose of the existing Onus sentence at WP:V is simply to communicate that verifiability is not enough to make content DUE. This instruction can stay at V. My proposal avoids the controversy by leaving that instruction there while rewriting what we call "onus" as an uncontroversial reiteration of existing editing and consensus policies. My new sentence states "changes to consensus", not simply "changes". This removes the controversy. Kolya Butternut (talk) 15:24, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

  Kolya, I think you are confusing WP:ONUS with WP:VNOT. We are not discussing VNOT… only the one sentence of wp:ONUS. Blueboar (talk) 16:16, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

  I hadn't seen your edit which I just undid now at Special:Diff/1329927175. Having a separate out-of-context section discussing consensus created a problem. Kolya Butternut (talk) 17:18, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

  Was reverted, I would have done so as well, the proposed RFC will more effectively deal with all this. Selfstudier (talk) 17:43, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

  Kolya, you know better than to edit one policy just to “win” a current dispute at another. The split of VNOT and ONUS into two sections at WP:V was (briefly) discussed and approved at the time, and (more importantly) has remained stable despite over a year of on going discussion about ONUS at that page. If you want to re-merge them, start a discussion at WP:V. I have reverted to the current split version. Blueboar (talk) 17:47, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

  I'm confused because it seems like it doesn't belong there because of how it is relatively newly out of context. At this point it makes sense to just remove it completely. Kolya Butternut (talk) 17:59, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

  So (just for background)… I was the one who originally added the statement that is now VNOT to WP:V (many years ago)… It did not originally include the ONUS sentence.

  What is now ONUS was added a bit later. I didn’t object at the time, but the addition always struck me as a non-sequitur that had nothing to do with the rest of the paragraph. Yet that additional sentence quickly dominated all the subsequent discussions. So… a year ago, I suggested breaking them apart, and edited accordingly. Hope that history helps you to understand why I am now suggesting moving ONUS (but not VNOT). Blueboar (talk) 18:28, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

  I don't see it as a non sequitur and never have, it is the sequitur to (weak) V (believe in good faith that a source supports a bit of information) is not a completed reason for inclusion, and to the 'editing reflects consensus' rule. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:54, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

  That does not address the issue, which is that breaking up the sections is what makes it feel like a non sequitur. I suggest moving it back. Kolya Butternut (talk) 19:16, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

  We are getting sidetracked. This isn’t the place to discuss edits to WP:V (that discussion should take place over at WT:V itself). The purpose of this thread is to discuss my idea of moving the sentence to WP:Consensus.

  Given that… am I correct in thinking that you dislike my idea, and believe that ONUS should remain at WP:V? Blueboar (talk) 19:48, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

  It is pretty obvious why the burden is on those seeking to include disputed content. Otherwise, bogus information gains a privilege just by not being noticed for a while. Guy (help! - typo?) 10:58, 29 December 2025 (UTC)

  We cannot separate these issues. I believe that the issue that you're trying to correct now was created by separating onus into a separate section. I do not believe the onus sentence makes any sense separated from its context. Kolya Butternut (talk) 20:01, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

  Before it was separated most editors treated it as if it was separated. Efforts to insert text limiting its effect to V failed. The separation just recognized the reality of its use by the community (which you and I disagree with, but what are you going to do?). - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 20:22, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

  To summarize and reiterate my previous argument, the onus sentence should remain at V, the onus WikiLink should go to consensus. Kolya Butternut (talk) 20:09, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

  And you may make this proposal at the RFC. - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 20:22, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

  Why shouldn't it be part of the RFC to begin with? Kolya Butternut (talk) 21:03, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

  If we keep the question simple and just ask:

  a) should ONUS be moved out of WP:Verifiability?

  b) if so, where should it be moved to?

  Then that option can be suggested. It would essentially be a “no… but” response. Blueboar (talk) 22:36, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

  It sounds like it will be necessary to specify in more detail, e.g.:

  ----

  WP:ONUS is a single sentence in the Wikipedia:Verifiability that says "The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content." Some editors think that this sentence is off topic for that policy. They ask you:

  1. Should this sentence (and the WP:ONUS shortcut) be moved out of Wikipedia:Verifiability policy?
  2. If so, where should it be moved to?

  ----

  If you think that's not clear enough, then suggested responses (which I am not encouraging) could sound like "Yes, move to Wikipedia:Editing policy" or "No, but if it's moved anyway, put it in Wikipedia:Consensus". WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:22, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

  Do you think the following should be added to Consensus: "The onus to achieve consensus for changes to consensus is on those seeking the change"? Do you think that is a reiteration of existing policy? I don't think asking people to move the onus sentence in its current state will solve anything. Kolya Butternut (talk) 23:49, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

  I think that your suggested sentence should be handled in a separate discussion and at a different time. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:39, 29 December 2025 (UTC)

  Perhaps the overall strategy isn't clear to everyone, so here's a summary: We have a bunch of different ideas about how to solve ONUS-related problems in our written policies. If we put all the questions in front the community, they will almost certainly !vote for "too complicated, leave it alone".

  If we want to have a chance of making any actual progress, we have to do this in baby steps. "Baby steps" means picking a small, simple question and either getting it done, or getting it rejected. If we say "You know this sentence here? Let's put it over there" and the community rejects this idea, then we don't have to talk about that option for the next five or ten years, and we can go on to other ideas, without someone saying "Hey, I've got a 'new' idea: how about we just move that sentence to a different page?" and never making any progress at all, because the same ideas keep rising up from the dead. After (←that word means not now) we have one little baby question answered (either way!), we can talk about other questions to ask.

  So that's the strategy, and at this point, I think the way you could help us achieve the goal of getting any decision made is to stop suggesting ways to make the RFC question more complicated. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:44, 29 December 2025 (UTC)

  And I am saying that your suggested baby step will lead to undesired outcomes. Kolya Butternut (talk) 01:57, 29 December 2025 (UTC)

  Undesired by whom? The whole point of asking an RFC is to determine what the community desires. Blueboar (talk) 02:36, 29 December 2025 (UTC)

  Then why not simply ask if we should delete the onus sentence? Moving it reinforces the legitimacy of the language itself which has always been disputed. Kolya Butternut (talk) 02:53, 29 December 2025 (UTC)

  That would be another baby step. I don't mind asking that question first. The point is that we won't get good answers if we open an RFC that says "How about we move this sentence to a different page? Or maybe leave the sentence there and just repoint the shortcut? Or delete the sentence? Or change its wording so it applies to all 'changes' instead of just 'inclusion'?" We won't get anywhere with that kind of approach. We have to pick one question (preferably one that we think we'll get a clear answer for), and ask that one question, and then proceed from there. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:47, 29 December 2025 (UTC)

  If onus had never been separated my proposal would have been a baby step. Kolya Butternut (talk) 04:27, 29 December 2025 (UTC)

  Your proposal by itself could be a baby step towards resolution. Adding it to other questions is not. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:18, 29 December 2025 (UTC)

• I started this thread to get some initial feedback to my idea of moving ONUS to this policy (WP:Consensus). I have gotten that initial feedback (luke warm reaction, most think EP would be a better target). Thank you all. Further discussions about ONUS should take place elsewhere. Blueboar (talk) 13:14, 29 December 2025 (UTC)

Follow up on ONUS given NOCON move closure

Ironically, the RFC about moving NOCON to EP has just been closed as “No consensus”… which I think means NOCON stays here at WP:Consensus. Does this change anyone’s opinions as to the target for a potential move of ONUS? Not asking you to re-argue everything you have expressed above. Just asking whether your opinion has changed. Blueboar (talk) 23:25, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

At Wikipedia talk:Editing policy#Move NOCON to this page?

Some of the opposes were silly. “No consensus” is unsatisfying.

Moving NOCON to EP would involve rewriting it to fit EP. Here, it says nothing new, it summarises information from elsewhere. There, it would provide advice or instructions on what to do. I think it might be helpful to write a draft new WP:EP page to show what it would look like with NOCON integrated. And I would slip ONUS in on this hypothetical draft. Then ask:Should the draft new WP:EP be adopted? SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:00, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

Since duplication of rules is officially discouraged by Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines, NOCON shouldn't contain its own rules, no matter what page it's on. WhatamIdoing (talk) 08:32, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

Rules can be paraphrased elsewhere and linked to. I still think that the existing onus sentence should not be moved, but instead it should link to WP: Consensus , perhaps at: When discussions of proposals to add, modify, or remove material in articles end without consensus, the common (but not required) result is to retain the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit. Kolya Butternut (talk) 14:45, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

...except that sentence says nothing about anyone having any sort of onus or duty. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:39, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

Then add it. It wouldn't change the policy. Kolya Butternut (talk) 23:08, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

Add what?

"When discussions of proposals to add, modify, or remove material in articles end without consensus, the common (but not required) result is to retain the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit. Starting those discussions is the duty of the person who wants to include the disputed information (regardless of whether they're adding or restoring). If the dispute isn't about inclusion or exclusion, then somebody should start a discussion, but it's not any particular person's job to do so." WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:24, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

I don't think you're accurately describing policy. The duty is not different for other changes. Kolya Butternut (talk) 00:40, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

Which policy would that be? We have a policy that says "The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content”. AFAICT we don't have any sentence in any policy that says something like "The responsibility for achieving consensus for removal is on those seeking to remove content" or "The responsibility for achieving consensus for rearrange content is on those seeking to include rearrange the content”. Can you quote for me any such sentence? WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:34, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

I interpret the consensus and editing policies that way even if they don't use those words, that is the practice they are describing. I can't help you with your interpretation. Kolya Butternut (talk) 03:47, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

I take this as an admission that these policies don't actually say what you've been claiming they say. WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:12, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

They clearly communicate that. Your interpretation of the policy is not directly stated either. Kolya Butternut (talk) 10:52, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

Sure, there's no statement in any policy that says "No policy says that if you want to rearrange content, and there's an objection, then you have to start the discussion instead of the guy who's objecting to your edit". That doesn't mean that this isn't the community's rule.

In fact, the Wikipedia:Editing policy acknowledges that 'the other guy' might well take responsibility for starting that discussion ("If someone indicates disagreement with your bold edit by reverting it or contesting it in a talk page discussion...").

The popular BRD essay says "The talk page is open to all editors, not just bold ones. The first person to start a discussion is the person who is best following BRD" and "BRD is not a get-out-of-discussion-free card for the reverter". This indicates that the community does not have an ONUS-equivalent rule for all types of edits and all types of reverts: the ONUS is only on the person who wants to include information; for all other edits, everyone should take responsibility for determining consensus. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:28, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

No, editors who are opposed to adding material still have a responsibility to determine consensus. Responsibility is equal in both directions for all kinds of changes. Kolya Butternut (talk) 23:15, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

Not according to ONUS. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:03, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

Onus does not speak to the other scenarios, it is narrow. Kolya Butternut (talk) 09:14, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

I agree that ONUS is narrow, and that ONUS prescribes that the person who wants to include disputed material must demonstrate a positive consensus for its inclusion (e.g., by starting a discussion on the talk page).

Nothing says that the person wanting to make a non-inclusion-oriented change has any similar responsibility. Except for what is narrowly covered by ONUS, there is no statement in any policy that says the person wanting (e.g.,) to rearrange a page has any different responsibility for demonstrating consensus than the editor who wants to revert (e.g.,) that rearrangement. WhatamIdoing (talk) 09:24, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

Maybe we can list all of the relevant policies for comparison on a different talk page, because I don't see what you're seeing. Kolya Butternut (talk) 14:59, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

Look at this, from the WP:DISCUSSCONSENSUS section of this policy: When agreement cannot be reached through editing alone, the consensus-forming process becomes more explicit: editors open a section on the associated talk page and try to work out the dispute through discussion.

Note the word "editors". Not "the lone editor who boldly rearranged the page and thereby triggered a revert", but editors, in the plural, meaning any or all editors need to start a discussion and work out the dispute through discussion.

Contrast this with ONUS, which says it is specifically the person who wants to include information that must take responsibility for building the consensus. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:08, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

The question posed by Blueboar is "Does [NOCON staying in Consensus] change anyone’s opinions as to the target for a potential move of ONUS?" My answer is "no." The problem is that if you ran an RFC to move ONUS to Consensus the result would also be "NO CONSENSUS." - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 15:46, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

To me these queries are kind of like, "should we rearrange the furniture?" Perhaps to someone versed in in what they think of as feng shui that matters, but not so much to most people. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:25, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

Thanks all… and yeah, I still think the sofa should be moved two inches to the left! 😉 Blueboar (talk) 18:55, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

I would oppose the move, nonetheless, because it will make the encyclopedia worse by removing the context for the previous sentence in V and how it works, leading to ever more bloated article's and forcing in 'i gotta source' additions upon additions to articles without regard. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:55, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

I concur. This was the original intention. Kolya Butternut (talk) 17:35, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

I don't see the same effect.

Right now, we have:

• WP:V saying that 'I found a source' might be necessary, but it isn't sufficient
• WP:V saying that if there's a dispute over whether to include it, then it's the includer's job to start the discussion
• WP:EPTALK saying that editors should discuss disputes instead of edit warring
• WP:NPOV saying there are lots of non-source/non-verifiability reasons to remove things from articles
• WP:CON saying that editors have to find a consensus for everything, and that this sometimes requires someone to start a discussion

and if we moved ONUS to a different page, we'd have:

• WP:V saying that 'I found a source' might be necessary, but it still isn't sufficient
• WP:CON saying that if there's a dispute over whether to include it, then it's the includer's job to start the discussion
• WP:EPTALK saying that editors should still discuss disputes instead of edit warring
• WP:NPOV saying there are still lots of non-source/non-verifiability reasons to remove things from articles
• WP:CON saying that editors still have to find a consensus for everything, and that this sometimes requires someone to start a discussion

...and I don't see anything changing as a result of this. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:33, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

I wonder if there's a perception that some official {{policy}} pages are stronger than others, so moving a sentence about consensus from the WP:V policy to the WP:CON policy is effectively downgrading it from a powerful policy to a weak one. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:39, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

No. The move would leave the 'consensus may determine to exclude V material' in V, and lose what we that we are talking about there, the consensus process: all included material needs to be V, and have consensus. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:45, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

"The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content" does not say that all included material needs to be V+have consensus. "The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content" says "if there's a dispute about material that has V, then it's Alice's job (and not Bob's) to start the discussion on the talk page and prove there's consensus to include the material that has V".

"Consensus may determine to exclude V material" isn't a 'consensus process' statement. "Alice has to prove that consensus exists if she wants to include that V material" is a consensus process statement. That's why people keep talking about moving the "Alice has to prove consensus" statement (but not the "Consensus may determine to exclude V material" non-process statement) to the policy about consensus processes. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:58, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

Did I not make it clear that taking it out of context is a terrible idea, so you taking it of context in your comment does not improve your reasoning nor is it responsive. It just leads to pettifogging. Read the two phrases together, that I have pointed out -- don't take one. That is how they were meant to be read and should be read. Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:13, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

I agree, this is why those sentences should not have been separated a year ago. Kolya Butternut (talk) 23:32, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

This sentence is in a paragraph and sub-section all by itself. There's barely any context to take it out of.

Here's the whole section:

Other issues

Verifiability does not guarantee inclusion

Shortcut

• WP:VNOTWP:VNOT

Main page: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not § Encyclopedic content

See also: WP:UNDUE, WP:PAGEDECIDE, WP:SUMMARY, and WP:IINFO

While information must be verifiable for inclusion in an article, not all verifiable information must be included. Consensus may determine that inclusion of a verifiable fact or claim does not improve an article, and other policies may indicate that the material is inappropriate. Such information should be omitted or presented instead in a different article.

Build consensus

Shortcut

• WP:ONUSWP:ONUS

"WP:ONUS" redirects here. For the responsibility to demonstrate verifiability, see WP:BURDEN.

The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content.

Tagging a sentence, section, or article

Further information: Wikipedia:Citation needed and Wikipedia:Template index/Sources of articles

If you want to request an inline citation for an unsourced statement, you can tag a sentence with the {{citation needed}} template. You can also leave a note on the talk page asking for a source, or move the material to the talk page and ask for a source there. To request verification that a reference supports the text, tag it with {{verification needed}}. Material that fails verification may be tagged with {{failed verification}} or removed. It helps other editors to explain your rationale for using templates to tag material in the template, edit summary, or on the talk page.

Take special care with contentious material about living and recently deceased people. Unsourced or poorly sourced material that is contentious, especially text that is negative, derogatory, or potentially damaging, should be removed immediately rather than tagged or moved to the talk page.

Exceptional claims require exceptional sourcing

Shortcuts

• WP:REDFLAGWP:REDFLAG
• WP:EXCEPTIONALWP:EXCEPTIONAL
• WP:ECREEWP:ECREE
• WP:EXTRAORDINARYWP:EXTRAORDINARY

See also: Wikipedia:Fringe theories

Any exceptional claim requires multiple high-quality sources.^[1] Warnings (red flags) that should prompt extra caution include:

• Surprising or apparently important claims not covered by multiple mainstream sources;
• Challenged claims that are supported purely by primary or self-published sources or those with an apparent conflict of interest;
• Reports of a statement by someone that seems out of character or against an interest they had previously defended;
• Claims contradicted by the prevailing view within the relevant community or that would significantly alter mainstream assumptions—especially in science, medicine, history, politics, and biographies of living and recently deceased people. This is especially true when proponents say there is a conspiracy to silence them.

---

This is an ==Other issues== or "miscellaneous" section. I don't see any structural reason to think that the first two ===Sub-sections=== are closely intertwined and the other two sections are irrelevant. And I don't see anything in there that says the second sentence of subsection #1 is critical context for the only sentence in subsection #2, but (e.g.,) the fourth and seventh sentences of subsection #3 are unrelated, even though both of them mention removing content.

I think that the separate paragraphs stand alone, and do not depend on each other for their meaning. "The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content" makes sense whether you've read the preceding subsection or not, and vice versa.

For comparison, I do see connections between "The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content" and Wikipedia:Consensus#Through discussion. The ONUS sentence is about who needs to achieve a consensus, and the WP:DISCUSSCONSENSUS section is about how they can do that. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:29, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

• @Alanscottwalker, if you are correct, does the ONUS sentence need to be said? Isn't it redundant by the preceding "While information must be verifiable for inclusion in an article, not all verifiable information must be included. Consensus may determine that inclusion of a verifiable fact or claim does not improve an article, and other policies may indicate that the material is inappropriate"?

Alternatively, why is "who should seek consensus" in V and not EP or Consensus? - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 19:40, 1 January 2026 (UTC) Edited - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 19:45, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

No, without the clarification, some will read it as consensus is needed to exclude any verifiable material, It needs to be read:

Consensus may determine that inclusion of a verifiable fact or claim does not improve an article, and other policies may indicate that the material is inappropriate. Such information should be omitted or presented instead in a different article. . . .The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content.

Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:56, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

So you read "Consensus may determine that...a verifiable fact...should be omitted" and believe that inclusionist wikilawyers) will interpret this as "Consensus is required to determine that...a verifiable fact...should be omitted".

I've been irritated by the word "may" in our policies for a while, as it can be read as "it might happen" or "this is allowed". Would solve your concern, while also removing two instances the word that irritates me?

−

Consensus may determine that inclusion of a verifiable fact or claim does not improve an article, and other policies may indicate that the material is inappropriate

+

Verifiable facts and claims that do not improve an article, or that are inappropriate according to other policies and guidelines, can be removed.

Or perhaps you'd prefer something like this:

−

Consensus may determine that inclusion of a verifiable fact or claim does not improve an article, and other policies may indicate that the material is inappropriate

+

Being verifiable is a [[necessary but not sufficient]] quality for every fact or claim in an article. A fact or claim that complies with this policy can still be removed if its inclusion violates other policies or guidelines.

WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:22, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

Folks… discussion about changing the language of ONUS should take place at the page where ONUS actually is (currently at WP:V)… should we move it here, then this page can discuss language… but until then, this is the wrong location. Blueboar (talk) 21:27, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

We were not talking about changing the language of ONUS, we are talking about the dangers of stripping the language from where it has always given context for the operation of the V policy. Thus, such a move will damage Wikipedia for the reasons discussed: suggesting that to exclude any V material you need a consensus to exclude.

WAID: The section begins:

'"While information must be verifiable for inclusion in an article, not all verifiable information must be included."

[So, I'm not just concerned with wikilawyers. I'm concerned that well meaning people will read the rest as, 'how is it that Verifiable things are not included', and they will read:]

"Consensus may determine that inclusion of a verifiable fact or claim does not improve an article, and other policies may indicate that the material is inappropriate. Such information should be omitted or presented instead in a different article."

[Thus, we need . . .] "The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content."

[Where it is and where it belongs and has always belonged in the V policy]

Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:08, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

I don't think that a statement that editors might form a consensus to remove something needs a statement that the person wanting to keep it is the person who has to be responsible for demonstrating consensus for their version. For one thing, people who want to remove content frequently to start those discussions themselves, despite no policy saying they're required to do so.

(I also dislike the "does not improve an article" language; we're refusing to say what we mean, which is "makes the article worse".) WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:13, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

We do need it, if we don't want likely damage to the pedia. And we need it to make sense of the process. The concepts repeated over and over again showing they are meant to be read together, are "Verifiable . . .included. Consensus . . . inclusion . . .omitted . . .Consensus ... inclusion . . . . And this part of V policy is nothing new. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:32, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

I suggest NOCON and ONUS be copied to and expanded in an essay. Expanded so that it can be clarified as to what they actually mean. SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:45, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

Yes, this!! - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 23:02, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

No one knows what ONUS means

My apologies for not pointing this out earlier in this discussion, but no one knows what ONUS means. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 16:56, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

Or perhaps we each know for certain what it means, only we don't agree with each other. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:14, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Editing_policy#c-Beland-20251230214100-Move_NOCON_to_this_page? ~2026-20603-6 (talk) 21:32, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

XfD specifics

As a first step, I think the "deletion" section of NOCON should be moved to WP:DELPRO. - jc37 16:53, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

Went ahead and merged the XFD-specific info to WP:DELPRO. Which also provided the opporunity to add info from Wikipedia:What "no consensus" means, as well. - jc37 19:47, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

@Jc37, are you suggesting that we should get rid of the entire section? (I'm okay with that.)

The whole point of this section is that you can find out what happens if a discussion results in no consensus. The idea is editors will be thinking "It's 'no consensus', let me go to WP:NOCON – ah, no consensus in a discussion at an XFD means keep. Great!" instead of "It's XFD, let me go to, um, Wikipedia:Deletion policy, um, no, the relevant section there only covers articles, and this is an FFD, so let me try another page...".

If we take the approach of removing anything that duplicates another policy or guideline, this section will be empty except for the "usually status quo" line, which isn't supported by any policy or guideline. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:14, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

To your first question, no and yes - no, I think we need a section explaining the concept, but yes, filling it mostly merely with examples is a placeholder at best.

I think it's fair to say that you and I have read a lot of Wikipedia's policy pages (and guidelines, and essays, and info page, and...). And in my opinion, We really don't do a good job explaining what a result of "no consensus" means. And over a long period of time - I remember reading discussions about this back before I decided to create an account and become an editor. And it comes whenever there's a big contentious discussion that gets closed - especially RFCs. But even when those discussions are even semi-fruitful, little if anything ends up getting typed up into the p&gs for future reference.

The page Wikipedia:What "no consensus" means makes a partial stab at it, but its phrasing, to be charitable, isn't good, and could be misleading. However, one of the parts there that I do like, is its attempt to explain the situation of general consensus to do "something", but no consensus on what specifically that something should be.

Anyway, that's just one type of no consensus result.

What I think would be worth brainstorming, is creating text explaining what a no consensus result is, and how it is determined. But it seems more to be something where newbie closers just count heads, and more experienced closers get a feel or "nous" of it.

So I don't know if it can be put into words (like not "proving a negative"). But I think it might be interesting to try.

And who knows, it may be easier than I imagine. Wikipedians can be surprising that way : ) - jc37 11:26, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

Would you like to replace the whole thing with something like this?

"No consensus" is the result of a discussion that does not produce an agreement either for or against a proposal. It differs from a "consensus against" a proposal, though some editors will use the phrase as a softer way to describe a failed proposal. No consensus can arise when many ideas are discussed but none gain traction, or when responses to a proposal are evenly divided. Sometimes there is a consensus to change, but no consensus on what to change to. For what to do if a discussion ends in no consensus, see the relevant policy or guideline, e.g., Wikipedia:Article titles#Considering changes or Wikipedia:External links#Handling disputes.

This doesn't solve the problem of 'evenly divided' being determined by counting heads.

I'm tempted to add something like "People invoking WP:STATUSQUO to claim that no consensus means no change are advised to actually read that page". WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:55, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

Very nicely put.

I think a few things could be expanded/developed somewhat. (And maybe present the examples in a bulleted format : )

I might add that most discussions about a "change" (whatever that change might be), is primarily asking 2 questions: a.) should the "something" in question be changed, and then b.) what should that change be. The propser may or may not provide suggested changes, but that's the basics. so a closer has to make a determination about those questions. I suppose that's why wp:bartender sometimes comes up in rename discussions, or really anything with multiple potential results. There's a potential result that there is consensus for change but no consensus on what the change should be.

and I agree that linking to wp:statusquo isn't helpful, as that's about editwarring, and not about a discussion results. - jc37 19:18, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

I've added the first bit to the top of NOCON.

For your point about a Wikipedia:Bartender's closing, what do you think about something like this:

−

No consensus can arise when many ideas are discussed but none gain traction, or when responses to a proposal are evenly divided. Sometimes there is a consensus to change, but no consensus on what to change to.

+

No consensus can arise when many ideas are discussed but none gain traction, or when responses to a proposal are evenly divided. Editors writing a summary of a no-consensus discussion are encouraged to address the question of whether any consensus was formed and what actions, if any, were agreed upon separately. For example, sometimes there is a consensus against the current situation, but no consensus on what to do instead. In other cases, there may be a consensus to implement one part of a proposal, but consensus against a second part, and no consensus either way on a third part.

Or maybe this should all be in Wikipedia:Closing discussions instead of here. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:04, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

Let's just remove the "encouraged" sentence, and restore the "change" sentence. I also tried to avoid synonyms for consensus, like traction, to try to avoid future wikilawyers.

• "No consensus" is the result of a discussion that does not produce a consensus result either for or against a proposal. It differs from a "consensus against" outcome, though some editors may use the phrase "no consensus" (or no consensus to support) as a softer way to describe a rejected proposal. Sometimes there is a consensus to change, but no consensus on what to change to. For example, sometimes there is a consensus against the current situation, but no consensus on what to do instead. In other cases, there may be a consensus to implement one part of a proposal, but consensus against a second part, and no consensus either way on a third part.

This way, though, we're avoiding explaining "how" the result is determined, but, as you mention, perhaps that is better explained elsewhere. What do you think? - jc37 23:39, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

I went ahead and added it. Please feel free to update, and of course to continue the discussion. - jc37 01:38, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

And was reverted as wp:kudzu. I don't think that describing common practice is "instruction creep". Anyway, I welcome further discussion. - jc37 01:56, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

It's not.

I'm sure that Butwhatdoiknow will be along shortly to provide a substantive reason for the reversion, or at least to clarify whether Wikipedia:Avoid instruction creep was actually meant vs Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines#Content "Be as concise as possible–but no more concise". WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:17, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

Per wp:KUDZU: "The longer, more detailed, and more complicated you make the instructions, the less likely anyone is to read or follow them." In my edit summary I acknowledged that the change has value. But that should be weighed against the cost (tl;dr).

People of good faith can disagree regarding whether the benefit of adding this particular 49 word example to a 70 word paragraph (a 70% increase) is sufficient to overcome the detriment of creating a more imposing paragraph. My opinion is that it isn't. - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 16:54, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

I think that's an odd argument since the paragraph in question was added a day before - as part of a discussion we're having to develop new text to better explain the concepts. - jc37 18:04, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

The overall idea is to remove the parts that duplicate other policies, and replace that with a more robust explanation. The net effect could be shortening the section. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:28, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

Let me put it this way, the preserved text says:

No consensus can arise when many ideas are discussed but none gain traction, or when responses to a proposal are evenly divided. Sometimes there is a consensus to change, but no consensus on what to change to.

To me, this achieves the goal of explaining the concepts. We don't need additional text in the form of examples. In fact, the additional text is counterproductive as it makes it less likely that folks will read the preserved text. - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 16:20, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

Yes. Now: Where in your 'preserved' version is the statement telling people who WP:CLOSE a discussion to write "There is a consensus to change, but no consensus on what to change to" instead of just writing "No consensus"? WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:26, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I think you're two steps ahead of me. Why should we put instructions for closers in NOCON? And if we should, how does the omitted text accomplish that goal? -