Distinguish small Wikipedia edits from substantive changes

01

Judge meaning before size

Changing one word can materially change an article. Replacing alleged with confirmed, altering a founding year or removing a criticism affects meaning even when the edit is short. Conversely, extensive formatting repair may leave the substance unchanged. English Wikipedia's guidance says that potentially disputed changes should not be marked minor. When uncertain, leave the minor flag unchecked and explain the change clearly.

02

Use the edit summary honestly

A useful summary tells other contributors what changed and why, without promotional language or personal accusations. For example, correcting a misspelled month differs from changing the date of an event. If the latter needs a new source, provide it through the appropriate process. A summary is not a substitute for source evidence, conflict-of-interest disclosure or discussion when the matter is disputed.

• Compare the proposed version with the original and check for changed meaning.
• Describe the actual change rather than calling everything routine cleanup.
• Keep unrelated substantive changes separate from simple formatting work.

03

Choose discussion when the issue is substantive

If you represent the subject, use the appropriate disclosed request process instead of assuming a small edit bypasses conflict-of-interest concerns. If another editor disagrees, review the reasons and discuss the evidence rather than repeatedly reverting. The minor flag can affect how changes appear in other editors' review tools, so it should never be used to make a controversial change less noticeable.

Continue with your next step

Related guides on this topic