text:
Talk:Nitra

Rulers ?
I'm not really sure what this section was about:
 * Inhabited since time immemorial, it was an important center of the Celts (last centuries B.C.), and the seat of the first known rulers of what is today Slovak territory. (Quadi around 396?, Nitrian Principality around 800, Great Moravia 824?, Frontier Duchy of Nitra within the Principality of Poland in 1000-1030 and within the Kingdom of Hungary in 970/1048 1077/1108 )

Is this simply a list of different kingdoms that controlled the city? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:46, May 27, 2005 (UTC)

I'd go and ask Juro - I believe he wrote that thing. Jbetak 16:22, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

Ok, much clearer. Thanks. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:47, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

Trasmitter
"The most powerful mediumwave transmitter of Slovakia, running on 1098 kHz, was situated in Nitra until recently. This transmitter could broadcast throughout all of Europe at night."

Why is this still relevant, if the transmitter no longer exists? Does anyone know? Jbetak 02:13, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The original text (by an unknown contributor) was "is", but the transmitter - which seems to have been "unique", because I have read about it in the newspapers - was shut down several months ago, so I changed it to "was". Juro 19:49, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Juro, are you sure that it was shut down? According to this it currently broadcasts Radio Regina. Brona 22:24, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * Ok, here is some more info . It seems the transmitter originally broadcasted the official Slovak radio to whole Europe (so that Slovaks travelling or living abroad could listen), but now it operates on lower output to save energy cost, and transmits regional programming. The change occured in 2003 . Brona 22:44, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * I am not sure about anything concerning the transmitter...Juro 04:11, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Nyitria
The article states that Nitra was frequently known as Nyitria in the past, but using search engines I can only find links to wiki sites repeating this information. Can anyone provide more info/sources on this name? Olessi 9 July 2005 00:17 (UTC)

Books with lists of older names of the town (e.g. "Geographisch-historisches und Produkten Lexikon von Ungarn", Pressburg 1786). The internet is NOT a source for almost anything. Juro 9 July 2005 19:25 (UTC)

 * I realize that, Juro. However, usually there are some links on the web. Wiki's spread throughout the net onto so many affiliated sites cloud the search engines, making it more difficult to find a simple name. That's why I asked here. Olessi 20:19, 9 July 2005 (UTC)

Nyitra is the Hungarian name of the city. --Serinde 14:19, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia Olessi. Much of the information you find on Wikipedia and its fellow online encyclopedias (which repeat what Wikipedia states) is not common anywhere else because it is free to all the public to edit. The name "Nyitria" dates back only to centuries after the middle ages and is only a modern Hungarian name. The earliest spellings of the name are Nitrava (870), Nitra (880), and Nitrensis (880). Even though Nitra was part of what Wikipedia calls the "Kingdom of Hungary," its Hungarian name did not develop until the modern era. More examples of this can be found when researching the so-called Kings of "Hungary" such as Ladislaus (Ladislav) or Stephan I. The Hungaraian versions of these names (Istvan and Laszlo) are very young and are not found in any Medieval manuscript or currency or painting. For example, Ladislav, who was born in Nitra, minted coins that had the name "LADISLAV" inscribed, not "laszlo" as in Hungarian. You have to realize that the Hungarian language during the middle ages especially, was almost entirely Slovak because when the Magyars arrived in Europe during the 10th century, their language was poorly developed that they took Slovak words for mountain, hill, stream, government, native plants and species, house, religion, etc. Visit www.slovakia.org for more information. I would like to correct Juro statement about the internet, which is the most popular and largest collection of information ever created (larger than all the books ever made in history combined). The internet can be very helpful as long as you apply common sense and good research skills. Olessi, if you want to learn about Nitra simply visit www.nitra.sk or any official website of Slovakia (www.slovakia.org  prezident.sk   snm.sk)

The Hungarian langauges beeing a version of the Slovak is stupidity. It's true, that the modern Hungarian langauges did not appear till the 18th century, but the langauges itself egsited. By the way: previously the "Slovak" langauges did not egsited either, but was Slavic, I suppose. It developed with the centuries just like any other one and also splited from the old Slavic langauges - as it resembels to Czech could also mean, that it is? Hungarian took lot of Germanic and latin words also, from hat point of view you could tell it was entirely German or Latin. Or Turkish. Open your mind. We even have words of French and Wallon origin longer than 500 years. --Serinde 18:30, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

You aren't building up your theory of Hungarian's Slovak origins upon forenames like 'Laszlo', are you? If you knew a little more than nothing about Hungarian, you'd know it just doesn't have a leg to stand on. It's like stating that English is entirely Latin, but worse. chery 21:55, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Images in the article
Can someone upload the images of this article into the Commons category commons:Category:Nitra so other Wikipedias are able to use it? In case it's possible... --Serinde 14:22, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Sister Cities
Anyone want to mention the twelve sister cities that Nitra has, according to the city's website? Placenames and spellings are from the city's website.
 * Backi Petrovac, Serbia and Montenegro
 * České Budějovice, Czech Republic
 * Eretria, Greece
 * Gosford, New South Wales, Australia
 * Jinotega, Nicaragua
 * Kroměříž, Czech Republic
 * Naperville, Illinois, USA
 * Osijek, Croatia
 * Spišská Nová Ves, Slovakia
 * Sumy, Ukraine
 * Zielona Góra, Poland
 * Zoetermeer, Netherlands

Fair use rationale for Image:Pohlad na mesto.jpg
Image:Pohlad na mesto.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 08:31, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

(proto-) Slovak state before the Hungarian conquest.
Some kind of joke? I dispute the (proto)-Slovak state existing before the Hungarian conquest.The template is rightful on this chapter, and prohibited to wipe again. Nmate (talk • contribs)

 * Give a reason, otherwise it's invalid. MarkBA what's up?/my mess 16:36, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

It is very dubious that Slovak-state would be the legal successor of the Great Moravian empire.Nmate (talk • contribs) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.209.196.249 (talk) 16:55, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

 * Everyone knows that modern Slovak state isn't the legal successor of Great Moravia, and neither of the wartime Slovak Republic. MarkBA what's up?/[[Special:Contributions/MarkBA|my

mess]] 17:01, 24 March 2008 (UTC) What does it mean that(proto-) Slovak state before the Hungarian conquest?Nmate (talk • contribs)

 * Answer to yourself. There's nothing disputable in this article. Please stop damaging Slovak articles. 91.127.27.170 (talk) 17:16, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Famous people - János Bottyán
What exactly is his connection to Nitra? --Ruziklan (talk) 18:50, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Names of the City
Well, a sockmaster is back (this time using open proxies). We can again have discussion on the different suggestions of Wikipedia on alternative/historical geographical names, etc. The option of moving them into a separate section is just one of the options, a possibility. The main guideline actually supports the original lead, which contains the other name variants. Please, read this again (quote from the second point of the guideline):

 * The lead: The title can be followed in the first line by a list of alternative names in parentheses, e.g.: Gulf of Finland (Soome laht; Suomenlahti; Финский залив, Finskiy zaliv; Finska viken) is a large bay in the easternmost arm of the Baltic Sea.

Moreover, the original lead is in line with the convention and consensus of similar articles. It was a stable variant for a long time, it should only be changed based on a consensus. Cheers, K œrte F  a   { ταλκ }  12:49, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

PS: If we think that the lead is too long now, we can move some of the versions to a later section. For example, the Latin and Turkish variants are not widely used by English sources to denote this particular town, thus they do not necessarily have to be in the lead. The versions "Neutra" and "Nyitra"  are/were used, and so it would be good if the reader could immediately see that it is the very same town. K œrte F  a  { ταλκ }  12:49, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Nitra. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080404005138/http://www.svd.sk:80/index.html to http://www.svd.sk/index.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers. —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 11:53, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

POV-pushing
, I think your recent edits are pushing scholarly POVs which is not generally accepted by scholars. For instance, that Pribina was the prince of present-day Nitra is not accepted by all scholars. For instance, this book, published by Cambridge University Press, presents all theories in a neutral way. I also refer to Miklós Béla Szőke (a leading Hungarian archaeologist) who says that Pribina was not a "prince/duke" and he was not connected to present-day Nitra. The article describes Pribina as an independent ruler of Nitra, however, for instance, Dušan Třeštík thinks that he was only a Moravian official. The article writes that the supposed "Principality of Nitra was usually given to the heir of the Great Moravian throne as an appanage", however, this is only an assumption, which should be emphasized. For instance, when referring to Svatopluk's original realm, Dušan Třeštík writes that "We are not sure where Svatopluk's territory exactly lay, but it was probably in Nitra". I could continue the list of POV statements presented as facts, but instead I suggest that you should rewrite the article, using the works of multiple scholars. Borsoka (talk) 08:03, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Firstly, if you look on my edit, then you can see that I am not author of the text tou are talking about.
 * However, if you want to discuss it, the old Slavonic word for leader, regardles of the level of souverainity is "knez" (modern Czech kníže, Slovak knieža) what is translated to English as "duke" or "prince". By the way, the same term used also by the authors who supports theory about influence of Moravians on formation of Nitriansko (Naďa Profantová, Dušan Třeštík) and later for leaders dependent on th central ruler (Czech: knížata, knížetství = princes-dukes, duchies-principalities), so remark about dependency or indenedency is quite irreleant. Curiously, Pribina is referenced as a "prince" also in the source provided by you.
 * In any case, if you have a problem with the particular word or sentence, it is not a reason to mark whole section as a POV. Thus, I am removing the tags and I suggest you to use tags on the correct place (word, sentence). My edits were focused exclusively on archaeology, have a nice day.--Ditinili (talk) 08:41, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Please read my above remarks. Both sections presents a specific POV (the existence of an independent or semi-independent principality between from the 800s to the 1100s) as a fact. That is why I suggest that the sections should be substantially rewritten. Borsoka (talk) 09:00, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I read it very carefully, probably better that you have read the source suggested by you.
 * The section "5th to 10th centuries" is largely factual, if you have any problem with concrete sentence, tag it approprietaly instead of tagging whole section. That's all.
 * I don't care about "10th to 13th centuries", I did not write a single line there and I want to extend it later. Ditinili (talk) 09:23, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
 * It is not about your care. It is about POV pushing: the article suggests that the existence of the Principality of Nitra is a well-established, widely accepted fact, although this is not the case, because it is only a scholarly assumption, which is not accepted by all or most historians. Borsoka (talk) 10:49, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Regardless of your personal opinion, what is "accepted by most historians", this is definitely not a main topic of the section "5th to 10th centuries", which is largely factual and describes mainly archaeological findings. Thus, I will revert any trial to tag whole section as POV.Ditinili (talk) 11:10, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
 * No, it is not a personal opinion. It is based on reliable sources cited above (especially, Berend et al). Do you suggest that all references to Pribina and his duchy, and any Principality of Nitra should be deleted, because these references do not provide facts, but scholarly assumptions? Borsoka (talk) 11:35, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
 * No, I suggested: use tags correctly. If you have a problem with any term or sentence, tag it. Do not tag whole section. That´s all. Ditinili (talk) 11:50, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I do not have time to add an individual template to about 50% of the sentences, that is why the section is tagged. Borsoka (talk) 11:54, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Then, you have to find some time to do it. Because what you wrote until now (regardless of our different opinions) is not 50% of the section "5th-10th centuries. If you do not have time, do not contribute.Ditinili (talk) 12:06, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
 * To help you to identify the POV-pushing sentences, I deleted them. Sorry, but I think you misunderstand our community rules. Even if I do not have time, I can contribute to the improvement of WP, for instance, by adding tags to help other editors to identify the problems with articles. Borsoka (talk) 12:13, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I am afraid that "our community rules" do not allow intentional removal of the sourced text "to help" to understand something. I restored the previou version. If you have time for chatting, unreasoned modification and reverts, you have also time to use correct tags with proper explantation in their description.Ditinili (talk) 12:29, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
 * OK. There are the tags, and you find explanation above. Borsoka (talk) 08:03, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Most of tags had none "explanation above". I strongly suggest you to use descriptions. Your trials to avoid proper usage of tags (for every cost), guessing and communication through comments in the history of the article is a waste of time and cannot help any editor in the future.Ditinili (talk) 11:23, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I assumed that you can understand simple questions and statements placed in the text of the article, because you have read multiple reliable sources about the history of Nitra and you know that the early medieval history of this town is not so clear as it is shown in the article. In the future, I will take into account your limited (or maybe provincial) knowledge. Borsoka (talk) 12:15, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

, you may have not realized, but you have been reverting edits without explanation. I strongly suggest that you should stop your edit warring and try to be constructive when editing. WP is not the proper place to fight for dogmas. Borsoka (talk) 14:01, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I did not revert anything "without explanation". I appreciate that after several demands you began to explain tags. You are obliged to justify tags, especially POV tags, which could be otherwise removed by any editor. It has nothing with my "limited", "maybe provincial" knowledge (focus on constructive criticism).
 * Note, this is an article about a town, presenting widely accepted, summarizing information, not a place to discuss every detail copied into another 3 articles or marginal theories. Thus, you can e.g. contribute to the article about Conversio, otherwise, partial information about "number of copies" will not improve neutrality anyway. Because it will not answer the question, why is this information so widely accepted, what is weight of each copy, etc. And such details do not belong here.Ditinili (talk) 14:07, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
 * You still do not understand what is the difference between a fact and a scholarly POV. The presentation of scholarly POVs as facts misleads the readers of WP. We must present facts and scholarly POVs separately. Try to enjoy editing instead of fighting for dogmas. If you do not stop your edit war you will be banned from our community. Borsoka (talk) 14:12, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I do not care about dogmas. 80% of reverts was not necessary, if you properly justified tags at the beginning as it is required by Wikipedia policy, did not removed properly sourced content (not allowed by Wikipedia policy) and did not fantasy about "widely accepted" and "marginal" views (aka "marginal" (???) view about unification of Morava and Nitra and similar, sorry for saying that - junk).
 * You cannot be surprised that I immediately removed some really poor contributions. E.g. request for "written inscription" before the beginnings of literature in the area proving a concentration of settlements which is better addressed by archaeological research. Another example - you read something about Alexander Ruttkay (recognized scholar) and he is immediately "sharply criticized", you don't care about his qualification and especially that the source was written by another Ruttkay (!!!) (Matej Ruttkay, another recognized expert, currently the head of the Archelogical Institute in Nitra. Who is more qualified?). Hurray - POV tag. Give me a reference to Avar sites north of the line of Danube in Slovakia before the second half of the 7th century and then we can discuss expansion of their settlement area. Every single locality is registered, recorded in tables including e.g. size of burial site, list of findings, type of burial rite (inhumation/biritual), maps and published (the most comprehensive list probably by Zabojnik), so we really do not rely on various speculations.Ditinili (talk) 15:40, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Please try to remain serious. I have several times made it clear that my concern is that the whole article about the town of Nitra presents a scholarly POV of the early medieval history of Slovakia (the existence of a principality of Nitra and its unification with Moravia into Great Moravia) as a fact. As soon as facts and scholarly POVs are distinguished (even if the scholarly POV is shared by most Slovak historians), my all concerns are away. Your attempts to present the ruling dogma of the scholarly community you know as a fact leads nowhere. Borsoka (talk) 15:51, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I am serious. I gave you concrete examples of your work and explained why I have to revert it. You can write about "ruling dogmas of the scholarly community" to Talk:Evolution page. More, your views are very inconsistent. You describe something as a ruling dogma, but you have no problem to delete it as a "marginal" theory. Ditinili (talk) 16:31, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Just for clarification, I wrote of "the ruling dogma of the scholarly community you know". Yes, you do not understand simple questions because you are driven by your local dogmas. I asked how is documented that a Slavic community settled in Slovakia and you still do not understand that this is a serious question, because you are convinced that specific archaeological finds belong to specific ethnic groups (for instance, a specific form of pottery proves the presence of Slavs in Slovakia in the 5th or 6th century). Sorry, but your highly dogmatic approach makes any communication with you really difficult. You should have only written that "X and Y and Z objects unearthed in ... and other places suggests that a Slavic community settled in the region of Nitra, according to ...", instead you reverted my edit. Borsoka (talk) 16:48, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
 * The same way as for other Slavic countries. If you have doubts about methodology and identification of some cultures, it is not a topic of this article and you can discuss it here Talk:Early Slavs. Extensive list of early Slavic localities in Slovakia, including details about material culture, methodology, dating, etc is available e.g. in Fusek G.: Slovakia in Early Slavic Period, 1994. ISBN: 80-88709-17-2. I reverted your irrelevant tag, because the source used in the article is reliable, published by recognized expert, up to date and you did not provide any source claiming opposite. Ditinili (talk) 17:10, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I told you that your dogmatic approach makes any communication really difficult. Yes, methodology is not subject of this article, but we should make a distinction between facts (specific archaeological finds) and scholarly interpretations (the ethnic attribution of those finds), as per WP:NPOV. Borsoka (talk) 17:25, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
 * If you want to correct or redefine some "dogmatic views" on the Early Slavs, their migration, material culture, methodology, etc, the page about concrete town is not the right place. Go to Talk:Early Slavs and enjoy discussion.Ditinili (talk) 17:45, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
 * You obviously have not realized but I am one of the main contributors to the present status of the Early Slavs article. And you still do not understand what is the difference between facts and interpretations. Borsoka (talk) 17:53, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Perfect, so you can discuss such problems there and you can return, when you will have some serious and concrete source directly mentioning the research in Nitra region as incorrect.Ditinili (talk) 18:01, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Again: you do not understand the above remarks. I have never stated that the research in Nitra region is incorrect or correct. I stated that your summary contradicts to the simplest WP policies, because it presents interpretations as facts and uses weasel words. Borsoka (talk) 18:11, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
 * The sentence is very clear and unambiguous (= the highest density of the Early Slavic settlements is documented in the area of Nitra).
 * It is compliant with WP:WEASEL rule as it is defined by Wikipedia, there is not a single weasel word. I am removing the tag.Ditinili (talk) 19:15, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
 * No. It is not clear why do scholars think that it was a Slavic settlement area. Borsoka (talk) 19:24, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
 * ...decline of Germanic cultures, new material culture attributed to Slavs (houses, burial rite, ovens, social structure, other artefacts, etc) - common scholarship beyond the scope of the article. I will definitely not describe methodology in the article about a town. WP:SUMMARY. I have to revert again your change - wikipedia does not allow to "improve" or to "correct" information from to refrenced source. I had to cite it again as it was in the original.Ditinili (talk) 21:44, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I see you almost know what should be written, but you do not want to write it (the reference to "Germanic" cultures is really funny, it is obvious that you do not know that in some countries some of those "Germanic" cultures are attributed to Slavs or a mixed population). If I have some time, I will improve the sentence. Borsoka (talk) 02:56, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
 * If you don't have a direct reference that concrete research was wrong, I will remove any "improvements" and hypothetic speculations that something is wrong in a minute. Ditinili (talk) 04:59, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
 * You still do not understand my concern, although I stated that I do not want to say that a research was wrong. I only want to make a distinction between facts and interpretations for average WP users, but I understand that in your universe of knowledge there are scholarly POVs which are accepted as facts. I do not want to help you to understand the difference between facts and interpretations any more. Of course, you can delete any unreferenced statement. Borsoka (talk) 06:01, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Boroska, once again. Whatever will question research results (directly or indirectly) without a direct reference to specialized study dedicated directly to the research in concrete territory will be deleted.
 * Evolution is also only an interpretation of archaeological findings and any other scientific theory is only hypothesis. Manipulation of sources (= trial to remove, modify or reword some information) or removal of sourced content as you did is unacceptable and I will report it as vandalism, with comprehensive list of all such your changes during the last year, because this was not the first time.
 * It is very clear that this is not about any facts or POVs, you repeatedly try to remove information which you dislike - regardless of reliability of authors, quality of sources, etc.Ditinili (talk) 07:15, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
 * You are hopelessly uncivil. If you do not report me for vandalism now, I must brought you before the administrators' noticeboard for uncivility, because you accused me of vandalism without any basis. Borsoka (talk) 13:14, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I am afraid that with comments like "I will take into account your limited (or maybe provincial) knowledge" and similar, you violate civility very often (together with other rules). Ditinili (talk) 13:39, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I repeat my previous sentence: if you do not report me for vandalism now, I must brought you before the administrators' noticeboard for uncivility, because you accused me of vandalism without any basis. Please also feel free to report any of my remarks. I am also ready to answer any questions about them (If you remember, you reverted my tags with simple questions, accusing me of vandalism, because you were - and you are still - unable to understand that a sentence like "the highest density of their [the Slavs'] settlements is documented" does not provide sufficient information, but presents scholarly interpretations as a fact. If you cannot understand a simple question, because you think that the scholarly interpretation of archeological finds is a fact, as it is proved by your funny edit summary here, your knowledge is limited.) Borsoka (talk) 14:09, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
 * ...as you wish. Ditinili (talk) 14:21, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Nitra. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100102052304/http://www.aeroslovakia.sk/en/ to http://www.aeroslovakia.sk/en/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 03:03, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

title: Talk:Nitra


text:
Wikipedia talk:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point

New example
I'm not sure how this example fits under the scope of this guideline. Such comments could be disruptive, yes, but what would they illustrate? It also sounds rather specific for an example. PSWG1920 (talk) 18:49, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * The idea is that someone can comment about a policy (or guideline or governance) on an unrelated talk page, under the pretense of contributing to that discussion, while in fact actually airing a grievance that should be discussed in the context of the policy. Such disruptions would serve to illustrate inconsistencies by drawing attention to other drama obliquely related discussions. In other words don't hijack an  unrelated discussion to make a point. (Admittedly, the example is pretty specific, but it is similar to other examples that occur at RfA's.) - MrX 19:09, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Could we at least change the example a bit? At present, it isn't even clear why someone would try the "do not". PSWG1920 (talk) 00:02, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
 * The example actually happened (diffs available upon request). I'm receptive to changing the example though. What did you have in mind? - MrX 00:38, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, please do provide the diffs. PSWG1920 (talk) 00:59, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Here is the sequence of events:
 * Pointy comment at an RfA (you may have to read some of the surrounding text to understand how out of place his comment was)
 * Talk page discussion
 * Follow up RfA comment by the same user
 * The user changes his RfA !vote
 * I think this is a fitting example of how WP:POINT can apply to non-content areas of the encyclopedia. - MrX 01:31, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
 * OK, I see that someone frivolously suggested a CheckUser to make a point about CheckUsers. Even though that happened in this instance, it is probably not something that most people would think to do. Thus WP:BEANS applies. Moreover, novice editors reading this page may not even be aware of CheckUser, so that example wouldn't help them to understand this guideline. PSWG1920 (talk) 04:12, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Fair point. We already have several examples for new users, so I think this example is more helpful to experienced users (or metapedians). If anything, I think it would be useful to have a couple of more examples that apply to Wikipedia namespace. - MrX 14:41, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I simplified the example. I still have doubts about it, especially in regards to WP:BEANS, but we can wait for a third opinion. PSWG1920 (talk) 15:54, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

I guess the example is fine, but I still don't see why we need to "clarify the scope" in the first section. It is clear from the examples that this can occur in deletion discussions. The Checkuser example shows that it can occur elsewhere. The reason I said that this sentence disrupts the flow is because it takes the discussion away from the tactics themselves. PSWG1920 (talk) 13:57, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Seems a useful summarization, if a bit wordy. Editors shouldn't have to look to the examples for such information. --Ronz (talk) 22:40, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
 * The trimming is an improvement, but it seems too brief now. --Ronz (talk) 16:47, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
 * @PSWG1920 calng cellcard falng 10p nang smart meftone alng 175.100.79.172 (talk) 02:33, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
 * 192.168.1.1 175.100.79.172 (talk) 02:34, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

press mention
See the New York Book Review article here: SarahStierch (talk) 02:39, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Odysseus illustration

 * oppose — cyclops is not not some sort of project. Arguably, Odysseus did IAR, which is commendable. --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:39, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Tell that to Polyphemus! But fair enough, point taken.   KDS 4444  Talk  14:18, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Adding new example
Addition of a new example to this guideline is discussed at WP:VPP (subsection: "Rationale") --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:03, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Some issues with this page and its misuse
WP:NOTPOINTY points out that just because someone is making a point does not mean that they are disrupting Wikipedia to illustrate that point. However, this isn't the most common misconception about this page, which would be this part: editors engaging in "POINTy" behavior are making edits with which they do not actually agree. Basically, I believe that the page's scope is much smaller than simply "disrupting Wikipedia" - it's quite possible and common for people to "disrupt Wikipedia to make a point" without "making edits with which they do not actually agree". In fact, the vast majority of the cases I've seen involving the improper invocation of WP:POINT are reactions to impolite (of course, to various degrees depending on the editor) edits by someone with whom the editor disagrees - often uncivil, sometimes disruptive, and rarely ever specifically what's described in this page - doing something opposite to what they believe.

As the talk archives show, chronic misuse (and potentially abuse) of this page has been noted since at least 2005. I believe that the misapplication arises for two connected reasons: 1) people don't read pages closely, relying on the given shortcuts, title, and/or nutshell; and 2) the shortcuts, title, and nutshell do not adequately describe the behavior outlined in this page. Now, for the shortcuts, we can't do anything, since they're so ingrained in the culture here, but the other two we can. I think that part of the reason the title is so broad is because the content now at WP:GAME and WP:IDHT was once here; they've now been moved to other pages. However, this leaves us with a title which overreaches the scope of the page - something noted in the talk page sections above (from 2010). Since this page is so heavily known, would it be a good idea to move it to a more descriptive title? I feel like it would cause some hand-wringing, deserved or not. And, there would still have to be a different title to move to. I don't know, but I feel like in its current state, this is not working. ansh 666 10:20, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Consistency and perfection
"Practically speaking, it is impossible for Wikipedia to be 100 percent consistent, and its rules will therefore never be perfect."

The funny thing about that is, if you are on the wrong side of the rule, they will say, "The rule says such-and-such! We need to apply the rule!" If you argue, "We don't need to apply the rule consistently; the rule isn't perfect," they'll say, "If you don't like the rules, you can leave Wikipedia and post your content elsewhere. The door's that way."

But if you try to apply the rules consistently, they hit you with, "Practically speaking, it is impossible for Wikipedia to be 100 percent consistent, and its rules will therefore never be perfect." So basically, it's another way of saying, "We do whatever we want, and justify it however we want, and it's the prerogative of the users who make up the 'rough consensus' to be as consistent or inconsistent as they want."

As I was pointing out at Don't just cite a page of rules; cite the relevant part of the rule and explain how it applies to the specific situation, people will often say, "Go read WP:XYZ." Yet, if you want to do something POINTy, you can't just say, "Go read WP:XYZ"; you have to respect the community's prerogative to ignore the rules as it sees fit. If you, the individual editor, enforce the rules consistently, you're being disruptive; on the other hand, if you, the individual editor, disobey the rules, you're also being disruptive.

So really, disruption just means going against the flow; it means ignoring the complexities of all the self-contradictory ways in which the wind is blowing. It means exposing hypocrisy and trying to do something about it unilaterally.

It's kind of like how in the U.S., if you break the law, you can't argue to the cop or the judge, "I should be allowed to break this law, because the laws aren't perfect." But if the government breaks the Constitution, and you bring this up, they'll say that it would be impractical to follow the Constitution to the letter. For example, there are two parts of the Constitution that say that the trial of "all crimes" or "all criminal prosecutions" shall be by jury, but in misdemeanor cases, it's routine, and the default, for the case to be heard by a judge instead.

So, those in authority, or in the majority, cite the importance of the rule of law when it suits them, saying that without it, we'd have anarchy, tyranny, etc. Yet, when it doesn't suit them, they cite the need for flexibility, practicality, etc. St. claires fire (talk) 15:35, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
 * This doctrine is used for nothing more than people with power (mods, admins etc) over other pages, groups or users to get away with hypocrisy and ride roughshod over any opposition by labelling their other side as disruptive'. It's a shortcut cheat to develop their own consensus by banning their opponents from the discussion. It really should be deleted and sent into oblivion. Macktheknifeau (talk) 08:28, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

this Vs. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS.
This article basically seems like WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS but without the handy note that using the "other stuff" argument that that argument should actually be taken serious if applicable (though many "professional" editors might still use that argument to dismiss what the page they themselves link to assesses), anyhow these pages are so similar that they could be merged, or at-least this page could become a mere paragraph, the WP:RULES should not become too repetitive.

--42.112.158.223 (talk) 03:17, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

The first rationale
"If someone nominates one of your favorite articles for deletion... do explain why the subject meets inclusion criteria, providing reliable sources to support your assertion. do not nominate another similar article for deletion, giving the same rationale. "

Why is this unacceptable behavior. If an article doesn't meet some kind of community established guideline. Shouldn't you take action to police said guidelines if another article doesn't meet them.--Prisencolin (talk) 03:11, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

 * A tad late, but to any future readers, this would hardly be an insane response. In fact, it's functionally what we actually use as a rebuttal to Other Stuff Exists. Nosebagbear (talk) 09:23, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't understand, are you saying that you should nominate other categories to prove a point?--Prisencolin (talk) 20:08, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
 * No - if you're nominating other articles (or categories etc) to make a point on your AfD then that would be concerning, however if you felt your article would be notable because it was very similar to another, and it got deleted, that could well be a strong indication that the other article is also not notable. Nosebagbear (talk) 20:12, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

 * I agree that this example is a bad one. The key point here should be do not nominate an article that you do not think should be deleted; it's entirely appropriate to say "oh, oops, is that the threshold? We should delete these as well, then", provided you genuinely now think they should be deleted. "If that's the standard then we ought to enforce it fairly and remove this as well" is not WP:POINTy behavior provided the opinion is genuinely felt. Of course, in some cases it might be WP:HOUNDing or retaliatory, but for content within an article it is particularly important that editors realize it is sometimes appropriate to respond to a deletion by saying "oh, if that's the standard then we should delete this other thing from another perspective", because WP:DUE weight is relative. --Aquillion (talk) 06:28, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Downgrading POINT to an essay
Point making is disruptive editing, which means that it is already covered by WP:DE - it's a WP:CREEP issue to have a separate policy telling us that this form of disruptive editing is also forbidden.

This policy also causes issues, as it is commonly misunderstood; it generally only applies if an editor is editors are making edits with which they do not actually agree with, but it is often cited in other situations, such as when WP:OTHERTHINGSEXIST arguments backfire by causing an editor to also nominate the example articles for deletion.

I think both of these can be solved by downgrading this policy to an essay, and copying the line As a rule, editors engaging in "POINTy" behavior are making edits with which they do not actually agree, for the deliberate purpose of drawing attention and provoking opposition in the hopes of making other editors see their "point". to Disruptive editing. BilledMammal (talk) 15:50, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

 * (from ANI) I never realized this was a guideline in the first place. Support for simplicity sake, we should have one conduct policy (WP:CIV), and maybe two or three guidelines for the most important community values, like WP:AGF and WP:BITE, but not POINT. Levivich 18:51, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Still support essay, but per Leijurv, a supplement would be OK too. Levivich 16:16, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
 * (from Disruptive editing) I think it might be confusing to add the suggested phrase alongside this. A (small) rewrite might be needed, because  indicates a degree of good faith application of the rule and doesn't imply (to my eyes) any editing with surreptitious motives, while really the problem is making . Adding this sentence over there is a good idea, but what's already there will need slight tweaks to make sense in context. The change would definitely be for the better though! Leijurv (talk) 19:31, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure how to reword it; do you have a suggestion? BilledMammal (talk) 03:30, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
 * The phrase that most comes to mind is "malicious compliance" (or maybe "malicious overcompliance"), but that might be my reddit showing through. The linked sidebar reads
 * This might be a bit wordy, driving its point home with excessive clarity, but just a thought: I concede this is a bit much, but I do think that "in one's view, applying it consistently" is a bit misleading in how it could sound charitable and good faith, while really what's prohibited is the opposite. Leijurv (talk) 08:31, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
 * For the sake of clarity, I think it would be fine to downgrade this page to Template:Supplement even as-is, so, Support, but it would be even better if the section it is supplementing was slightly enhanced in return. Leijurv (talk) 08:38, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
 * WP:POINT is a very commonly cited page, I think it might be worth getting more opinions by mentioning this discussion at WP:VPP or starting a RFC. Leijurv (talk) 21:06, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

 * Support The nutshell is "When you have a point to make, use direct discussion only." This is nonsense because there are plenty of other ways of making a point.  Creating an essay for example!  As this page is not clearly explained and is often misunderstood, it should be put on the proliferating pile of pontification as just another essay. Andrew🐉(talk) 23:04, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose this isn't a "policy" it's a guideline. As such it's just fine to co-exist with other policies and guidelines. All the blather and self-promotion preceding this is just purely symptomatic of why we should keep it in place.  The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 23:39, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose - there isn't a problem with emphasizing one particularly disruptive behaviour pattern via this guideline. However, emphasizing the line about edits with which they do not actually agree might still be a good idea. Newimpartial (talk) 13:03, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Status of Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point
Should Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point be downgraded from a behavioural guideline to an essay? 04:41, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Ping editors who contributed to a previous discussion on this topic. BilledMammal (talk) 04:41, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

 * Support, as nom. The behaviour is already described as disruptive at Disruptive editing and a second guideline that copies most of the text from there is unnecessary WP:CREEP.
 * Further, the current text leads to widespread misunderstandings; the issue the guideline attempts to address is the disruption caused when an editor tried to discredit a policy or guideline that they disagree with by applying it in an unpopular manner, but POINT is often cited in reference to other, usually non-disruptive, behaviour. The more concise text at WP:DE, that makes it clear that someone can legitimately make a point, without disrupting Wikipedia to illustrate it, should help in addressing some of that misuse. BilledMammal (talk) 04:41, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

 * Support as discussed above. As a typical example of misuse, see Talk:House of Habsburg where the guideline is cited in a discussion of the extent of the family.  That seems to be a regular content dispute and the guideline is misused in a weaponised, Wikilawyering way of trying to intimidate and silence an opposing editor.

 * And here's a fresh example of a different sort. When I went back to my watchlist just now, I saw it flooded by edits by user:Ser Amantio di Nicolao.  These were made by AWB and seem to be the addition of talk pages and project templates to files that I uploaded such as this.  I consider these to be quite annoying and my point is that the user appears to be making these edits just to boost his edit count rather than because they are useful or productive.  Is this a case of WP:POINT?  Does this guideline have any effect in deterring such behaviour?  And what if I were to revert all these vexatious additions?  Would that be a case of WP:POINT?  It doesn't seem that the guideline is any help in resolving such issues.  It's just clutter and complication for its own sake.  Just like all those project templates.

 * Andrew🐉(talk) 09:07, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

 * Strong oppose. . Without intending offense to the OP, who I presume operates from a goodfaith intention here, this proposal nevertheless looks very much like a solution in search of a problem. The overlap/redundancies between the WP:DE guidance and this guideline is a handful of short, straightforward sentences, and it is not by any means uncommon (nor is it necessarily undesirable) for a WP:PAG principle to be summarized in one policy, but detailed more completely in a discrete guideline.  WP:CREEP is an essay itself and concerns a highly subjective call, especially as it is presented, but even with an extremely generous analysis, this isn't what I'd characterize as the type of situation your average veteran editor is likely to recognize as "rule creep":  this guideline has been around for more than thirteen years, |14656858&dir=next has been cited in community discussions nearly 10,000 times (click warning: large page load), and has been viewed over 302,000 times by community members just in the seven years we have data for.  Clearly the page has non-trivial, longstanding, consistent, and ongoing utility to the community at large.

 * Nor are the additions here (that are lacking in the DE snippet) superfluous or un-useful: the examples highlight particular areas where this variety of disruption has classically occurred, allowing similar behavior to be cited as unambiguously problematic under existing community consensus.  This kind of behaviour still occurs at a far from trivial rate, especially with newer and WP:NOTHERE editors, so reducing the prominence of this principle--both in terms of 1) moving it from this page where it has stably and un-problematically resided for a long while, and 2) in significantly reducing the guidance associated with discussing the behaviour, despite the fact that it has established community consensus behind it--has pretty clear downsides, while really offering no advantages other than "six sentences will no longer exist on two different policy pages".  Which again, really isn't a problem in any noteworthy respect.  On the balance, I don't see how downgrading the guideline would simplify, expedite, or otherwise enhance community efforts to deal with point-making disruption.  Indeed, I can't see how it would do anything but quite the opposite. SnowRise let's rap 08:15, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
 * The page has been widely used but part of the issue is that has been widely used incorrectly. Andrew Davidson gave an example above, another example can be found in the ANI discussion that prompted this proposal, and looking through examples of what links here it appears that most are incorrect. BilledMammal (talk) 08:43, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Well, if the last example that stuck in Andrew's mind is from 2014, I wouldn't suggest that's evidence that this is a major problem. Nor was the incidence of the reference in the ANI thread you've linked there the nexus of any major disruption or anything more than a mostly incidental reference.  In any event, every single policy this community has ever promulgated is occasionally mis-referenced or misinterpreted, and I've never known the community to decide that the rational solution is to exorcise a policy itself, just because some users may make bad arguments (or leaps in logic) out of it.  How could we ever maintain our body of policy as a record of community consensus if that were the standard?  The legitimate purpose for the guideline remains, so I can't see how wrestling with the genuine and not uncommon situation the guideline's actual wording addresses would be in any way improved by throwing the baby out with the bathwater.  As with any other poor argument or misrepresentation of community consensus, the tonic in situations where the guideline is misapplied is to simply point out the error in logic to the confused or bad faith party.  And indeed, users clearly misapplying the rule will lose (rather than gain) support on the whole, with such tactics.

 * Regardless, the proposed solution is clearly an example of curing the disease by killing the patient: we don't like the fact that otherwise legitimate policy language is occasionally misapplied (and I disagree with you about the regularity of that misapplication relative to overall utility, based on my own random sampling review of the WLH), so we just torch the guideline, and lose all of its additional functionality? Actually, when I think about it, that metaphor is actually too generous, because the proposed solution wouldn't even solve the problem you have an issue with, because people can still make the same faulty argument you are annoyed with while referring back to WP:DE just as easily as when using WP:POINT.  So indeed, more like killing the patient and failing to eradicate the disease. Sn<b style="color:#99d5fe;">o</b><b style="color:#b2dffe;">w</b><b style="color:#B27EB2;">Rise</b><b style="color:#d4143a"> let's rap</b> 09:26, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
 * It's the first item on Special:WhatLinksHere/Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point; I think they found it there. In addition, as Andrew points out, it is not only used in ANI threads, but also in threads where the issues with its use aren't pointed out and instead intimidates less experienced editors. You're right that this change won't solve the problem by itself but I believe it will help, as I describe in my response to the proposal. BilledMammal (talk) 09:37, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
 * is correct – I used What links here to find a random example. I have expanded my entry to add a fresh example where people might use WP:POINT but where its lack of a bright-line test would make usage subjective and capricious. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:22, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I just don't see how your proposed solution does that. I think it clearly would accomplish the exact opposite. Your proposed solution wouldn't do a single thing to stop someone from advancing the exact same erroneous arguments, by simply citing the DE section rather than this guideline.  The only difference would be that the precise policy language that clarifies what actual point-making disruption is (and is not) will be reduced in scope and clarity.  Which far from solving the underlying problem, will only counter-productively complicate the effort to call out any misapplications that do occur. I can recognize that your efforts here are genuinely directed at something that you perceive to be a problem.  But even if I and every other repsondent agreed on the scale of that problem, I would still have to tell you that you really need to rethink your proposed solution, because it doesn't (in even a small way) eliminate the problem that is so aggravating to you: it would actually directly augment that problem, with no upside. Plus introduce additional confusion about just what the current policy on the matter is, and how to cite to it, since most experienced community members expect the relevant policy language to be found here, where it has been policy since 2009. <b style="color:#19a0fd;">S</b><b style="color:#66c0fd">n</b><b style="color:#99d5fe;">o</b><b style="color:#b2dffe;">w</b><b style="color:#B27EB2;">Rise</b><b style="color:#d4143a"> let's rap</b> 09:51, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree that changing the status from guideline to essay would achieve little. Many or most editors would not notice or care and so there would be no effect in practice.  There are numerous essays which are wielded as weapons in discussion and their lack of status does not seem to matter, no matter how many times it is pointed out.  Merger with WP:DISRUPTIVE might be better to rationalise and simply the number of pages.  But so long as WP:POINT remains a shortcut, it will be used and abused in the same way. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:37, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

 * I came to this expecting to oppose, but I have to say I'm not sure this page adds all that much to WP:DE. That said, what is the practical effect of downgrading it? What would change? Apart from gestures at "creep", which isn't really a good argument unto itself, I haven't seen all that much? Also, downgraded to what kind of essay? To an essay? Maybe most appropriate, if it were to be reclassified, would be to make it a Supplement of WP:DE. Most of the page is a list of examples, after all. — Rhododendrites  <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk \\ 12:34, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
 * The primary difference is that I believe the content at WP:DE is both clearer and more concise; an inexperienced editor inappropriately accused of WP:POINT is more likely to realize that they are being inappropriately accused of it. This won't solve the issue of incorrect use, but it will help. In addition, it will be simpler to find and implement a complete solution if we only need to change one guideline rather than current two.
 * As for the specific type of essay, I think making it a supplement is a good idea. BilledMammal (talk) 12:56, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
 * an inexperienced editor inappropriately accused of WP:POINT is more likely to realize that they are being inappropriately accused of it - an inexperienced editor accused of WP:POINT isn't going to be familiar with how we talk about essays vs. guidelines, so I can't really imagine any difference from their point of view. If the problem is confusing language, reclassifying won't change anything, either. The only fix is to, well, fix the confusing language (and I agree the language is a bit confusing in both places, but this page at least provides examples). It sounds like what you may be suggesting is retargeting the shortcut, which isn't covered by this RfC. — Rhododendrites  <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk \\ 13:26, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Support per my comments in the thread above - here's a practical benefit of this proposal: it'll shorten our list of guidelines by 1. This is an improvement, so I support. (Either an essay or a supplement would be an improvement.) We already have enough civility-related guidelines and policies; this one doesn't add anything so important it's worth having it as (yet another of very many) guidelines. And I'd support demoting other guidelines as well. And frankly, I've always thought having a guideline called "point" was pointy. Levivich<sup class="sysop-show">[block] 14:45, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Support - it is simply an essay illustrating some ways of doing disruptive editing and so should be at best a supplement to WP:DE. There's enough guidelines for the people who think they need to read them all without including unnecessary ones. NadVolum (talk) 14:48, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Template:Supplement would be better I think. I also think that the link to this page (the ) should not be removed from WP:DE. I think these examples are good and deserving of being linked to. And I think WP:NOTPOINTy is important - perhaps bolstering that is a similarly relevant idea to downgrading WP:POINT. Leijurv (talk) 21:18, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose. I'm not seeing a strong case for policy change here, and IMO downgrading a page that has been either a guideline or policy or "semi-policy" since at least sometime in 2005 should require a very strong case. "Sometimes people misuse it" is not even a weak case. In any event, I don't think the proposal would be an improvement. Maybe it's just a matter of cognitive style, but if I were accused of violating that abstract, example-free section of WP:DE, I would have no idea what my accuser was on about. A policy shouldn't need to send people to an essay just to have some idea of what it means. And while I am generally favorable to arguments from CREEP, this page is older than WP:DE, which merely summarizes it, as it should. I won't say that the current situation is ideal. (Were I king of Wikipedia policy, we would have a general guideline against pointless consistency, and at that point "don't be consistent without good reason, but especially not for bad reasons" would scarcely even need saying.) But as things stand this seems to fill an important niche in the Wikipedia policy ecosystem, and I would need some explanation of what has changed to make this guideline no longer applicable before I would think it appropriate to demote it. -- Visviva (talk) 03:58, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose, the arguments presented here make a decent case that it was perhaps not necessary to make this a guideline in the first place, but I'm not seeing a compelling case for demoting it now that we're here. If there's a case to be made that the specifics have fallen out of favor with the community, then there'd be a case for demotion to essay status. signed,Rosguill talk 22:31, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Support. It is important to underline the fact that it is the disruption, not the act of making a point (or even taking an action to illustrate a point) that is the problem. Treating this as the relevant guideline leads to confusion when people accuse each other of being disruptive simply for non-disruptively making a point; when you want to make the argument that someone has done something disruptive, you should focus on WP:DISRUPTIVE instead. I also agree with the people above who have said that the name and shortcut itself are part of the problem, in the sense that they focus on the wrong thing; I'd support moving / renaming, but I expect that would be a harder sell. More generally, my impression and experience is that this page describes behavior that is much less common than you would think given how frequently it is cited - it happens, but mostly by editors whose contributions are on the verge of being straightforward vandalism in the first place. Part of the problem is having a snappy memorable link that doesn't really summarize the most important aspect of it. --Aquillion (talk) 06:25, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

WP:POINT and removals for due weight
One particular situation I've seen come up with POINT a lot is situations where a first editor adds something to an article that they perceive as biased, intending to balance existing text out; a second editor reverts them, and the first editor responds with something along the lines of "well, if that's the standard then we need to remove this" and cuts out the part they were trying to balance instead. I think it's important to underline that that isn't WP:POINTy and can even, sometimes, be the best way to deal with WP:DUE issues - since one of the ways due weight is assessed is the quantity of text in the article, it is at least partially a relative measure, so an undue focus on one area can be addressed either by adding more about other views or by trimming the amount of text on the view that's being given too much focus. And the overall amount of weight to give all aspects is something that has to be decided on an article-by-article basis, so "if that's where we're drawing the line for this article, then we have to remove this for balance" is at least a reasonable tack to take. Obviously such removals are not always correct - you have to look at the actual sourcing and coverage and its overarching balance - but I feel that it's a frequent enough point of confusion that it might deserve a sentence or two here, noting that there are valid reasons for someone to tack between adding and removing text in an article in order to try and find a compromise that balances it out. --Aquillion (talk) 06:40, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

 * This could be added to the end:
 * "As well, it might be legitimate to remove content in response to the removal of other content. A genuine attempt to balance or clean up an article is not disruption to illustrate a point, even if it was precipitated by something the editor did not initially agree with. When there is any doubt, assume that someone is trying to improve the content and not illustrating a point." 200.17.137.40 (talk) 17:17, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Could be added to the end of what? <b style="color:red;">E</b><b style="color:blue;">Eng</b> 17:37, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
 * The end of the "Important note" section, to address Aquillon's concern. 200.17.137.40 (talk) 08:28, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Block evasion from Belteshazzar, see Psychologist Guy (talk) 16:16, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

No climbing the Reichstag dressed as Spider-Man
perhaps we could add No climbing the Reichstag dressed as Spider-Man to the see also section, seeing as both articles have similar points Batmilk 🦇 (talk) 16:17, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

 * That page is reddit tier cringe... Macktheknifeau (talk) 13:20, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

Removal of "important point" section
Seems like it is made redundant by the first sentence of the guideline itself. Not every possible misinterpretation of a guideline needs to be addressed within it. Remsense 诉  02:44, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Bears repeating. <b style="color:red;">E</b><b style="color:blue;">Eng</b> 02:48, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
 * You would know better than I: my intuition is that it wouldn't be an exceedingly common misinterpretation, but please tell me I'm wrong. Remsense  诉  02:49, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Take it from me, people say stuff like that all the time. <b style="color:red;">E</b><b style="color:blue;">Eng</b> 02:52, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, then. Remsense  诉  02:52, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

John smith igingwlong
John smith 175.100.79.172 (talk) 02:35, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

John
John smith nelw 175.100.79.172 (talk) 02:37, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/


text:
Talk:Mädchen in Uniform

Erika Mann
I question whether Erika Mann had a "leading" role in this film or not.

At least one German site I consulted on this: http://www.lespress.de/0398/texte398/CW.html says she had "einer Nebenrolle, als Deutschlehrerin" (an ancillary role, as the German teacher),

and another: http://mainz.gay-web.de/lbsk/film2002/ refers to Mann's "kleineren (smaller )Rolle"

An Australian film journal: http://www.latrobe.edu.au/screeningthepast/reruns/thiele.html even states that Mann was replaced during the film's production. (So far, this site is the only reference I've seen so far that claims this.)

IMDB.com just says she had an "uncredited" role.

This is of significance, because this particular Wiki article is cited in hundreds of English-language sites out there that promote the 1931 film, giving the impression Mann had a "leading" credit.

If that's not the case, then English-language web users are being given a different picture of the reality than the rest of the world, and this mostly seems to be traced back to this Wiki article.

Perhaps some fact-checking is in order.

Offered respectfully. -- Ruth Pettis (concerned reader)

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 165.121.60.135 (talk • contribs) 09:48, 27 May 2005.

I've fixed this. Wyss 06:54, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Deutsche Mark... in 1931?
How is it that this film had a budget of 55,000 DM 17 years before that currency was introduced ?? jmd 04:05, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

 * Maybe this should be RM 55,000, or it could be an inflation adjusted amount given in modern German currency. Wyss 10:53, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

 * The DM is not modern. It's obsolete. jmd 12:37, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

 * I meant the DM was a modern currency until replaced by the Euro. Anyway, looking at the article's history, I'm not comfortable speculating about whether this was meant to be RM or DM and am removing the amount from the text for now. Thanks for remarking on this. Wyss 13:27, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

 * Ok, it was Reichmarks, I've fixed the text, following the source. Wyss 13:32, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Based on the Novel?
Wasn't this film based on the play Yesterday and Today (Gestern und heute) ? I thought that the novel Winsloe wrote (The Girl Manuela/Das Mädchen Manuela) was written after the film came out in response to the heavy editing in the film that she had not intended.

Works Based On
The 2006 American film by Katherine Brooks called "Loving Annabelle" is an "update" of this film, according to it's official site. Would that be worth adding? Skulking

 * Done. Thanks. Gwen Gale 21:16, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Madchen In Uniform Video Cover.jpg
Image:Madchen In Uniform Video Cover.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 04:01, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I have added the fair use rationale. This image is clearly fair use as a promotional image, promotional poster or cover art associated with the film and used in the article about the film to illustrate the film. Gwen Gale 04:33, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

BFI info?
Can anyone provide more information about the BFI version of the film? Does it in fact have additional, or only restored scenes? Was it (or is it) available for purchase to the general public, or just at retrospectives? Thank you.
 * Available to buy on Blu-Ray now at, 89 minutes. --Rosenzweig (talk) 13:43, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Remake
The movie was remade in 1958 with Romy Schneider.--Tresckow 21:05, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: GER 222 German Cinema and GER 322 German Film Studies
— Assignment last updated by ImmerFisch (talk) 17:48, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

title: Talk:Mädchen in Uniform


text: Category:Tuen Mun District

title: Category:Tuen Mun District


text:
Category:Canadian LGBT people

People from Canada who identify as LGBT (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender)

title: Category:Canadian LGBT people


text:
Talk:Miss Match

Fair use rationale for Image:Missmatchcastseason1.jpg
Image:Missmatchcastseason1.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 19:38, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Looking for help writing an article about the spin-offs and crossovers of this series
I am writing an article about all of the series which are in the same shared reality as this one through spin-offs and crossovers. I could use a little help expanding the article since it is currently extremely dense and a bit jumbled with some sentence structures being extremely repetitive. I would like to be able to put this article into article space soon. Any and all help in writing the article would be appreciated, even a comment or two on the talk page would help. Please give it a read through, also please do not comment here since I do not have all of the series on my watch list. - LA @ 17:10, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

title: Talk:Miss Match


text:
Cupid (disambiguation)

Cupid is the god of love in Roman mythology.

Cupid(s) may also refer to:

Geography

 * Cupid (moon), orbiting Uranus
 * Cupids, Newfoundland and Labrador, Canada, a town

People

 * Cupid (singer) (born 1982), stage name of Bryson Bernard
 * Jonah Kūhiō Kalanianaʻole (1871–1922), a Hawaiian politician and aristocrat nicknamed "Prince Cupid"

Fictional characters

 * Cupid (DC Comics), a fictional comic book character
 * Cupid, one of Santa Claus's reindeer

Albums

 * Cupid (Cupid album), the self-titled debut album by Cupid
 * Cupid?, a 2004 album by Canadian rock band Stabilo

Songs

 * "Cupid" (112 song), a song by American R&B quartet 112
 * "Cupid" (Sam Cooke song), covered by many artists
 * "Cupid" (Fifty Fifty song), 2023
 * "Cupid" (Lloyd song), a 2011 song by American R&B singer Lloyd
 * "Cupid" (Daniel Powter song), a 2012 Daniel Powter song
 * "Cupid", a song by Jack Johnson from On and On
 * "Cupid", a 2015 song by Kara from In Love
 * "Cupid", a 2015 song by Oh My Girl from Oh My Girl
 * "Cupid", a 1998 song by Sara Evans from No Place That Far

Television

 * Cupid (1998 TV series), starring Paula Marshall and Jeremy Piven
 * Cupid, a 2003 dating reality show produced by Simon Cowell and FremantleMedia
 * Cupid (2009 TV series), a remake of the 1998 TV series, starring Sarah Paulson and Bobby Cannavale

Other uses in arts, entertainment, and media

 * Cupid (Michelangelo), one of two sculptures
 * Cupid, a 2012 TV film starring Joely Fisher

Other uses

 * CUORE Upgrade with Particle Identification (CUPID), a physics experiment
 * Cupid plc, a British company that owns and operates dating websites
 * Cupid (horse)

title: Cupid (disambiguation)


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shireena Christensen

 This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was speedy delete. bainer (talk) 00:05, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

Shireena Christensen
Porno and quick google did not return any info about the subject. pamri 08:54, May 27, 2005 (UTC)

 * Speedied as patent nonsense. Nothing to see here; part of a vandalism spree. — Xezbeth 09:04, May 27, 2005 (UTC)

 * This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.