Jump to content

Template talk:Nazism

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by WikiCleanerMan (talk | contribs) at 17:09, 25 November 2021. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Hakenkreuz (swastika)

The Hakenkreuz is to be used for this template pursuant to the recent RfC on Template talk:Nazism sidebar. That is the current consensus of the editors. Kierzek (talk) 14:47, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Non-German groups?

At the moment, we now have more articles linked for non-German mimic groups, which were of minor significance. Does this not give them undue weight? Certainly the post-WWII American neo-Nazi groups have their own category. Should the 1930s-40s less significant mimic groups have their own template too? TheLevelOn (talk) 08:46, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bsckground colors

I've reverted attempts to give this template non-standard background colors, which do not serve any encyclopedia purpose, and might be regarded as a provocation by other editors. I have also done the same with {{Communism}} template, for the same reasons. Templates are nsvigational tools, not celebrations of their subjects. -- The Anome (talk) 09:53, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

NSDAP flag vs. swastika

I've reverted Hildeoc's good-faith change of the NSDAP flag to a swastika, in line with the consensus at {{Nazism sidebar}}. Nazism was literally the ideology of the NSDAP state: that's where the name comes from. Moreover, the NSDAP flag looks less obtrusive than the swastika, and is used elsewhere as an icon to represent other Nazi-related things. Comments invited. -- The Anome (talk) 18:51, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@The Anome: What exactly do you find less "obtrusive" with the NSDAP flag – as opposed to the swastika? If at all, I'd argue exactly vice versa …--Hildeoc (talk) 19:36, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It's reasonable to follow the arguments listed at Template talk:Nazism sidebar#RfC: Swastika size in infobox (2, take 2), but looking at it now, I think this is a different situation. The splash of red seems significantly more distracting in a navbox than it would be in a sidebar. The informational value of this image, in this context, is very low, and this seems like decoration to me. I would prefer removing the symbol completely. Grayfell (talk) 20:05, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I do not feel strongly about inclusion, but with that said, I do not believe the "situation" presented is "different" than that of the Nazism sidebar. It is for visual identification. I agree with The Anome that something should be present per his reasoning above. But, the sidebar consensus was to include a small swastika at the time back in 2015. Of course, consensus can change. Kierzek (talk) 00:01, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely no image is necessary at all. Any image placed here is a glorfication of Nazism, because the images is given a clear column which is a large amount of space to exist in. I've removed it, so we can start with a clean slate for this discussion. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:11, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Beyond My Ken. Any image here is just distraction and clutter. – Finnusertop (talkcontribs) 11:41, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]