Template talk:Nazism sidebar/Archive 1

Nazism and socialism - discuss and vote on which page text should appear

Discussions of the relationship between Fascism and socialism and Nazism and socialism keep appearing on multiple pages. On what page does the section on Nazism and socialism belong?

Fascism and ideology---Nazism in relation to other concepts---Fascism and socialism---Nazism and socialism

Please discuss and vote on this dispute at this talk page]. Thanks. --Cberlet 15:08, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

A little too long?

Is it just me or has this template grown to an excessively large size? Perhaps it would be time to remove some of the less relevant articles from it. -- Nikodemos 09:58, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Name change?

What is the issue with Vision Thing renaming this template? See: [1]. There has been no discussion of this, and it appears to be part of an idiosyncratic POV campaign. Any comments? I am reverting pending discussion.--Cberlet 19:36, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree. He's just trying to tie together two unrelated things to promote his POV. The Nazis were economically corporatist and hated the socialists, who were also among their biggest critics. Sarge Baldy 22:30, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Horizontal Box

The vertical box has become to long I suggest we make it horizontal at this point. Inevitably, it will only grow longer. LindaWarheads 13:08, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

What about making parts of it collapsible? (i.e. like Template:Korean's "show" button?) --Fastfission 01:46, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Here is a very ugly first attempt by someone who doesn't quite understand how this works:

It's not quite there but you can't deny it uses space efficiently! --Fastfission 01:56, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I say we just cut down on the articles in the list. This happens with every navigation template every once in a while: people keep adding their favourite articles to it, even when they are not particularly important, until the template must be reduced in size.

For example, instead of having a whole list of Nazi eugenics articles, we could have a single link pointing to one article or list. -- Nikodemos 02:47, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

OK, but where to draw the line? --Fastfission 19:39, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, the way we draw the line with most templates is by consensus of the editors working on those templates... We should use the same approach here. -- Nikodemos 02:58, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

• Make Horizontal: I think a horizontal box, at the bottom of articles is better, long-term:

• Growing vertical-boxes can upset formatting of previous articles with images;
• More Nazi-related articles arrive due to notability (Nazis started WWII);
• Cleanup is rare/unpleasant: Nazi topics are unpleasant to rewrite/condense;
• Anti-Semitism was rampant, prompting more articles, rather than cleanup;
• White supremacy links Nazism before 1912: 4 original decades of articles;

I suspect the Nazi articles will grow, like important computer software with "creeping featurism" addressing a larger user-base, so a horizontal, bottom-template allows for future growth without impacting the future vertical format of the growing list of Nazi articles. -Wikid77 14:06, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

• Well, it's been nearly a year and still no movement on the template. For the record, I favour the collapsible box as above. It's been implemented to good effect with the Anarchism template and looks pretty promising to me. I'm going to add the newly-created Esoteric Nazism article to the template but I'm going to compensate by removing the Völkisch movement article which has no place in the Nazism category. The völkisch movement spanned the political spectrum and if it had some input into Nazism, it also influenced anarchism and the Social Democrats. Gnostrat 21:45, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I have a problem with this new template, mainly that it just doesn't look right compared to most of the side templates. This template is strange compared to most templates, and is consistant with few other sidebar templates on wikipedia. It would be better just to revert back to the original template if not for asteatics, than for consistency. Yahel Guhan 01:42, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

before I restore the old box, can the supporters of this box change explain their reasons and respond to my above comment? Yahel Guhan 00:05, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

It's more concise, saves a lot of space on articles, and it's simply better. I think we should do this on all boxes. — EliasAlucard|Talk 12:22 09 Oct, 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. I think the old template looked much better, and made the links much easier to access. It's smaller, but why does that matter? It isn't like the articles are overcrowded or anything. Yahel Guhan 03:41, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Current template takes too much space. Other templates are not the issue, and anyway, most people seem to think that new box is an improvement. -- Vision Thing -- 18:03, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

In what article? Most of the articles have plenty of spece to spare the template. Other templates are an issue, because wikipedia should be consistent throughout. As for the "most people" arguement, wikipedia is not a democracy. Yahel Guhan 03:44, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

It would be helpful to have a show all button, though. Zara1709 10:27, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree with that. A show all button would be perfect. — EliasAlucard|Talk 15:10 11 Oct, 2007 (UTC)

Collapsable sections

There has been considerable discussion on the issue of the collapsable sections of templates like this, such as {{Social democracy sidebar}}, {{Christian Democracy sidebar}} etc. I created a centralized place for discussion about this issue here. I invite every one to participate. C mon (talk) 18:11, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Color

SS soldiers (military wing of the Nazi Party) wearing pitch black uniforms with the swastika.

Since when is "papayawhip" associated with Nazism :)? I think everyone is more used to seeing the red National Socialist flag on the grey or black background. Grey is likely the first color associated with the Greater German Reich. Why are we using light orange? Frankly, its a little "squeamish" for such a heavy subject... Also, I don't think the color of the image (which also contains black) should dictate the color of the template. (P.S. Halo rules!) --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 11:35, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I've changed the color to dark red. I don't think grey is that representative of Nazi Germany. I'd rather have the template blend in with the color of the flag - just because of aesthetic reasons. --UNSC Trooper (talk) 13:18, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Why should the image dictate the color of the template? German soldiers wore grey uniforms. Where blue would be French, red would be British, yellow Spanish etc., grey is generally the color of the German Reich (imperial Germany and Hitler's Germany). In this version it looks like the the communism sidebar or something. The German swastika used black, white and red because all those were the colors of (imperial) Germany. Why should red (or orange), of all colors, be predominant here when it is a symbol of Nazism's antipod, communism? --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 13:47, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Also, I wonder if you could explain why the Nazism sidebar is wider than the Fascism sidebar? We should try to standardize the size of politics series templates. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 13:54, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Soviet soldiers wore grey uniforms as well. Does the mean the Communism template has to be grey? No - it was red (now it's just white) because the Soviet flag was red and yellow. I think the same should be applied to the Nazism template, too. Or we could combine white, black and red. And I think we should just leave the size of the templates the way they were before: 18 - 20 em. --UNSC Trooper (talk) 15:04, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I just mentioned the uniforms as an example, and anyway we're talking about Nazi Germany, not the USSR (which used the color red extensively in their uniforms). It is obviously general knowledge that the primarily used (imperial) German color was grey. The color of communism is red. This is why the flag of the USSR was red, and hence the name "Red Army". The red color is generally viewed the symbol of communism (and the far-left), certainly not as a symobol of Nazism. Nazism, fascism (and sometimes the far-right in general) are usually associated with grey (or black, "blackshirts", etc...). It is a lot less symbolic if we use red, of all colors, to represent Nazism. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 16:46, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

While the communist Soviet military certainly used red on their medals, patches, symbols, etc. the uniform itself was grey. But that's not the point - I used dark red simply because the template would blend in with the flag. Anarchism is most often represented through red and black, but the sidebar is all white. The color of certain ideologies need not represent the template; when you read an article on Wikipedia, you'd expect a pleasant format, not a brightly colored or dark format. However, we could experiment with complete black on the Nazism template and see how it looks. Regarding the size issue, just edit one of the templates to 18 or 20 em so that they're both the same size. --UNSC Trooper (talk) 17:22, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

The Soviet uniform was never grey. It was mainly green, beige, or brown. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 17:37, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

As you say, black is ok, but its a little too "flashy". That's why I used grey... I still prefer that version, your thoughts? --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 17:52, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Grey is what the Fascism and Neo-Fascism sidebars use. We should make Nazism a bit different, so black would be preferable. --UNSC Trooper (talk) 18:15, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

The Fascism sidebar uses very, very dark grey (almost black, in fact), its significantly different from the light gray I was proposing. That light gray is more distinct from the fascism sidebar than full black. But never mind... --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 23:28, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Colour revisited

Would it be possible to sample consensus on making the colour grey? Or at least a less intensive black? It is so black that it almost looks like a graphical display error on the screen; sucks attention away from the article; and becomes a bit of an ugly eyesore. Any chance on re-establishing consensus now it has been black for a while? SGGH ^ping! 22:24, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree, the full black doesn't look good... How's this? --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 02:15, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

This light grey layout is way too... "moderate," for such an extreme regime. Like I said before, the Fascism templates use grey. I still think full black is a much better option for Nazism. --UNSC Trooper (talk) 10:31, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

The fascism template uses black, just a shade lighter to avoid being "pitch black" like a graphical display error (it used to be "pitch black", but I lightened it up just for a slight nuance). And that not for long, apparently (see template). This shade of grey is less similar to the fascism template's black than the total black we now have on. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 11:16, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

This talk about colors is really unproductive, if you ask me. Nazism is more radical than fascism, therefore, it'd need a more dramatic look. Pitch black seems right for it. Grey would fit fascism because it provides both a dramatic appearance (as fascism, itself, was dramatic) and a relative distance from Nazism's pitch black. Or just make them both black and move on with other things. --UNSC Trooper (talk) 12:32, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, one may argue that National-Socialism considered itself "less right-wing" than fascism, in that it was anti-monarchist and incorporated elements of socialism ("workers' party"). Fascism would be the really hard-core right wing. The Nazis, on the other hand, despite having a more negative reputation due to their racial extermination agenda, were in fact more to the left than Mussolini. Propaganda in the Soviet Union avoided using the term "Nazis" and (incorrectly) called the invaders "fascists" because of the NSDAP's socialist inclinations. The left wing of the NSDAP was rather effective at times. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 13:04, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't referring to Nazism's political position in relation to fascism, rather its practices. Did Mussolini dedicate his country's forces to mass extermination of national minorities, disabled people, or Jews? None of the other European, South American, or Japanese fascist movements (which, in my opinion, should be considered truly fascist compared to Nazism) engaged in overly imperialistic and criminal actions. Fascism wasn't enough for Hitler; that's why fascism is sometimes viewed as being different than Nazism. I should also point out that there are significant differences between fascism and right-wing extremism, such as fascism's revolutionary element. So the two terms are not interchangeable. Also; while Nazism was indeed inclined towards socialism, the Night of the Long Knives had completely crushed the NSDAP's left-wing, thereby paving the way for a rightward drift. All in all, I believe Nazism is far more radical than fascism in many ways. --UNSC Trooper (talk) 16:42, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Sooo... you think the color should be darker not in relation to the political affiliation of the regime, but in relation to how murderous it was? Well, if that were the case, the communism sidebar would have a lot farker shade :), because of Stalin's regime. I can't say I agree, the color of the right-wing, particularly of the fascists, is (usually) black, the color of the left is (usually) red. Since fascism was more to the right than Nazism it stands to reason it will have the darker color. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 17:38, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

The current brown shade of the SA uniforms fits really nicely I think. Because really, when you think National Socialism, you think brown, red and gold. --D Boland (talk) 23:07, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Parteiadler?

What exactly are your thoughts on this issue, R-41? The symbol of nazism is a swastika, which was incorporated both the Nazi flag and the party emblem (Parteiadler). The flag of Nazi Germany is certainly very (in)famous - but more as a flag of Nazi Germany than specifically as a symbol of the Nazi party. To add to this, it makes more sense to use an emblem of the ideology in this sort of an infobox rather than a flag [2], it just looks better and is more elegant than a huge flag. -- Director (talk) 05:19, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

R-41? -- Director (talk) 07:50, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

The swastika itself is commonly associated with Nazism but is itself of ancient eastern origins. The Nazi swastika flag was the most prominent symbol of the movement. It existed since 1920, before that particular adaptation of the eagle was adopted. Hitler himself took immense pride in the use of the flag, especially the "Blutfahne" (a Nazi swastika flag carried during the failed Beer Hall Putsch that was smeared by the blood of a killed Nazi) in Nuremberg rallies. The users at Template:Communism decided to use a star with a hammer and sickle on it probably because they viewed it as the most common symbol that could be applied to multiple communist movements across the world.--R-41 (talk) 03:55, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

As I said: this is no place for a flag, as such. An emblem, like a red star, would suit the infobox's needs better: its smaller, fits better proportionately, and conveys the meaning effectively. I understand that the swastika alone would not be entirely appropriate, but I'm not suggesting we use it alone - I'm suggesting we use the Parteiadler. As for the communism template, I assure you the red flag is by far the oldest and undoubtedly the most widespread symbol of communism. The red star and hammer and sickle are in widespread use as emblems of communist parties. -- Director (talk) 04:19, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

I am not convinced, I think the Parteiadler is less prominent of a symbol of Nazism than the Nazi flag. On the Communism sidebar page I myself vouched for the title page of the Communist Manifesto to be shown as being a more neutral image than the hammer and sickle - as the hammer and sickle bear Bolshevik and Marxist-Leninist connotations - when there are other variations of communism predating and antedating both of them. The users there rejected my proposal, they identified the hammer and sickle as a common symbol of communism. You should wait to see what others think about this proposal to use the Parteiadler here.--R-41 (talk) 08:05, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Its not so much about prominence as prominence in what context. Yes the flag is prominent as such, and so is the red flag, but the "Parteiadler" is 1) more specific as a symbol of the Nazi party, and 2) more appropriate for an infobox. Its really that sort of semi-subjective issue that is subject to personal impression, so, as you say, its really up to a "vote". *turns toward the crowd* Folks, if my symbol is elected I promise to... :) -- Director (talk) 14:46, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

I've had enough of your brand of stonewalling, R-41. Logos and symbols are far more appropriate in these templates than full, SVG flag representations. And to me it seems you simply want images that you yourself uploaded to be used in templates. -- Director (talk) 08:14, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

That is assuming bad faith in violation of Wikipedia:Assume good faith and violation of Wikipedia:Civility. You said you would adhere to a vote. Well, unfortunately no one has arrived yet, you could have posted an RfC. As it being just you and me here, I do not agree with your proposal, I believe that the Nazi flag is a better visual for the template. Please, out of respect for consensus and aversion of edit warring, revert the major changes you have made until a consensus of a majority of users agrees to support them.--R-41 (talk) 14:12, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

As I said on your talkpage [3], I do apologize, but that was my honest impression.

Imo the changes are beneficial and generally look good (more appropriate for that type of template). I'd like to just fix them up without going into a long, drawn-out discussion where you and I discuss subjective issues.. If people object to the changes, and would like to oppose them - what better way for them to notice than through the template itself?

My opinion, though, is that you're kind of making too much out of this. These are aesthetic changes to a template. Just let them be, and see if editors disapprove.. -- Director (talk) 14:14, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

I disapprove. Frietjes (talk) 17:24, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Of course you do. Even though you went out of your way not to revert the logo earlier [4]. You made apparent no objections with regard to the image. Please forgive me, but as we have in the meantime engaged in another dispute, I myself cannot now regard your position as impartial and objective. -- Director (talk) 17:46, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

I disagree with the use of the Parteiadler. I support the layout with the flag. I want new section with a request for comment open that is free of this uncivil behaviour and unacceptable level of combativeness over an aesthetic change, and a stop to the edit warring I have seen on the layout, there is no agreement to change the template now - the template should remain where it was for a long time - the version with the flag. A new section should be opened with a request for comment that is open to all proposals including maintaining the present layout.--R-41 (talk) 18:13, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

The edits are minor, aesthetic, and objectively beneficial. It is precisely the insignificance of the changes that makes it hard for me to believe you are actually starting an entire dispute and edit war over it. I must say I in turn perceive your behavior as "combative" (to say the least). I do not particularly feel an RfC is necessary, and I will not post one. If you want one - please post it yourself.

This is turning into nothing short of WP:HARASSMENT. I am sorry I did not agree to your suggestion at WT:YU, but to stonewall improvements to a template for months on end is just too much. And Frietjes, please forgive me, but WP:DEVIATIONS does not in any way go against the changes discussed in the other dispute. Quite the contrary, it provides a detailed explanation as to how to apply them exactly. -- Director (talk) 18:30, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Please stop being uncivil to me. You have no reason to get this angry with two people who happen to disagree with your changes. Getting angry at us for not accepting your proposal is not going to help you. The version that it has been for some time should remain for now. Two users me and Frietjes disagree with your proposal, so you currently don't have support for inclusion, that could change with other users arriving. That is why a Request for Comment is needed. We need to negotiate on the wording of the RfC, and place the proposed templates and have it be open for new proposed templates to be added.--R-41 (talk) 18:33, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

I do not believe I am being "uncivil". And I find your insinuations to the contrary - offensive in turn. Please stop continually characterizing my behavior in such a way (in this venue), as that constitutes a personal attack. If you wish to post an RfC, you may of course do so. I shall lay out my position there in due time. It is entirely possible, however, that noone but the present party will arrive. That is, at least, what happened in the last three or four RfC that I saw posted. -- Director (talk) 18:42, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't agree with your view that requesting discussion and a request for comment constitutes "WP:HARASSMENT", you have said that you distrust the impartiality of Frietjes, it is not uncivil to comment on the noticing of uncivil behaviour. I think you are aggravated and it is showing through in your edits with aggression that at least I am noticing. I have not personally attacked you, I have clearly requested that both you and Frietjes work with me to make the wording of a request for comment on your proposal, my proposal, and one that is open to other proposals.--R-41 (talk) 18:49, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

You have been warned with regard to such provocations. As I have stated on your talkpage, they will be reported in entirety on next occurrence. As I'm sure you are aware, noone here is under any obligation to follow your suggestions (no matter how many times they are repeated). If you wish to have an RfC, you are perfectly free to post one. If you do not wish to do so, I shall certainly not be the one that does (as I have said). -- Director (talk) 18:57, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

As I have said on the Nazism sidebar page, and as I am saying here for clarity to other users who may enter discussion here, on why I said what I did. That was my perception of your editing behaviour, and I did not intend to offend you with it, since I did I am sorry that it offended you. However I think that threatening to report me because of my perception of your editing behaviour is not conductive to productive or cooperative discussion, it is more common for that to become grounds for that discussion to break apart. However I am patient and I hope that you will withdraw your proposal to report me if I even so much as insinuate that you are behaving in a manner ineffectual to consensus-seeking. I want all three of us, you, me, and Frietjes to work together on the wording for the RfCs for this sidebar and the other.--R-41 (talk) 19:09, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Your own files were in place in the templates, and they were removed, you immediately started edit-warring. Then you kept demanding, in every single post, that I post an RfC. When I said I would not do so, you continued to demand it, and intensified your edit-warring. All the while "seasoning" every single post with offensive comments on myself. In fact you have still not posted a single RfC, for some strange reason. You again say you want me to come up with the wording, even though I have stated clearly that there is no need and that I shall describe my position on my own. -- Director (talk) 19:19, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Why in particular do you not want to work with me and Frietjes on creating a common RfC?--R-41 (talk) 19:24, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

That's called an argument from ignorance. The question is not "why not?", but "why?". Why would I need to "work with you and Frietjes on creating a common RfC"? I shall certainly elaborate on my position sufficiently, you need not be concerned about that. -- Director (talk) 19:27, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

I asked the question in hopes that you would reply to explain specifically why. I reverted your edits because you did not have agreement of consensus to make those changes. If you do not want to cooperate with me and Frietjes here, then for me the discussion is fading to a close. It is my personal choice not to continue discussion here if there is not a desire for all three of us to work together to create a neutral RfC acceptable to all of us that includes our proposals and is open to other users' proposals. Thus it appears that result for the time being is you supporting a proposal with me and Frietjes disagreeing with it.--R-41 (talk) 19:48, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

I found my way here from the Waffen SS divisions template. I think the changes are an improvement and see no reason why they should be reverted to their previous state. --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 19:56, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Aren't the proposed templates by Director too grey though? The Fascism sidebar appears very unnoticeable to me, because everything is grey or black and white. Plus the fasces is from the PNF logo but it has been squished horizontally and doesn't look right to me. There's not much more I can say here about it, I would like to see other alternative proposals or alternative images used. As said before, "for the time being", now two users in favour of Director's proposal.--R-41 (talk) 20:00, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't understand. That's a bit like asking if the communist boxes are too red. Taking another look at it there's actually more contrast with DIREKTOR's version and thus more noticeability given that you've got Wikipedia's white background, the box's general off-white background, and the text's gray background. If the aspect ratio of an image is kept consistent (which Wikipedia does) it can't be "squished" so I don't know where that's coming from. --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 20:18, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Communism uses the colour red. Fascism - particularly from the original Italian Fascism - did not use grey, Italian Fascists' recognized colour was black in reference to the Blackshirts. Nazism did not use grey, the colour affiliated with the Nazis was brown, in reference to "Brownshirts" - the term associated with the SA who wore tan brown uniforms. I designed the fasces for the SVG depiction of the PNF logo, Direktor is using that fasces from the logo for his proposal for the Fascism sidebar template, but it appears as a squished version of it.--R-41 (talk) 20:29, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Uniforms of the Nazi military wing.

The point is to illustrate ideology. Fascism (of which Nazism is one brand) is generally depicted with black. Though obviously we cannot have pitch black templates, that would look absolutely terrible (which is why it was scrapped when it used to be in place). The priority is to keep the template subdued and tasteful - in accordance with guidelines. I simply desaturated the standard hue of blue used in every template, in order to ensure its all in accordance with WP:DEVIATIONS.

Brown is the color of the SA (the "Brownshirts"), not necessarily Nazism as such. The SA were disbanded and denounced by the Nazi leadership, which soon gave prominence to their own "Blackshirts" - the SS [5]. Additionally, the "logo" of the party - was black, as was the swastika symbol itself (again, we ought to keep it tasteful).

Your flag, R-41, is in my opinion 1) badly sourced, 2) inappropriately placed, being a flag representation, and 3) it just looks terrible there.

Fascism, unlike Nazism, is a wider phenomenon than Italy itself. Its generally regarded as a wider term. Sure there are/were Nazi movements in other countries than Germany, but they never came really to power - unlike Fascist movements (Spain, the NDH, arguably Argentina, Romania, Hungary, Austria, etc..). because of that, I felt that a single fasces was what we needed, as a universal symbol of - Fascism. And as you probably know, I am certainly not the first to come to that conclusion (a pre-R-41 version). Nevertheless, I derived the fasces symbol from the Italian fascist party logo, being the "original". Of course, I had to modify it somewhat or else it would have been absurdly long and unwieldy (its still kind of long, might have to shorten it somewhat). The logo is indeed your own, but unless I'm very much mistaken its a modification of one uploaded by NsMn [6]. -- Director (talk) 07:23, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

As in previous cases, after the success of the edit war the talkpage is now being ignored by R-41. The WP:OWN here is pretty obvious, as is the user's preference for his own published .SVG images. -- Director (talk) 13:56, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Director, your accusation of me of wanting to WP:OWN the template is false, and I request that you rescind that accusation as well as your accusations of me edit warring and that I am ignoring what is being said here because I was absent from Wikipedia for two days. I was busy with other things in the past two days and could not attend discussions. Also I retracted your change to the template then because two users disagreed with your edits when only you were supporting them and I explained that as why I reverted it, that is not edit-warring. Please assume good faith.--R-41 (talk) 06:01, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Regardless of you not admitting this, I strongly perceive that you are being extremely uncivil and particularly angrily active-aggressive and passive-aggressive in looking for all the "bad" in what I have done here. You accuse me of promoting a "nonsense" flag, when in fact, I have a written source of such a black flag being used, and I have visual evidence to prove it - the visual evidence includes the film titled in Italian: "L’Arrivo della Missione Nazionale Socialista inviata dal Fuerher...", Giornale Luce C0294 del 03/11/1942 that became available on youtube directly by the Italian media organization Cincitta Luce whose website is here: [7]. Please apologize - not for your criticism of it or opposition to its inclusion, that is acceptable - but for your accusatory and angry way of referring to that image I designed as "nonsense" - that insinuates that it is a fictional design that I made up out of thin air, which is false. I apologize if my description of the condensed fasces on your Fascism template was deemed offensive. However, if you do not desist from this constant assumption of bad faith and angry aggression towards me, I will seek advice on action to take involving your repeated assumption of bad faith on my part and your uncivil angry and aggressive behaviour towards me and the user Frietjes here. I will be fair and also report Frietjes for her/his uncivil behaviour towards you should he/she say any further uncivil remarks about you. I am not interested in a fight here, and I sense immense passive-aggression growing here by all of us out of frustration - and it is making me uncomfortable with staying here, I will make it loud and clear that if this has descended to a fight I will then certainly leave this template discussion, and request some form of arbitration to resolve this issue.--R-41 (talk) 06:01, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

However in spite of me losing patience with this discussion, as a demonstration of my goodwill: since both templates are tied in support, I will support the use of your template for now. However I insist that all users here need to gain consensus for the changes. One option is to draw up a Request for Comment (RfC) to be held that includes your version of the template, my version of the template, and is open to other users presenting their versions of the template. A second option is to wait for further attention here, this option you previously accused of being "stonewalling" before apologizing for that insinuation, but still I doubt you like that option. A third option is to request mediation. I am open to other options that will pursue achieving consensus. As for the RfC option: Director, you can write up your section for the merits of your template, I can write up a section for the merits of mine, and other users can write up a section for theirs. If we cannot agree to work together in goodwill, I believe that some sort of arbitration or mediation will be necessary with consensus being split on the matter and a failure on our part for being unable to cooperate on the matter. Will you agree to an RfC in the manner I have just described or the other options I described? If not, what solution do you propose to address the issue of divided consensus on your proposed templates?--R-41 (talk) 06:01, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

R-41, I am humbled by your own willingness to get somewhere on this matter, and I feel I must once again apologize, this time for my inappropriate comment above. But, R-41, there really is no need for anyone to agree to an RfC.

I myself have had a lot of experience with the dr process, and the main problem is that people don't really care all that much. If RfCs actually worked I would be their prime advocate. However, in my experience, that template usually just sits there for days and nothing happens. That is not to say I am actively opposed to an RfC, I just don't think it'll do much, I don't think its wise, and for that reason I don't want to be the one that posts it. I will participate, though, and will write-up the section (as long as its today, I could be busy the next few days).

I am actively opposed to full, formal mediation. That thing takes months, and there's no guarantee it will solve anything (in fact it likely won't.. trust me, I've been there). I will not participate in a mediation. An "arbitration" is a far more serious thing. You can expect swift and rather severe results from WP:ARBCOM, but I seriously doubt this little spat will receive the attention of those folks (indeed, it does not warrant it).

The thing that does work is the WP:DRN. Sorta. But this is, in essence, an aesthetic issue. We can discuss the supposed pros and cons for days, but in the end it amounts to a vote, really. Nothing else.. There are no sources that can solve this. And while I believe my position is indeed based on objective arguments and criteria, they can also be simply rejected as by yourself ("I prefer flags"). -- Director (talk) 08:32, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't believe that choice of images has anything to do with "objective arguments and criteria" - I think that assumption is mistaken. It has everything to do with aesthetic preferences. I have not chosen to defend my stance here based on an appeal to sound objective aesthetic criteria, because, no offense intended - it seems pseudoscientific and highly disputable and culturally variable on what constitutes ideal aesthetic traits. I prefer the flags because the current templates are black, white, and grey, and to me at least, less noticeable, whereas the flags have a more visually striking appearance precisely because they were designed to be common public symbols. However, I can say that I believe such flags are appropriate symbols because the fascists glorified flags as potent patriotic symbols in their propaganda, the Nazi flag became the national flag of Germany, the Italian Fascist flag was flown alongside the national flag of Italy in Fascist ceremonies. The flags, in my view, best evoke the striking patriotic pageantry symbolism of these fascist movements. For me at least when I see the Nazi flag it reminds me of Nazism, when I see the Nazi eagle I just see it first of all as an eagle holding a swastika before thinking of Nazism. The Fascism sidebar you created is less visually distracting than the Nazi eagle because it simply shows the fasces. Though I wish another version of the fasces could be considered, one that is coloured the way the ancient Roman fasces were: a grey metal blade, light tan brown for the wood rods, and reddish-brown for the standard leather bands that the Romans used to wrap the fasces. Perhaps as a compromise, could the Nazism sidebar could just show the Nazi angled swastika?--R-41 (talk) 20:50, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Nazi Reichstag

When I stated my position was based on objective reasoning, I was referring to the fact that an emblem of some sort is the appropriate type of insignia for this template. Setting aesthetics aside, this template is a good example of what emblems are for. Flags are flown. Of course, on Wikipedia we do represent flags with images, but they're not really flags. Its a blatant, objective error to have these representations used in the proper place of emblems. The fact that an emblem is designed for this sort of use is a major factor in making it look more appropriate therein - from an aesthetic perspective as well. I am altogether opposed to the use of a naked swastika as the symbol. The swastika itself is by no means a Nazi symbol, as I'm sure you know. In fact, I'm reasonably certain the Nazis actually never used a simple swastika as such.

The point here is not to make the template "noticeable". If that were the goal, we should make the template bright pink :). If anything, "loud" templates on such a serious subject would imo be obviously less tasteful. I shall not go into the nature of the various "streams of consciousness" the image we use might or might not invoke in yourself or the reader. That is an entirely subjective and undebateable subject, one dependent entirely on specific personal experience and mental state. I will merely note that the Nazi emblem (the Parteiadler) also became the emblem of Germany in general. There is no question, as such, that it held equal significance with the flag. -- Director (talk) 22:48, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

I disagree with your stance on noticeability. Noticeablility does have a factor, that does not mean that we have to use pink, that sounds like absurdist hyperbole - pink has little to no symbolic reference to Nazism; a black and white template is the same colour as text on a standard internet white background, it's not noticeable at least to me. However as a compromise, I will accept the use of symbols provided they are simple and to the point. As for your point on the swastika not being used exclusively by Nazis, well the fasces has neither been used exclusively by the fascists, and the fasces is still used by the Congress of the United States today. Thus, if we can just use the fasces alone for fascism, I believe an angled swastika alone below the title saying "Nazism" should be quite adequate in portraying the premier symbol of Nazism. The Fascism template you designed simply showing the fasces looks better than the Nazism template with the eagle in my view. For now I can only use this rimmed version of the swastika used by the Luftwaffe because this image of a plain Nazi angled swastika: File:Nazi swastika clean.svg, will not load for some reason. But it is visually much simpler than the eagle with the wreathed swastika, and below the title "Nazism", no one will be confused as to what the symbol is referring to.--R-41 (talk) 05:49, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

With a movement as widespread as fascism there is no real choice but to use - a fasces, there's nothing else. On this particular subject the two ideologies differ significantly. And weren't you the one that just now quoted WP:OTHERSTUFF to me?

I will say again that I am categorically opposed to a bare swastika, and that I do not accept it as any sort of a supposed "compromise". Its like using just a hammer as a "compromise" for the communist hammer and sickle, its nonsense in my view. The swastika is included in the current emblem, and quite prominently. The Nazi eagle is a very prominent symbol of Nazism just as the swastika [8]: its their emblem up there that is meant to represent the ideology, not some fantasy image you find associates you significantly with this or that. In other words, I'd like to leave it to Hitler to say what is and is not an adequate portrayal of Nazism (so to speak). The Nazis did not use the "clean" swastika, its inconsistent with their symbolism in that it omits to represent major aspects of their ideology. Tbh, I really could never agree to it.

As for "noticeability", its a very strange subject to discuss. I see no reason whatsoever to pursue "noticeability". Not that it isn't noticeable: the modifications certainly make it much more "noticeable" than before, due to having coloured subtitle bars rather than nothing. That said, I can't agree to making the template "in your face" or vulgar because you believe it should be more "noticeable" for some strange reason. This is a serious subject that should be depicted with some degree of tact. And besides - its a Nazism template, for goodness sake, people will notice.

P.s. I must say, I never expected this insignificant issue to take an entire week's worth of discussion. I find it very annoying that an editor cannot fix-up a template anymore without having to debate the "pros and cons" of grey over white or things like that. I'm going away very soon, on vacation (hence some of my previous haste and annoyance). I trust you will let the matter stay frozen, rather than taking the opportunity to push something or other. -- Director (talk) 08:08, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Have sent the matter to the dispute resolution noticeboard, here: [9]--R-41 (talk) 13:50, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Fresh observer time: The flag appears the most common symbol for the Nazis per se, the eagle is a lovely symbol also, the Hakenkreuz is used by too many other cultures to label strictly with the Nazi connotation. Pour moi? Try using an "Arbeit Macht Frei" image - clearly not going to promote Nazism at this point, and evocative of the one thing they are most associated with. Just a thought <g>. Flag is fine, as is eagle, but the eagle symbol is associated with the military medal usage a bit more than just with the party. Collect (talk) 14:01, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Making use of the template

The {{Sidebar with collapsible lists}} template includes the "titlestyle=" & "listtitlestyle=" parameters so as to allow for the introduction of, well, style, to the template. Many other templates of this exact sort utilize these parameters to introduce appropriate colour (examples previously noted) - as is actually suggested by WP:DEVIATIONS. In accordance with the guideline the introduced colours were kept ideology-appropriate, reasonably subdued, and also in clear distinction from one-another. I myself can see no reason whatsoever to keep those entries blank, esp. when they do have a practical purpose in emphasizing the subtitles when the template is opened-up. -- Director (talk) 18:17, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Graphics

This is a much better aesthetic version which i advocate, it could either be that or the same version with a nazi flag both versions work the version which i propose is the original and has been supported by long term consensus Peterzor (talk) 19:58, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

I agree, that does look better. Frietjes (talk) 20:01, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

What can I say, I disagree its much better and I don't think it looks better :). The grey theme (in fact the desaturated standard template blue) is in-line with the other Nazi templates. I've tried to give them a common theme. Besides, I think its objectively useful to emphasize the headings somewhat - in line with WP:DEVIATIONS. I also point out that the shade of grey is the lightest possible that is still distinctive (hardly a major difference between the two). -- Director (talk) 22:38, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

This suggested version seems like a step in the right direction. If you really need colouring, why not do what is done with {{Infobox political party}}? Thanks! Plastikspork (talk) 00:29, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Please see the long and excruciating discussion above. Flags are flags, logos are logos. While we do have flag representations on Wiki to illustrate what various flags look like, a "logo" (emblem) is the appropriate illustration in this context. In other words, a two-dimensional computer image is not really a flag: if its not a piece of cloth - its not a flag. Whereas an emblem is specifically designed for this sort of use; which in addition, in my view, makes it subjectively "look better" and more appropriate. -- Director (talk) 12:27, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

the nazi flag is appropriate illustration in this context, it is the most recognized symbol of nazism used for a longer time on wikipedia in contrast of the so called "logo" of yours Peterzor (talk) 15:34, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't have a very strong opinion here, but I do think the flag is a bit better. Frietjes (talk) 16:18, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

I personally like more the logo than the flag, but there is a problem with it: it represents the Nazism only indirectly, since it is the logo of the Third Reich, in other words, of Germany during the Nazi period. I have now on my table a classic of German history, Freund´s "Deutsche Geschichte", and the cover illustration are the four eagles, representing first, second, third Reich and BRD: our logo (obviously without Hakenkreuz) is in third position. Alex2006 (talk) 05:51, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

It would be a valid point, but this is the "Parteiadler", the emblem of the Nazi Party - not the "Reichsadler" which represented the state. Note that the eagle is looking over its left shoulder.

@Peterzor. That's not the Nazi "flag", its a coloured rectangle that's supposed to illustrate what the Nazi flag looks like. The Nazi Party eagle was equal in status, just as prominent as the flag, and being the emblem it is the symbol intended for use in this context. Your personal preferences and subjective impressions should not factor in. I feel I must add that I find your attitude here to be rather overbearing. Please refrain from edit-warring and removing beneficial improvements like spacing and font modifications (which are standard fixes). -- Director (talk) 10:48, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

I did not know the difference. :-( If it is so, i vote for the adler: is much more elegant and, moreover, is a perfect pendant to the Italian fascio. Alex2006 (talk) 11:25, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Great, now if only Peterzor would cut it out with his edit war over pointless font modifications. I say again: the increase in font is standard for this type of sidebar. Its an improvment in that it makes the title more visible. It just looks better this way. If you disagree, please try to achieve a consensus on the talkpage. Should you actually start yet another edit war, I will request admin action. Your talkpage indicates you are generally prone to these sort of "campaigns". -- Director (talk) 00:10, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

you are the one keeps inserting that without consensus not me, there is a specific infobox (included in this talkpage) that people agreed about Peterzor (talk) 16:05, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't see why we can't just use THE HAKENKREUS ITSELF. That would put an end to this drama. -- 92.13.92.68 (talk) 21:55, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

@Peterzor, when a version has been up for months on end, it is considered to be long-standing - the "status quo ante", and WP:BRD applies. By your definition any edit on this project could be called a "new edit", as it had to have been added at some point in the past. Its basically a badly constructed excuse for reverting whatever you like. The point is not to edit-war and discuss, a point you seem to have no patience for, judging by the fact that your talkpage is composed almost entirely of blocks, warnings and appeals with regard to it (or it would be if you didnt prompty hide them all). Instead you keep proposing these "trades" and pushing your way as if this was some sort of "ego thing" for you or me. Build consensus for your NEW changes, discuss, and do not revert-war. Thank you. -DIR

Discussion at NPOVN affecting this template

See WP:NPOVN#Branding individuals as bigots via Templates. // Liftarn (talk)

Rockwell

Rockwell is a significant figure in post-WWII non-German Neo-Nazism. He's a relevant entry on grounds of both period and national diversity, being a theoretician of Nazism. He's been in there a long time and you need to show reason for removing him, other than "there are other Nazis as well" (which is no argument at all).

It doesn't really matter, but your examples from the edit summary are all basically fascists with some pro-Nazi inclinations (or just plain fascists period). Pavelic in particular was just a stooge and had no "influence" on Nazism whatsoever. We might as well include Mussolini by your standards. -- Director (talk) 21:01, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Please don't change my argument: I didn't say "there are other Nazis" but I said "there are other more important Nazis".

I must see again everything without your consensus has, in your words, no consensus (btw I still have to answer to your last self-defense harangue ).

A pro-nazi section with Mussolini, Farinacci, Pavelic and some more it's a good idea (playing on nationalism doesn't work with people considering fascism as a cancer ;) ).

It's definitely strange to see Rockwell in a foreground among Hitler, Himmler, Göring, Goebbels, Strasser and Bormann but without Heydrich, Hess, Rosenberg, Röhm, von Ribbentrop or Dietrich. Anyway If you must add Rockwell at any cost, well, let's add more prominent Nazis too. --Vituzzu (talk) 22:05, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Its not strange if you realize he's in there for the sake of diverse representation, we already have the German pre-1945 Nazis well covered (I added Strasser to cover Rohm's left wing). I wouldn't add more than one or two neo-nazis since they're comparatively insignificant, but Rockwell is certainly one of the more prominent there. I am opposed to adding perceived "pro-Nazis". Also I will ignore you entirely if you do not stop being uncivil without cause. -- Director (talk) 23:16, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

which Parteiadler?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Closing per a WP:ANRFC request.
There is a rough consensus to use File:Parteiadler Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei (1933–1945).svg in the template. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 13:06, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

---

which Parteiadler should we use? 115.187.78.250 (talk) 15:33, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Survey

the sources DIREKTOR provided shows two diffrent versions [10][11] so lets decide which is better 115.187.78.250 (talk) 22:39, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Its an entirely subjective issue... I'd say the current one. Its the same design variant used for the Reichsadler, so, consistency. I think its a generally more common variant in terms of recognizability. Also the more "streamlined" variant seems a bit too short. -- Director (talk) 23:19, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

yes its olny a subjective issue it not about whos right but which version people like most so the version 2 is much more elegant and, moreover, is a perfect pendant to the Italian fascio 115.187.78.250 (talk) 15:33, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

I'd say the first one is "prettier" and the whitespace is better in line with the size of the image. However, I'm not an expert, but the second one looks more in line with my idea of a Nazi aesthetic. (and thus, to modern anti-Nazi eyes, more "evil".) So if somebody could widen the white lines on #2 a hair, I'd !vote for that; otherwise, #1. Homunq (࿓) 20:25, 20 April 2014 (UTC) ps. Please comment on other RfCs like this one

Yeah, the current one seems to be a higher-quality image in general. It just looks better imo. -- Director (talk) 20:51, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

• From a purely aesthetic point of view I would use the top one. It seems to match well with the sources provided so not seeing an issue with the accuracy. However, I am not knowledgeable on this issue so if there is any doubt on this part then I would go with whatever on is most accurate (quality be damned). AIRcorn (talk) 09:12, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Both versions are provided with the sources given, one of the sources gives version 1 and anther gives version 2 115.187.78.250 (talk) 14:46, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

The current one is the more official variant. See the party card.. -- Director (talk) 02:07, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

how is that? your version is olny in in one of the versions, version 2 in party card (see http://www.od43.com/NS_Blockleiter_File_3.jpg)is one of the sources you provided 27.96.33.235 (talk) 11:09, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Don't quite get what you mean, but here's a link [12]. -- Director (talk) 23:48, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Considering there appears to be much variation in the Parteiadler, I believe there is room for both. File:Parteiadler der Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei (1933–1945) (andere).svg is supported by various sources and relics. Fry1989 ^eh? 16:46, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

• Prefer top Better aesthetics, and the proportions fit the template better. ^walk victor falk ^talk 05:15, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

width

we should use the standard width, since this sidebar is frequently stacked above or below other sidebars. if the widths don't match, you can get a jagged text border, which can cause text to overlap the sidebar in some browsers. if there is a problem with other sidebars not being as wide as this one, then we should change those to use the default as well. Frietjes (talk) 15:15, 14 June 2014 (UTC)