Template talk:Nazism

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)

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)

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)

NSDAP flag vs. swastika
I've reverted '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)
 * 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)
 * It's reasonable to follow the arguments listed at Template talk:Nazism sidebar, 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * I agree with . Any image here is just distraction and clutter. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 11:41, 11 September 2019 (UTC)