Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Template:User Grammar nazi

Template:User Grammar nazi
 __NOINDEX__
 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was  Keep As a userbox is directed at the user who posted it, it would not be offensive, nor would it be inflammatory, although the image is in poor taste. The image will be removed, but the userbox kept. Ebe 123  → report 14:43, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

The name and wording is inflammatory and offensive - see here for the Wikipedia policy prohibiting this. --  YPN YPN  01:04, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. "Grammar nazi" is a common colloquialism outside of Wikipedia, often self-applied. Being that it is such a common phrase, I don't think it rises to the standard of "inflammatory and offensive" merely because it makes reference to Nazis, at least, not enough to warrant deletion. The bit about the "Schwa-sticker" may be a little too far, though. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 02:41, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
 * The Wiktionary page says that "this use of the word is sometimes considered to be offensive and in very poor taste." --  YPN YPN  03:01, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
 * See also this Wikipedia article. --  YPN YPN   ✡  03:28, 20 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep. Sometimes offensive, but not in this case. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:07, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Why not? --  YPN YPN   ✡  14:39, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Your editing of my post was offensive. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:21, 22 December 2012 (UTC)


 * "Schwa sticker" is in deeply poor taste. "Grammar Nazi" may be pretty idiomatic in the Internet age, but conflating it with even jokey Nazi iconography is taking it a bit too far. I note that this has been repeatedly edit-warred over in the template history, so there's historic support for it. I'd recommend that the pun and the associated image be removed or replaced with something less needlessly offensive, though leaving the basic text should be fine. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 13:29, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
 * It may be "idiomatic," but that doesn't means its appropriate. --  YPN YPN   ✡  14:30, 20 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep - We are not ze Germans, who outright ban the usage of words deemed inappropriate, esp anything to do with Nazis and Hitler. Out in the modern world here, we can have a bit more fun and leeway with such things.  "Grammar Nazi" is simply a colorful euphemism used to describe someone who cares (fanatically) about grammar.  And really, most fittingly, who cares?. Tarc (talk) 14:31, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
 * The goal isn't to legally ban them from speech, it's to conform with this rule that userboxes in Wikipedia should not be inflammatory or divisive. --  YPN YPN   ✡  14:38, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
 * The onus is on you to back up your argument that "grammar nazi" is "inflammatory or divisive". A clue: the threshold is not "anyone at all is offended by something". Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 14:49, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
 * According to the American Heritage Dictionary, inflammatory means "arousing passion or strong emotion, especially anger, belligerence, or desire." According to the Collins English Dictionary, it means "tending to arouse violence, strong emotion, etc." Note that neither definition mandates that most people react, only that some people do. Here and here both agree that this template meets these definitions, as does a simple look at the page history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ypnypn (talk • contribs)
 * Yes but "inflammatory or divisive" is in the eye of the beholder. That is what we are here discussing right now, whether the community consensus is that "grammar nazi" meets that threshold.  Obviously you believe it does, given the nomination, but that doesn't make your opinion on the matter necessarily right.  It is just one opinion. Tarc (talk) 15:49, 20 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep. I have to admit that I'm a user of this Userbox, but I am quite fond of it (even more so when it was grammatically correct).  As someone whose edits are mostly grammar improvements, I am proud of the label Grammar Nazi and think the schwa sticker is clever and humorous.  -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 16:19, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep The phrase "grammar nazi" is not offensive. It's simply a comparison. The latter part, on the other hand, is probably offensive. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 18:33, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep, would only be problematic if it were used to attack others, but as self-focused humor in the vein of Soup Nazi it's fine; and the concept of Schwa-style art on a sticker seems to be ok as well - but I would defer to others on judgment of that portion of the userbox. No more soup for you! (or bad spelling!)  Dreadstar  ☥   04:32, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment. I'm always amused by people who self-describe this way, since they base the appellation on a fundamental and sophomoric misreading of German history. Nazi rule was arbitrary and irrational. Decisions were made for emotional reasons. Rules were applied based on personality, not strict application of the law (and Nazi laws were themselves often irrational). National Socialism, as an ethos, rejects the idea of the transcendent. The Nazified portions of the German government were renowned for inefficiency and infighting. I suspect that's not the desired message. Anyway, it's mildly offensive as used and makes the user look like an idiot. No policy against the latter. Mackensen (talk) 14:07, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Change- I'm perfectly fine with the term "grammar nazi" and a userbox for it, but the joke about the swastika is tasteless and that part should be removed. Mrmoustache14 (talk) 05:08, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Agree. A grammar nazi is a colloquialism disconnected with real naziism and the swastica. Somehow, evidently, "nazi" is much less offensive than the swastica. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:28, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Someone needs a ticket to Springtime for Hitler, apparently. Nazis, and their imagery, can be sources of amusement. Tarc (talk) 13:38, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Maybe someone can explain to me how the swastika joke is more offensive than the Nazi joke; that just doesn't compute. Isn't the swastika only offensive because it was the symbol of the Nazi party?  And wouldn't that make the explicit mention of Nazi the more offensive of the two?  -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 17:04, 28 December 2012 (UTC)


 * The swastika makes someone think specifically about the atrocities of World War II and when associated with Nazis (rather than let's say Hinduism or another use of the symbol) while the word "nazi" alone is harmless and the word "swastika" used in the context other than nazism is also harmless. To continue the fact the user box says they grammar nazi wears a "schwa-sticker" is in poor taste because it seems to be making fun of the nazi's victims rather than the nazi. By giving grammar nazis their own adaptation of the swastika It goes beyond the colloquialism and actually connects the term "grammar nazi" to the fascist German group. In other words it sounds like "You better hide! The grammar nazi wearing the 'schwa-sticker' is coming." Mel Brooks's version of Hitler was funny because in the first film he portrayed Hitler as a pot head hippy and in the newer version an extremely "campy" homosexual, there was no mocking of the term "swastika."  Mrmoustache14 (talk) 23:39, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.