Talk:Swastika

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Former featured articleSwastika is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on May 1, 2005.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
December 3, 2003Featured article candidateNot promoted
April 2, 2005Featured article candidatePromoted
September 13, 2007Featured article reviewDemoted
June 13, 2010Featured article candidateNot promoted
June 16, 2010Good article nomineeNot listed
Current status: Former featured article

Too many pictures?[edit]

The article has a {{too many photos}} banner at the top. It says

This article contains too many pictures, charts or diagrams for its overall length.
Please help to improve this article in accordance with the Manual of Style on use of images.

The MOS (Manual of Style) says on this subject

 However, not every article needs images, and too many can be distracting.

and

Resist the temptation to overwhelm an article with images of marginal value simply because many images are available.

This article certainly needs images, since it's about an image type and its various forms. Since the forms are various, and since there are so many of them, the number of images is (imho) not excessive. Nor are they of marginal value: they are all distinct and have names of their own. It's not as if there were twenty assorted images of the Nazi flag.

The MOS also addresses considerations of download size:

  • Rather than including an image gallery on an article, which could add significantly to the download size, consider creating a gallery/category on the Wikimedia Commons instead.

But that would defeat much of the point of the article, which is to describe the many kinds of swastika and tell their background. That bullet point might apply to, say, 15 portraits of monarchs in an article about monarchy, where the images are primarily decorative, but here they are intrinsic to the content. (In fact, Monarchy includes 11 portraits. It is a long article (40,899 bytes) with many sections, one including two portraits and the rest only one or none at all.)

I've been interested in geometric designs for over fifty years, and many of these I'd never encountered before, let alone their names and origins. I am removing the banner. --Thnidu (talk) 04:24, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Scrolling nightmare on mobile view.... WP:IG lot here not explained in text format.--Moxy (talk) 05:00, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
Any image that does not have an accompanying text discussing the image should be removed. Bright☀ 09:05, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
That's a good way to help decide which pix to keep. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 13:45, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
@DavidWBrooks, BrightR, and Moxy: I started looking for further information on these. So far I've only got this draft footnote for the double-arm swastika:
{{efn-ua|A right-facing double-arm swastika (mirror image of this one) was used by the [[Nazi]]s, beginning circa June 1944, for wearing by [[German Army (Wehrmacht)| Heer]] and [[Luftwaffe]] personnel on temporary duty as [[concentration camp]] guards.<ref>{{cite web|title=Holocaust - Rare concentration camp temporary assigned SS guard collar tab with double armed swastika - Dachau {{sic|horde}} |url=http://3reich-collector.com/concentration-camp-ww2-german/holocaust-rare-concentration-camp-temporary-assigned-ss-guard-collar|website=3reich-collector|accessdate=2 February 2018}}</ref>}}
I haven't got the footnote working yet, and I have to get to bed an hour ago. If you delete pix from the article, please save them here, so they can be reinstated when they can be given a proper explanation. --Thnidu (talk) 07:05, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

"no consensus" revert again[edit]

User:Beyond My Ken, you have been told before that images belong below the header of the section that relates to them, not above. This consensus is reflected in Wikipedia guidelines and if you disagree with it, the onus to achieve a new consensus is on you. Similarly the discussion above, in which you apparently chose not to participate, has everyone agreeing that images should be placed next to the text describing them, again per MOS. Your usual arguments ("no consensus", "wasn't discussed", "not mandatory", "drive-by edit" and so on) are all indications of ownership behavior. Additionally:

  • You replaced properly formatted references with bare URLs.
  • You removed the protection template notice despite the protection still being in effect.
  • You replaced https URLS with http URLs
  • You reverted some grammar and spelling corrections (for example you replaced "unknown provenance" with "unknown provision")

This all indicates you're not interested in improving the article or listening to Wikipedia policies, guidelines, and consensus, and you're trying to force your preferred version over the one supported by Wikipedia policies, guidelines, and consensus. Bright☀ 09:05, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

New sub section of Historical use: Indigenous American[edit]

There is a lack of any details regarding the long historical use of the symbol among native peoples, prior to large scale European contact. The Diné peoples among others have a very long history of using it as a 'good luck', especially for children and for healing ceremonies where they refer to the symbol as "rolling logs" or "swirling longs". This contrasts with the per-Columbian use by native peoples such as Kuna, Hopi, Lakota, Passamaquoddy, and others; each with a differing understandings of the symbol, that sometimes differed greatly. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 14:51, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Lead Section[edit]

I feel the first sentence of the article does not adequately sum up the Nazi connotations of the swastika, which to many western audiences is the main meaning of the symbol. This is an issue because it is only the first sentence that appears when linked to on the mobile app or searched on Google. I suggest therefore that the opening few lines be subtly rewritten. Levitating Scot (talk) 12:10, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

This has been the subject of much discussion: how to weight the symbol's much, much longer pre-Nazi usage vs. the shorter but, in much of the world, better-known modern connotation. There is no obvious right answer. What would your suggestion be for a subtle rewrite of the first sentence? - DavidWBrooks (talk) 12:19, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Same image[edit]

The two flags in "Nazism" look identical. הראש (talk) 17:29, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

The circle is slightly off-center (to the left) in the lower flag. Hard to spot if you're looking at it on a small screen - DavidWBrooks (talk) 18:01, 5 June 2018 (UTC)