Talk:Auschwitz (disambiguation)

Disambiguate?

I wonder if this should be a disambiguation page. Martin 00:18, 3 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Lots of pages are linking here, most in an offhand manner ("Auschwitz survivor"... etc). Maybe this shouldn't be a disambig. I tried to fix some of the links, but there are just too many. Habsburg was actually referring to the town, but the vast majority of links are referring to the concentration camp. Neckro 07:16, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Because of the large numbers of refering pages that mean the concentration camp, this should be IMO about the camp, with a small disambig leading to the city's page and Austerlitz shouldn't be mentioned at all. (if I were uneducated enough to mistake, for example, Leonardo DiCaprio for Leonardo Da Vinci, would that justify a disambig page?) Alensha 22:44, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• This confusion happens :: my brother received a letter from a friend who had visited Poland; the letter included "Austerlitz was very traumatic"; the friend had visited Auschwitz but not Austerlitz. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 22:49, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Auschwitz III

Auschwitz III (Monowitz concentration camp) has a separate article, so that link should normally be listed on this disambiguation page. Auschwitz II (Birkenau) does not have a separate article: it is included in the Auschwitz concentration camp article currently, so that should be clear from the intro, imho. --Francis Schonken (talk) 22:22, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

The new sentences in the rubric Auschwitz (disambiguation) proposed by Francis Schonken made no sense for the introductory rubric in the article Auschwitz concentration camp. On the other hand the main article has clear summaries for that lede and for the main subsections on Auschwitz I, Auschwitz II, Auschwitz III, subcamps, etc. The main article radiates from the more specialised sections and subarticles like a tree—an arborescence .

We cannot really exaggerate how significant this kind of article is and what it represents. It's not something to play around without serious thought. There are interests and concerns for many different types of readers and from all backgrounds. (Unfortunately there are also considerable numbers of vandals active.) There is even a special portion of the infobox which documents the "UNESCO World Heritage Site" and Birkenau-Auschwitz II: an image for Primo Levi (from Auschwitz III) also appears further up in the infobox.

Changing the main article in a radical way would almost certainly not be possible at this juncture and is unlikely to have any consensus. It could possibly be explained to administrators like SlimVirgin, Acroterion, Diannaa, Ealdgyth and any other editors, what kind of modifications you might envisage for the main article and the two initial types of ambiguation on Auschwitz and Birkenau. In this particular case, however, it seems that the infobox is being used as the driving force for the article, rather than what usually happens in the opposite direction. The article Auschwitz concentration camp and its talk page need to be discussed directly with experienced administrators and editors. The infobox should no be running the article, here or elsewhere. Mathsci (talk) 23:30, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Removal of links

JHunterJ and Shhhnotsoloud, can you explain why you keep removing links? Even if you want to remove the links to Auschwitz I and Auschwitz II (both subsections), Auschwitz III and List of subcamps of Auschwitz are stand-alone articles. Why can't they be included? SarahSV ^(talk) 03:51, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

@SlimVirgin: Because this is a disambiguation page that helps readers to navigate articles. If a reader is interested in Auschwitz the concentration camp, s/he can navigate to the main article, which, in its lead paragraph and the body of the article, signposts well the other related articles that are available. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 08:24, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi Shhhnotsoloud, thanks for the response. Why do you prefer that readers click on another article to find the one they might be looking for here? If there's a guideline to that effect, please link to it. There's a lot of confusion and ignorance about Auschwitz, so it would be helpful if this page could be comprehensive and precise. SarahSV ^(talk) 22:00, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Hello @SarahSV: It's because a disambiguation page "Foo (disambiguation)" has a primary topic "Foo" (at the top) and lists other uses of the term "Foo", e.g. a film, a book, and a place. If a reader types "Foo" into the search box (or navigates directly to en.wikipedia.org/wiki/foo) they'll end up at the "Foo" primary topic article. If that's not what they want (say they want the film), a hatnote might take them to the disambiguation page, which helps them navigate to the page they want. The disambiguation page is not the place to clear up confusion and ignorance about the primary topic: the primary topic article is. In this case there's a primary topic redirect (WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT) from Auschwitz to Auschwitz concentration camp. It's highly likely that a searcher looking for information about Auschwitz is going to start at the primary topic article, and not the disambiguation page. There's guidance on disambiguation generally at WP:DAB, and style at MOS:DAB. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 07:55, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

The question could be reversed: can you explain why you put article content on a non-article navigation page. Disambiguation pages are for resolving ambiguity in article titles, a workaround to the technical problem where two articles on Wikipedia can't have the same title. Article content is for imparting information (such as resolving confusion and ignorance). -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:46, 4 February 2019 (UTC)