Template talk:The Holocaust
The holocaust ended on the 8th april 1944
- (sign ur posts)
- Clearly not as Hungarian jews were being deported to Auschwitz in late 1944.1812ahill (talk) 17:57, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
I see there has been a small move-war over the title of this template.
The present name – chosen because the template goes at the end of the pages on which it's transcluded – Template:The Holocaust (end), is slightly misleading, as it implies the template is about the end of the Holocaust.
In fact the overwhelming majority of navboxes are "footer" navboxes, i.e., they go at the end of the page, so "footer" or "end" is redundant. Instead I propose that Template:The Holocaust be renamed as Template:The Holocaust sidebar and this one should be renamed as Template:The Holocaust. Only disadvantage I can see is that some work will be required to change the name of the sidebar template in all the pages on which it's transcluded before this one can be moved. Comments welcome.--NSH002 (talk) 19:26, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
- As there have been no objections, I will go ahead and make these changes. --NSH002 (talk) 06:20, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
- From the article, that seems to have been an immigration matter - not part of a wider persecution engineered by Nazi Germany. So I'd say not. —Brigade Piron (talk) 09:29, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
proposed elimination of Resources section
I propose we eliminate the "Resources" section, which is currently a rather fat section of book titles, but even so only lists nineteen books. This section is out of place here and does not help the user navigate the site.
The purpose of a nav template is to help the reader quickly find and navigate to other topics related to the article page in which it appears, to place the article page in context of a wider constellation of related articles, and also sometimes to introduce the user to articles that she may not have been aware of, all in a relatively concise, efficient and (hopefully) logical nav box format.
In my view, the "Resources" section adds none of these benefits, and merely takes up valuable template real estate. For one thing, every nav template could have a "Resources" section, but they don't because it doesn't make sense. Users will find relevant resources in References, Further reading or Publications sections of the topics they click on that interest them. To try and have one "Resources" section in a nav template that somehow collects all the references (or even just the most important references--and who decides that?) for every link in the template is senseless, and it could never be kept up to date. That's why other templates don't have them. We shouldn't, either.
For another thing, the Resources list is arbitrary. Where is Paxton's "Vichy France and the Jews", which caused la revolution paxtonienne in Holocaust historiography in France? And why is Goldhagen's controversial book listed, given eminent Holocaust historian Raul Hilberg's assessment of it as "totally wrong about everything. Totally wrong. Exceptionally wrong."? I'm not saying I'm right, I'm just saying we could get into endless, pointless arguments about what belongs there. An arbitrary list of books like this is not appropriate for a nav template.
Furthermore, any such Resources list is doomed to be laughably inadequate. My local city holocaust library has 12,000 volumes. If I pick out just the "best" five hundred or a thousand of them, can I add them to the list? You get my point. If it would truly be helpful to the reader to have a long list of Holocaust resources, or Holocaust authors, or whatever, then a list-based article should be created. However, in my view, such a list would likely run into trouble with WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Lists of thousands of books about the Holocaust are available in databases and libraries, Wikipedia is not a repository or a mirror of collections like those, and we shouldn't encourage that kind of article.
If others disagree on this last point, then okay, spawn off "Resources" into its own stand-alone list if you must, but can we agree that the "Resources" group doesn't belong in the Template, and remove it? Mathglot (talk) 03:27, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
- I agree that the criteria for inclusion is very arbitrary and the section should profitably be deleted. I disagree with your summary of the Goldhagen book, though - just because people disagree with its argument doesn't make it historiographically unimportant. —Brigade Piron (talk) 07:57, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks for your response. Do either of you think it's worth moving the book list from the template into a new "List of XYZ" main namespace article? How long is reasonable to wait while we gather more cmment, before acting on the section removal--a week or two? More? Mathglot (talk) 22:33, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, I think it would be worth having a list. Limiting the list to works that have an existing Wikipedia article would deal with your (very valid) point about Wikipedia not being a directory. I see we already have a list of films: List of Holocaust films, which I've now added to the lists section. See Category:Works about the Holocaust as a starting point.
Preparing for the delete, I've examined the items in the Resources section, and each of them is already listed under one (or more) of the following categories:
- Category:Holocaust historiography
- Category:Works about the Holocaust
- The Abandonment of the Jews (HBaH)
- Auschwitz Protocols (HHD)
- Bloodlands (WaG)
- The Destruction of the European Jews (HBaH)
- Eichmann in Jerusalem (HBH)
- Encyclopedia of the Holocaust (HBH)
- Forgotten Voices of the Holocaust (PAH)
- Functionalism versus intentionalism (HH)
- German Concentration Camps Factual Survey (DFaH)
- Here My Home Once Stood (PAaH)
- Hitler's Willing Executioners (HBH)
- Into the Arms of Strangers: Stories of the Kindertransport (DFaCH)
- Man's Search for Meaning (PAH)
- Six Million Crucifixions (HBH)
- This Way for the Gas, Ladies and Gentlemen (WH)