Talk:Schindlerjuden

message: This whole article seems to be an extension of the Schindler's List movie and has almost nothing about the Schindlerjuden. Meishern (talk) 06:15, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: this article presupposes everyone has seen the film, and neglects basic details, I added some basic outline to improve it. Ottawakismet (talk) 15:43, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Useless Article 

message: Why does the link that says it shows the original list of Schindlerjuden instead go to a page where you can buy the DVD? Very sick marketing.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.195.193.43 (talk) 17:14, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Odd Links 

message: * Names of the type Xges. (with fullstop), e.g. Werkzeugschlosserges. :: Google Translate says that "Werkzeugschlosser" means "toolmaker" and "Gesell" means "fellow" or "journeyman"; does "Xges." mean "journeyman X", or "X's mate" (in the factory job sense, NOT in the sexual sense!!!), or what? I have heard of the jobs "fitter" and "fitter's mate" :: what would those be in German?Anthony Appleyard (talk) 10:35, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Translating the job names 

message: I corrected the spelling of Ruba Beck to Kuba Beck. It appears to have been incorrectly transcribed. While I do recall seeing it transcribed that way on other sources, this is is incorrect and his name was spelled Kuba, with a K. He went to my synagogue and I knew him personally. While that is not enough reliable, here is an article from the USA Today about his death, which includes a date of birth that corresponds with the individual in question and lists his name as Kuba. We can add that as a citation if need be, but for a simple transcription error, I'm not sure that's necessary. Smartyllama (talk) 02:24, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ruba Beck or Kuba Beck 

message: The list includes these invalid dates: 1909-3-39, 1920-40-20, 1928-0-9, 1919-0-10, 1912-1-0, 1900–12, 1923-11-31. The years look reasonable, but the months and / or days certainly not. When I compare those dates with the photographs, I see that the original also uses 1923-11-31. Others had a missing day or month in the original. Fixed most, added comments to those which cannot be fixed.
--Stefan Weil (talk) 18:58, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Invalid dates in list 

message: There should be a legend of what particular abbreviations stand for. For example 'Sch', 'PSV' 'RD' 'Ung' 'Stls' 'Dt' 'Bt.' 'Tsch'. It would be quite nice if the writer of these abbreviations could at least tell me what they mean, since I'm really curious, thank you.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.0.168.124 (talk) 07:45, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Religion and nationality abbreviations  

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Schindlerjuden. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110721233447/http://www.its-arolsen.org/en/help_and_faq/sample_documents/index.html to http://www.its-arolsen.org/en/help_and_faq/sample_documents/index.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:18, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Following 's withdraw of a poor AFD nomination, he has removed the list of names. , , , and  may you comment on this? I believe the content, if it is removed, should only be altered when the article is expanded. Thoughts?TheGracefulSlick (talk) 16:16, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: The entry section of "List" probably can (and should) be kept after minor editing.  The list itself (and the translations of occupations from the German) can not; I do intend to go to either an RfC or DRN if the local consensus disagrees with me. power~enwiki (π, ν) 16:20, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  I will note there was some support for removal (or teanswiki to wiki source) of the list in the AfD. While I do not have a strong opinion on the list itself, it probably should go.Icewhiz (talk) 21:21, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

text: I am not happy with User:power~enwiki continuing to make major edits to this article, after he is aware that his points of view are not unanimously shared by the community. That having said, I am sure the list is not very important, but can be found in reliable sources, so could be kept. The best solution would probably be to have an external link to the list on some reliable source outside Wikipedia. Nevertheless, I am neutral on keeping it, and do not want my opinion to be interpreted as in favor of deletion. Debresser (talk) 18:56, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

text: I do not consider the list itself important for Wikipedia as it is easily accessible in other web pages, although it maybe was useful for English speaking users as (probably the sole?) translation of the list into English. However I too would like to warn User:power~enwiki of making such significant changes in articles without community consensus. One-day discussion is NO discussion and there was no need for speed, as the article violated no laws. The hastily deletion of the description of the list was unreasonable and irrational, I'm glad this was reverted. --Honzula (talk) 09:38, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:POINT|Pointy]] edit 

message: It's not WP:POINT-y, it's remedying a blatant violation of WP:NOT. power~enwiki (π, ν) 16:13, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: No.  Wikipedia is not a memorial, nor is it a collection of raw data. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:25, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you explain how those apply here? This doesn't appear to be added with the intent to memorialize.Seraphim System (talk) 19:38, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  If they want to use Wikipedia to "learn more about their ancestors", it seems like they want to use the site as a memorial.  Including the entire (90KB) list is fairly clearly indiscriminate from my point of view. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:16, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of the list 

message: Should the entirety of "Schindler's List" be included in the article Schindlerjuden? power~enwiki (π, ν) 17:17, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the list is interesting. However, I do not think we should be hosting 1000+ item lists that are primary in nature. I don't feel strongly about this in this particular article (lack of content overall, list has some value) - there is no great harm if the list remains - however the better course of action in my mind is providing a very clear link to wiki source and listing in our article notable (with wiki articles) individuals.Icewhiz (talk) 07:43, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  RFC: Inclusion of the entire list 

message: I'm on the fence. Icewhiz raises an important issue about needing a source. Something like this would have to be sourced, but I think it is otherwise not detrimental to the article. It should be added to Wikisource in any case, but I think there are better things to do then delete an unobtrusive table from a start class article that doesn't have much content. And the content about occupations, if it can be verified, is of encyclopedic value. This is the type of thing readers are interested in now and more detailed work is being done about less studied areas of the Holocaust and trying to develop a more robust understanding of the details of the camp system, many parts of which are still poorly understood. It is detailed, but I don't think it is the type of content that is covered by WP:INDISCRIMINATE Seraphim System (talk) 06:33, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the list is interesting. However, I do not think we should be hosting 1000+ item lists that are primary in nature. I don't feel strongly about this in this particular article (lack of content overall, list has some value) - there is no great harm if the list remains - however the better course of action in my mind is providing a very clear link to wiki source and listing in our article notable (with wiki articles) individuals.Icewhiz (talk) 07:43, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Extended discussion