Talk:Auschwitz trial

message: The page on Rudolf Höß (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rudolf_Hoess) states that he was executed on April, 16, 1947 in front of one of the crematorium buildings at auschwitz, while this page states that all death senteces from this trial were executed on January 28, 1948 at Krakow. Could someone please verify this? tnx
2006-09-06 Also, how can it be that Rudoel Hoess was executed in April 1947 (as also stated in the article about Rudolf Hoess and on []) if the trial started in november 1947? Can someone make this clearer?
::So far as i´ve seen on Law-Reports, there was a seperate trial on Rudolf Höß  in Warsawa 11TH-29TH MARCH, 1947 - Source: Law-Reports of Trials of War Criminals, The United Nations War Crimes Commission, Volume VII, London, HMSO,1948 - http://www.ess.uwe.ac.uk/WCC/hoess2.htm. So his sentence felt in Warsawa. In Kraków there was a preliminary stage. I dont know the source.
::--Asdfj 10:41, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Difference: Execution site and date of Höß 

message: Is the link in the text correct? It sounds like another person with the same name.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.72.23.182 (talk) 02:02, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hans Koch 

message: ::Proper noun (Flick Trial): Grace 2001 Herz-Gonz 2006 Van Schaack 2007 Catalayud 2008 Arai 2009 McGregor 2009 Wanless 2009 Kuner 2010 Karstedt 2015 Sfekas 2016 Sfekas 2017 Mallick 2018 Stahn 2018 Slye 2020
::Not proper noun (Flick trial): Stallbaumer 1995 Wiesen 1996 Donihi 2012 Priemel 2013 Ridley 2018 Shiba 2021
::Mixed (both T and t): Hallgarten 1952 Bosman 2008 Heller 2011 Perich 2011 Nathan 2016 Ridley 2019Brudney 2020 Diaz 2021
::The ngrams are ambiguous but maybe lean slightly towards capital T "Flick Trial".
(note, I had to remove a lot of false positives from "flick trial" and "flick trials" which were for scientific studies of tail flicks, or other "flicks" which were not related to the holocaust.)
 
::Proper noun (IG Farben Trial): Frei 1945 Honig 1949 Wortley 1949 Knierim 1961 Muller-Schieke 2001 White 2001 Zuppi 2005 Wolf 2007 Lopez-Munoz 2008 Lopez-Munoz 2009 Alamo 2009 Wanless 2009 Schmaltz 2010 Danforth 2011 Morrissey 2011 Tsabora 2014 Donohue 2015 Kolieb 2015 Weindling 2015 Ambos 2016 Kaeb 2016 Beyes 2017 Roelcke 2017 Simunek 2017 Weindling 2017 Witt 2017 Searles 2019 Brudney 2020 Wallis 2020 Weindling 2020 Van Ho 2020
::Not proper noun (IG Farben trial): Juma 2006 Geneuss 2010 Jessberger 2010 Weigend 2012 Little 2013 Ryngaert 2014 Stahn 2018 Blewett 2019 Erlinger 2019 Lowrey 2020
::Mixed (both T and t): Deichmann 2002 Doerries 2003 Juma 2007 Kuner 2010 Kremnitzer 2010 Perich 2011 Lanoie 2012 Lentschener 2019 Heinrich 2021 Schappacher 2022
::The ngrams lean pretty heavily towards capital T "IG Farben Trial".
 
— Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 18:00, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some additional source reviews 

message: From the way this discussion has gone, it's clear that, contrary to 2014, the community is not interested in doing the exact same thing for each article in this group. AKA we think MOS:CAPS is more important than WP:CONSISTENCY for this group. Instead, it seems we would like to have the titles determined on an individual basis per MOS:CAPS, which says that we should do non-standard capitalization of the T in Trial only when a "substantial majority" of sources "consistently capitalize" the T in trial. I am perfectly happy to withdraw this RM in favor of move requests which are article-by-article and only for those which could reasonably be construed to have a "substantial majority." We can then disagree about what "substantial majority" and "consistent capitalization" actually mean for each article, based on the available sources.
I'll rv the t>T WP:BOLD moves on the subsequent Nuremberg trial articles I did on Nov 3 which were not already at capital T (a few were already at capital T). Anyone who would want to change those already at capital T should probably do an RM on them T>t, as they have been at capital T for 17+ years (e.g. Ministries Trial, Milch Trial, Judges' Trial, IG Farben Trial, Hostages Trial, High Command Trial, just my opinion and not part of this proposal). 
Does anyone emphatically disagree with this? As proposer, I have no interest in standing in the way of that or delaying anything. If nobody here thinks this is procedurally out of order (I'm quite confident it is not) or a bad idea, I'll withdraw in a day or so. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 20:17, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I did not suggest individual move requests; I said each move will have to be evaluated independently. There's no reason that can't happen on this page. My point about making a mess of it was that you've generated an enormous amount of text with relatively little input from anyone but yourself. Splitting the individual evaluations across multiple pages will make things impossibly complicated. The best approach would be to pull ngram data for each article title, post it here in a centralized, non-messy way, and make the call en masse. Wallnot (talk) 22:36, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
replies: text:  You did not, and you are not why that's the next step. Policy is. The more narrow the consensus, the easier to achieve, and the longer it is maintained.; , Okay, feel free to do the rest yourself, if you believe you could do it in a more "non-messy way". No one is stopping you. I solicited input, I advertised at multiple venues, I concatenated comments and collapsed information that does not need to be perma-visible.  As I said above, happy to take specific suggestions instead of broad denouncements. However, move review may have something to say if you decide this page, here, here on the Auschwitz trial talk page, is where we should individually decide for every other article what to do. Page titles should not be determined en masse unless it is a consensus decision applying to every page, or a change in convention. This would absolutely be an inappropriate venue for deciding the name of a different article on an individual basis for that article. This page has no overarching relationship to those other pages other than the prior RM. There are stakeholders on individual pages who may desire input, and would not be alerted if and when this discussion is closed as no consensus, option 5, etc. If we have no over-arching consensus, I will be withdrawing the RM tomorrow. You have described no policy or guideline which would make my withdrawal out of order. As you've said, I have spoken too much, so I will withdraw the RM, submit RMs at pages I believe there is consensus in the sources, and then let the RM process, as intended, take its course. You can then do whatever you want.My overall take is that you're being unnecessarily antagonistic in this discussion. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 22:50, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: ...if it isn't appropriate to make a decision here about the titles of other pages, then why did you start the discussion about the titles of other pages here? Wallnot (talk) 23:11, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
replies: text:  - That isn't what I said. I said: if we are not determining an overarching WP:CONSISTENCY consensus for all of these pages, then this is not the right venue for determining their titles. If we aren't doing the same thing for all of them, or endorsing the prior RM, then we should determine the titles on the applicable talk pages, as would typically be customary. I could wait until this RM is closed as nocon, or option 4, or option 5, or whatever, but that seems a massive waste of time. Like this discussion. I'll stop replying now, thanks. Have a nice day. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 23:14, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Makes sense. Not sure why the attitude though. Also, can you self-revert your bold moves in light of WP:PCM and the above RM from 2014? Wallnot (talk) 23:18, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
replies: text:   — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 23:19, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. And sorry if my tone came across as hostile. Like you, I am just trying to think about the most efficient way to do things. Apologies if I didn't communicate civilly in doing so. Wallnot (talk) 00:08, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: It's okay, really. I was a bit short too, probably due to stress outside-of-wiki (which is why I'm procrastinating by over-focusing on things like this RM). No harm no foul. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 00:21, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal: [[WP:SNOW]] Withdraw in favor of individual move requests (AKA there should be no over-arching rule here other than what [[MOS:CAPS]] says)