Good start. Have you considered how to include WW II, in particular, Kristallnacht? Maybe deserves its own group label, as there were many on one day. Otherwise, just one bullet item for Kristallnacht itself? Mathglot (talk) 20:43, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So, I added subgroups for Austria & Germany for Kristallnacht, and am going to stop for now. Are you good with the way this is going? There are additional Austrian synagogues outside Vienna that were destroyed that night, but I don't know if we have articles tat cover that; will have to check. Mathglot (talk)
@Mathglot, thank you for adding all these links and reformatting. Just by the way, my initial approach was to look for pages that are specifically focused on (notable) synagogue attacks. I didn't think to compile a list of every attack as that would involve checking for subsections and shorter references throughout WP. Since then I've swaped the main list page to an article. And I think there has to be a reasonable criteria for inclusion on this navbox. דברי.הימים (talk) 10:43, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
List pages may have explicit criteria for inclusion; navboxes may have implicit criteria; navboxes don't, but I think inclusion criteria can and should be discussed here. Ultimately, consensus would govern what gets included so things may change, but I think your views set the initial style to follow, so if you want to pare it down by removing links, even a lot of links, or reformatting the groups, go ahead.
Assuming you are using the word 'notable' in the Wikipedia sense, there may be a tension between notable synagogue attacks, and articles that have only brief references in a section down the page. That is, a synagogue attack may be notable because there is significant coverage of it in secondary sources, but our articles only mention it in passing, or not at all, preferring to cover the human tragedy at that location that eclipsed any mere material loss or simply because we are a volunteer project and nobody has gotten around to it yet. Or maybe there is not much coverage even in secondary sources specifically about the buildings because details were lost or were never there in the first place, and most of what we know is from the stark evidence of a destroyed synagogue itself. Do we want to include such examples? I can see arguments both ways, but I think you get to decide, at least at the outset, as originator of the navbox and I support whatever vision you have for it. Just try and make it explicit so I can follow. Mathglot (talk) 18:11, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I was thinking other reasons there might not be a full article is because of how old the event is; do we not want to include destruction of the First and Second Temples, because there are only ancient accounts, and not much to go on? Idem for the Great Synagogue of Alexandria, so I added them. Mathglot (talk) 10:11, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Mathglot, I think the inclusion criteria has to be a) there is a page on the synagogue attack, OR b) there is a significant standalone section on the attack within another page, OR c) there is a standalone section on antisemitic incidents directed at the synagogue among which the attack is clearly named.
Example for criteria a): all the currently named attack pages.
Also, the attacks have to be significant, i.e., arson, shooting, stabbing, bombing attacks. Graffiti incidents where no major damage occurs should not be added here. But editors can also determine on a case-by-case basis for this and other items. (E.g., I'd potentially include Synagogue of Alexandria but not the Temple).
@Mathglot, Here's a copy of the current template to refer to the structure you have developed. Essentially, most links have to be removed unless they meet the criteria. I think many of these can be re-added by creating sections on the synagogue pages.
That's fine; let's hope someone adds the sections. (You didn't have to include the code here, it's all in the history, and if you want to link to a specific version, instead of including it, just use a permalink instead.) I've left the code here, but collapsed the long code for convenience. Mathglot (talk) 05:31, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
