The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. Even after the relist, consensus decided that the current title is best. Some oppose !votes were towards the proposed title. They determined that the camp was indeed more of a concentration than an extermination one. An alternative proposal to simply move to Auschwitz was also turned down due to it being the name of a former town. With all of this combined, I am seeing that no one favored moving the article at all. (closed by non-admin page mover) Thanks, 1isall (he/him) (talk | contribs) 06:00, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Auschwitz concentration camp → Auschwitz extermination campAuschwitz extermination camp – It is notorious for its role as an extermination camp, like Treblinka extermination camp. IdanST (talk) 12:44, 17 December 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. HurricaneZeta^C 01:16, 25 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Why not just AuschwitzAuschwitz? —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 19:48, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  BarrelProof, because it's not a village/city, but an extermination camp, just like Treblinka extermination camp and Sobibor extermination camp. IdanST (talk) 21:07, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  The town's name is primarily Oświęcim, not Auschwitz. The term "Auschwitz" primarily refers to the extermination camp, not the village/city. The term "AuschwitzAuschwitz" already leads to this article on Wikipedia, not to the article about the nearby town, and it has been that way for more than a decade. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 22:15, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Support Auschwitz the shortest and most common name: compare Holodomor (that's the article title, no famine or genocide in title) User:Easternsahara 15:06, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Would support Auschwitz concentration camp → Auschwitz per BarrelProof. Since Auschwitz does indeed redirect to Auschwitz concentration camp in the same manner that Treblinka redirects to Treblinka extermination camp and Sobibor redirects to Sobibor extermination camp, it does appear intuitive that all such extended main title headers should appear in their single-name streamlined form. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 23:38, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Unlike Treblinka (or Sobibor, or Chelmno), Auschwitz was not purely an exterminaton camp, but was also used for forced labour - and it's not as if "concentration camp" is at all euphemistic. I would support a move to plain "Auschwitz", but that's not the current proposal. Tevildo (talk) 00:36, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Tevildo, Auschwitz was not purely a concentration camp nor it was its main role. IdanST (talk) 07:50, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Not all of Auschwitz was an extermination camp, only Auschwitz II. However, I agree that this article should be renamed, as prisoners were often transferred to Auschwitz II to be killed. ~2025-39978-26 (talk) 14:30, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose per Tevildo. Auschwitz wasn't just an extermination camp. Only Birkenau was an extermination camp. The Auschwitz complex was enormous. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:36, 22 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong oppose per Necrothesp. The difference between Trevlinka and Auschwitz is that that's what Treblinka was, Auschwitz was much more than just an extermination camp. Also, Auschwitz concentration camp is the WP:COMMONNAME over Auschwitz extermination camp as shown by ngrams.
  However, as also shown by the above ngrams, Auschwitz is much more common, so I support BarrelProof's alternate proposal of Auschwitz. – LuniZunie_(talk) 15:35, 23 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per above, but I would support a move to Auschwitz as the primary topic. Mellk (talk) 15:42, 23 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: WikiProject Israel, WikiProject Human rights, WikiProject European history, WikiProject Germany, WikiProject Military history, WikiProject Poland, WikiProject Politics, and WikiProject Jewish history have been notified of this discussion. Vestrian24Bio 02:42, 24 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose any of the proposed moves I think that the current title is the least bad option; I oppose the short name as it was originally the German name of a nearby town. (t · c) buIdhe 03:05, 24 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose any of the proposed moves. Even the article's lede states Auschwitz was a complex of camps, not just a single camp. What exists now is the common name for the complex, and as Buidhe points out it's the lease bad option. Intothatdarkness 11:51, 24 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose all per Buidhe—blindlynx 17:48, 24 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME Coining (talk) 19:49, 24 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Coining, per WP:COMMONNAME the article should be renamed to Aushwitz (I still believe Auschwitz extermination camp is the correct name). IdanST (talk) 20:35, 24 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Most RS refer to either Auschwitz, the Auschwitz camp complex, or Auschwitz concentration camp. You may believe your proposed title is correct, but I don't see much in the way of RS to back up that opinion. Intothatdarkness 22:58, 24 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting comment: Consensus seems to be against moving to the proposed title, but split between not moving and moving to simply Auschwitz. HurricaneZeta^C 01:16, 25 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose proposed move, and move to just Auschwitz, which is the German name of the Oświęcim town, and should actually be redirect to the article about a town. The town has a rich history before WW2. If we are looking for a short name Auschwitz-Birkenau would be great, or Auschwitz-Birkenau concentration and extermination camp, if we can agree on something longer.Marcelus (talk) 01:50, 25 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  If we must move, I'd propose Auschwitz Camp Complex, since it reflects the reality of the situation. I wouldn't be necessarily opposed to Auschwitz-Birkenau, but would oppose the longer version. Intothatdarkness 01:56, 25 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  The primary topic for "Auschwitz" in English is the camp complex, so it shouldn't redirect to the article about the comparatively obscure town of Oświęcim. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 19:36, 25 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Indeed, this concentration camp clearly has more enduring, long-term notability than that Polish town User:Easternsahara 19:58, 25 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. Moving to Auschwitz or Auschwitz-Birkenau might be reasonable. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 19:36, 25 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose as it was more than an extermination camp. Zero^talk 02:11, 26 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose any move per buidhe. We should not present "Auschwitz" as the name of a camp rather than of a town. Srnec (talk) 01:33, 29 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. The current name is the common name for the topic of the article (a complex of over 40 concentration and extermination camps...) and this is an encyclopedic topic. As far as I can see, the only reason we might want to change it is to make even more plain the horror and evil that this site represents and highlights. This is a good objective, but Wikipedia is the wrong place to pursue it. Andrewa (talk) 05:36, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]