Jump to content

Talk:Austria-Hungary: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Tags: Reverted New topic
Restored revision 1147600668 by ClueBot III (talk): Nonsense and/or trolling
Line 75: Line 75:
There would have been more Romanian speakers at around 30-35% at least in the time period discussed. Mainly due to the little discuses fact that Romanian spoke Hungarian to avoid prosecution [[Special:Contributions/2A00:23C5:DF87:1801:8532:DC66:4AA1:F5CE|2A00:23C5:DF87:1801:8532:DC66:4AA1:F5CE]] ([[User talk:2A00:23C5:DF87:1801:8532:DC66:4AA1:F5CE|talk]]) 05:32, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
There would have been more Romanian speakers at around 30-35% at least in the time period discussed. Mainly due to the little discuses fact that Romanian spoke Hungarian to avoid prosecution [[Special:Contributions/2A00:23C5:DF87:1801:8532:DC66:4AA1:F5CE|2A00:23C5:DF87:1801:8532:DC66:4AA1:F5CE]] ([[User talk:2A00:23C5:DF87:1801:8532:DC66:4AA1:F5CE|talk]]) 05:32, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
:[[File:Red information icon with gradient background.svg|20px|link=|alt=]] '''Not done:''' please provide [[Wikipedia:Reliable sources|reliable sources]] that support the change you want to be made.<!-- Template:EEp --> [[User:Lightoil|Lightoil]] ([[User talk:Lightoil|talk]]) 09:12, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
:[[File:Red information icon with gradient background.svg|20px|link=|alt=]] '''Not done:''' please provide [[Wikipedia:Reliable sources|reliable sources]] that support the change you want to be made.<!-- Template:EEp --> [[User:Lightoil|Lightoil]] ([[User talk:Lightoil|talk]]) 09:12, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

== Austro-Hungarian "Flag" is technically incorrect. ==

The Austro-Hungarian state did not have an official national flag. Cisleithania used the Black-Yellow bicolor and the Hungarian Kingdom unofficially used the old Saint Stephen tricolor, as well as the traditional red-white-red tricolor for the lands of Austria proper. The flag shown in this article was used by the Austro-Hungarian Navy and for diplomatic purposes like embassies and Royal occasions. In the article, the bicolor flag of Cisleithania and Hungary should be shown below the popular naval and diplomatic flag. Also it should be noted Hungarian flag is unofficial. I noticed this because the Flags of Austria-Hungary article and most other sources disagree with the information presented in the main A-H article. [[Flags of Austria-Hungary]], other [https://web.archive.org/web/20120210030751/http://www.h-net.org/~habsweb/sourcetexts/nagodba2.htm source]

[[User:EtalonOr|EtalonOr]] ([[User talk:EtalonOr|talk]]) 21:49, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
:There's no "Austro-Hungarian Flag" shown in this article. What are you talking about? [[User:DeCausa|DeCausa]] ([[User talk:DeCausa|talk]]) 21:53, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
::It was removed literally minutes after I posted this. In any case this is resolved [[User:EtalonOr|EtalonOr]] ([[User talk:EtalonOr|talk]]) 21:57, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
:::No it wasn't. The last edit to the article was over 4 days ago - and that wasn't to take out the flag. That flag hasn't been in the article for nearly 2 years. [[User:DeCausa|DeCausa]] ([[User talk:DeCausa|talk]]) 22:09, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
:Are we here talking about this because of the Noj Rants video or no? [[User:Nunyanator|Nunyanator]] ([[User talk:Nunyanator|talk]]) 23:07, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

== Somewhat unrelated, but it still pertains to A-H: Is it okay to use your sandbox page as documentation for something that would be rejected as a stand-alone article? ==

So, I just submitted a draft for about how someone included the Austro-Hungarian Civil Ensign as the "national flag of Austria-Hungary", and I copy and pasted it to my sandbox page because I was (and still am) sure that it will/would be rejected. Was it okay for me to do so? [[User:Nunyanator|Nunyanator]] ([[User talk:Nunyanator|talk]]) 04:35, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Revision as of 06:44, 6 April 2023

Template:Vital article

Former good article nomineeAustria-Hungary was a Geography and places good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
November 15, 2007Good article nomineeNot listed


Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 20 August 2022

It’s Austro-Hungarian, not Austo. I tried to make this edit, and then it locked. Very annoying. 2605:B100:129:1AFF:953A:1FFC:4C6F:1278 (talk) 16:42, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done for now: I was unable to locate the string "Austo" anywhere in the article. Favonian (talk) 16:50, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 30 September 2022

In the section titled 'Joint government' the word 'matter' should be changed to 'matters' in the sentence 'A common government was also formed for the few matter of common national security - the Common Army, navy, foreign policy and the imperial household, and the customs union'. Orangehaggis (talk) 10:45, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Done RudolfRed (talk) 19:56, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@ Transylvania1916

@Transylvania1916: Please don't restore this edit again. Gain consensus here first per WP:BRD. DeCausa (talk) 19:05, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

deep sigh Alright, although I am hugely skeptical this will go anywhere, I will give this a chance. Let's start with the basics: seeing that I did my due diligence and brought the required receipts for my edit, why on Earth do I need YOUR consensus?! Transylvania1916 (talk) 08:40, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
To avoid being blocked from this site. WP:ONUS, WP:CONSENSUS, WP:EW. Also read WP:NPA. Carry on calling another editor an insect as you did here will also get you blocked. DeCausa (talk) 09:02, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, uh-uh. Your petty formalities that I hold in contempt aside, what exactly is wrong with my edit/sources? Transylvania1916 (talk) 09:04, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's not an improvement. The infobox is already too overcrowded. It's "status" for just the last two year's of A-H's existence isn't worth adding. It's also not a clear-cut fact (which infoboxes are most suited to) it's a judgment. You've put forward no reason for its inclusion other than you want it. DeCausa (talk) 09:16, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"isn't worth adding" - Why do you get to decide this? Clearly, I think it IS worth adding.
"It's also not a clear-cut fact" - Do you have any idea how insulting and infuriating this is? There were countries that had the "satellite state" tag in their infoboxes for years, without any cited source following that. I cited a reputable source that not only explicitly calls AH a satellite, but also details why. To reject this, after other countries had this uncited tag for years, is to me the epitomy of double standards. Transylvania1916 (talk) 09:27, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Irrelevant to this article. See WP:OTHERCONTENT. The citation doesn't mean you get to add it - I've already linked to WP:ONUS. If you don't like Wikipedia's policies and how things work here you don't have to edit. DeCausa (talk) 09:35, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nah, I'll just stick to comparative data tables then. See, this is why I hate taking it to the talk page: people bombarding me with WPs instead of talking like normal humans. How does this even happen? This whole project started as an initiative of common folk, but it ended up with a bureaucracy just as stuffy and suffocating as that of an institution of people in suits. You are randos on the internet, stop taking yourselves so seriously. I'll see myself out of this thread now, but for the record I do want to add that I apologize for insulting you. I was in a bad head space but I shouldn't take that out on others. Transylvania1916 (talk) 09:48, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Apology accepted. I've added A-H's loss of autonomy to the relevant part of the article with the Bassett book as a source. DeCausa (talk) 10:25, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Heavy Hungaro-centricism

It seems that the whole article was mostly authored by some Hungarians (or friends of Hungary), because it presents extraordinary Hungaro-centricism. I could comment on almost every paragraph of the article, but what shocked me most was https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austria-Hungary#Electrical_industry_and_electronics which doesn't even mention ČKD and Emil Kolben.

Ceplm (talk) 06:16, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unlikely, but if you think there is material mising on Cisleithania, WP:SOFIXIT. (I'm not sure why you would think mentions of those two is of significance). DeCausa (talk) 07:28, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 31 March 2023

Information on speakers from census incorrect. There would have been more Romanian speakers at around 30-35% at least in the time period discussed. Mainly due to the little discuses fact that Romanian spoke Hungarian to avoid prosecution 2A00:23C5:DF87:1801:8532:DC66:4AA1:F5CE (talk) 05:32, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Lightoil (talk) 09:12, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Austria-Hungary&oldid=1148450062"