Jump to content

Talk:Austria

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by SayKay (talk | contribs) at 17:06, 14 February 2007 (→‎Where is Vienna?). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

"WP:WPC" redirects here. For the WikiProject on WikiProjects, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Council. For the editing tool, see Wikipedia:WPCleaner. See also Wikipedia:WikiProject Categories and Wikipedia:WikiProject China.
Project Countries main pageTalkParticipantsTemplatesArticlesPicturesTo doArticle assessmentCountries portal

This WikiProject helps develop country-related pages (of all types) and works toward standardizing the formats of sets and types of country-related pages. For example, the sets of Culture of x, Administrative divisions of x, and Demographics of x articles, etc. – (where "x" is a country name) – and the various types of pages, like stubs, categories, etc.

WikiProject Countries articles as of May 7, 2024

What's new?

Articles for deletion

  • 22 Aug 2024 – Goyche-Zangezur Republic (talk · edit · hist) AfDed by KhndzorUtogh (t · c) was closed as delete by Liz (t · c) on 29 Aug 2024; see discussion (5 participants)

Proposed deletions

  • 02 Sep 2024 – Sindh Sultanate (talk · edit · hist) was PRODed by Ixudi (t · c): This article seems to serve the purpose of implying that the Samma dynasty, Arghun dynasty and the Tarkhan dynasty formed a single "Sindh Sultanate". The problem is that there are no sources to support this idea that the three dynasties wer ...
  • 30 Aug 2024 – Chieftaincy of Pothohar (talk · edit · hist) was PRODed by Ixudi (t · c): "Chieftaincy of Potohar" does not bring any results on Google Books or scholar. The article itself is poorly sourced. One of the sources is a blog, another is a dead link, and another is a Raj-era gazetteer from 100-plus years ago. None of ...

Categories for discussion

Redirects for discussion

Good article nominees

Featured article reviews

Good article reassessments

Requests for comments

Requested moves

Articles to be merged

Articles for creation

To do list

Scope

This WikiProject is focused on country coverage (content/gaps) and presentation (navigation, page naming, layout, formatting) on Wikipedia, especially country articles (articles with countries as their titles), country outlines, and articles with a country in their name (such as Demographics of Germany), but also all other country-related articles, stubs, categories, and lists pertaining to countries.

This WikiProject helps Wikipedia's navigation-related WikiProjects (Wikipedia:WikiProject Outline of knowledge, WikiProject Categories, WikiProject Portals, etc.) develop and maintain the navigation structures (menus, outlines, lists, templates, and categories) pertaining to countries. And since most countries share the same subtopics ("Cities of", "Cuisine of", "Religion in", "Prostitution in", etc.), it is advantageous to standardize their naming, and their order of presentation in Wikipedia's indexes and table-of-contents-like pages.

Categories

Click on "►" below to display subcategories:
Countries
Click on "►" below to display subcategories:
WikiProject Countries

Subpages

Formatting

Many country and country-related articles have been extensively developed, but much systematic or similar information about many countries is not presented in a consistent way. Inconsistencies are rampant in article naming, headings, data presented, types of things covered, order of coverage, etc. This WikiProject works towards standardizing page layouts of country-related articles of the same type ("Geography of", "Government of", "Politics of", "Wildlife of", etc.).

We are also involved with the standardization of country-related stubs, standardizing the structure of country-related lists and categories (the category trees for countries should be identical for the most part, as most countries share the same subcategories – though there will be some differences of course).

Goals

  1. Provide a centralized resource guide of all related topics in Wikipedia, as well as spearhead the effort to improve and develop them.
  2. Create uniform templates that serve to identify all related articles as part of this project, as well as stub templates to englobe all related stubs under specific categories.
  3. Standardize articles about different nations, cultures, holidays, and geography.
  4. Verify historical accuracy and neutrality of all articles within the scope of the project.
  5. Create, expand and cleanup related articles.

Structure and guidelines

Although referenced during FA and GA reviews, this structure guide is advisory only, and should not be enforced against the wishes of those actually working on the article in question. Articles may be best modeled on the layout of an existing article of appropriate structure and topic (See: Canada, Japan and Australia)

Main polities

Main article: Country

A country is a distinct part of the world, such as a state, nation, or other political entity. When referring to a specific polity, the term "country" may refer to a sovereign state, states with limited recognition, constituent country, or a dependent territory.

Lead section

Shortcut
See also: WP:Lead section
Opening paragraphs

The article should start with a good simple introduction, giving name of the country, general location in the world, bordering countries, seas and the like. Also give other names by which the country may still be known (for example Holland, Persia). Also, add a few facts about the country, the things that it is known for (for example the mentioning of windmills in the Netherlands article).

The etymology of a country's name, if worth noting, may be dealt with in the Etymology or History section. Naming disputes may also belong in the Etymology or History section.

Overly detailed information or infobox data duplication such as listing random examples, numbered statistics or naming individuals should be reserved for the infobox or body of the article.

Example: . Canada and Japan as below .

checkY A developed country, Canada has a high nominal per capita income globally and its advanced economy ranks among the largest in the world, relying chiefly upon its abundant natural resources and well-developed international trade networks. Recognized as a middle power, Canada's strong support for multilateralism and internationalism has been closely related to its foreign relations policies of peacekeeping and aid for developing countries. Canada is part of multiple international organizations and forums.
☒N A highly developed country, Canada has the seventeenth-highest nominal per-capita income globally and the sixteenth-highest ranking in the Human Development Index. Its advanced economy is the tenth-largest in the world and the 14th for military expenditure by country, Canada is part of several major international institutions including the United Nations, NATO, the G7, the Group of Ten, the G20, the United States–Mexico–Canada Agreement, the Commonwealth of Nations, the Organisation internationale de la Francophonie, the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation forum, and the Organization of American States.
checkY Japan is a highly developed country and a great power, with one of the largest economies by nominal GDP. Japan has renounced its right to declare war, though it maintains a self-defense force that ranks as one of the world's strongest militaries. A global leader in the automotive, robotics, and electronics industries, the country has made significant contributions to science and technology, and is one of the world's largest exporters and importers. It is part of multiple major international and intergovernmental institutions.
☒N Japan is a member of numerous international organizations, including the United Nations (since 1956), the OECD, and the Group of Seven. Although it has renounced its right to declare war, the country maintains Self-Defense Forces that rank as 10th for military expenditure by country, After World War II, Japan experienced record growth in an economic miracle, becoming the second-largest economy in the world by 1990. As of 2021, the country's economy is the third-largest by nominal GDP, the fourth-largest by PPP and ranked "very high" on the Human Development Index.
Infobox

There is a table with quick facts about the country called an infobox. A template for the table can be found at the bottom of this page.

Although the table can be moved out to the template namespace (to e.g. [[Template:CountryName Infobox]]) and thus easen the look of the edit page, most Wikipedians still disapprove as of now, see the talk page.

The contents are as follows:

  • The official long-form name of the country in the local language is to go on top as the caption. If there are several official names (languages), list all (if reasonably feasible). The conventional long-form name (in English), if it differs from the local long-form name, should follow the local name(s). This is not a parameter to list every recognized language of a country, but rather for listing officially recognize national languages.
  • The conventional short-form name of the country, recognised by the majority of the English-speaking world; ideally, this should also be used for the name of the article.
  • A picture of the national flag. You can find flags at the List of flags. A smaller version should be included in the table itself, a larger-sized version in a page titled Flag of <country>, linked to via the "In Detail" cell. Instead of two different images, use the autothumbnail function that wiki offers.
  • A picture of the national coat of arms. A good source is required for this, but not yet available. It should be no more than 125 pixels in width.
  • Below the flag and coat of arms is room for the national motto, often displayed on the coat of arms (with translation, if necessary).
  • The official language(s) of the country. (rot the place to list every recognized or used language)
  • The political status. Specify if it is a sovereign state or a dependent territory.
  • The capital city, or cities. Explain the differences if there are multiple capital cities using a footnote (see example at the Netherlands).
  • If the data on the population is recent and reliable, add the largest city of the country.
  • Land area: The area of the country in square kilometres (km²) and square miles (sq mi) with the world-ranking of this country. Also add the % of water, which can be calculated from the data in the Geography article (make it negligible if ~0%).
  • Population: The number of inhabitants and the world-ranking; also include a year for this estimate (should be 2000 for now, as that is the date of the ranking). For the population density you can use the numbers now available.
  • GDP: The amount of the gross domestic product on ppp base and the world ranking. also include the amount total and per head.
  • HDI: Information pertaining to the UN Human Development Index – the value, year (of value), rank (with ordinal), and category (colourised as per the HDI country list).
  • Currency; the name of the local currency. Use the pipe if the currency name is also used in other countries: [[Australian dollar|dollar]].
  • Time zone(s); the time zone or zones in which the country is relative to UTC
  • National anthem; the name of the National anthem and a link to the article about it.
  • Internet TLD; the top-level domain code for this country.
  • Calling Code; the international Calling Code used for dialing this country.
Lead map

There is a long-standing practice that areas out of a state's control should be depicted differently on introductory maps, to not give the impression the powers of a state extend somewhere they do not. This is for various types of a lack of control, be it another state (eg. Crimea, bits of Kashmir) or a separatist body (eg. DPR, TRNC).

Sections

Further information: Wikipedia:Summary style and Wikipedia:Too much detail
Shortcut

A section should be written in summary style, containing just the important facts. Undue weight can be given in several ways, including but not limited to the depth of detail, the quantity of text, prominence of placement, the juxtaposition of statements, and the use of imagery. Main article fixation is an observed effect that editors are likely to encounter in county articles. If a section it is too large, information should be transferred to the sub-article. Avoid sections focusing on criticisms or controversies. Try to achieve a more neutral text by folding debates into the narrative, rather than isolating them into sections.

Articles may consist of the following sections:

  • Etymology sections are often placed first (sometimes called name depending on the information in the article). Include only if due information is available.
  • History – An outline of the major events in the country's history (about 4 to 6 paragraphs, depending on complexity of history), including some detail on current events. Sub-article: "History of X"
  • Politics – Overview of the current governmental system, possibly previous forms, some short notes on the parliament. Sub-article: "Politics of X"
  • Administrative divisions – Overview of the administrative subdivisions of the country. Name the section after the first level of subdivisions (and subsequent levels, if available) (e.g. provinces, states, departments, districts, etc.) and give the English equivalent name, when available. Also include overseas possessions. This section should also include an overview map of the country and subdivisions, if available.
  • Geography – Details of the country's main geographic features and climate. Historical weather boxes should be reserved for sub articles. Sub-article: "Geography of X"
  • Economy – Details on the country's economy, major industries, bit of economic history, major trade partners, a tad comparison etc. Sub-article: "Economy of X"
  • Demographics – Mention the languages spoken, the major religions, some well known properties of the people of X, by which they are known. Uncontextualized data and charts should be avoided. (See WP:NOTSTATS and WP:PROSE) Sub-article: "Demographics of X".
  • Culture – Summary of the country's specific forms of art (anything from painting to film) and its best known cultural contributions. Caution should be taken to ensure that the sections are not simply a listing of names or mini biographies of individuals accomplishments. Good example Canada#Sports. Sub-article: "Culture of X".
  • See also – Aim to include relevant information within the article and reduce the See also section See WP:See also. ('See also" sections of country articles normally only contain links to "Index of country" and "Outline of country" articles, alongside the main portal(s)).
  • References – Sums up "Notes", "References", and all "Further Reading" or "Bibliography"
  • External links – Links to official websites about the country. See WP:External links
Size
Shortcut
Main pages: Wikipedia:Article size and Wikipedia:Summary style § Article size
Articles that have gone through FA and GA reviews generally consists of approximately 8,000 to 10,000 words as per WP:SIZERULE, with a lead usually four paragraphs as per MOS:LEADLENGTH.
  • Australia = Prose size (text only): 60 kB (9,304 words) "readable prose size"
  • Bulgaria = Prose size (text only): 56 kB (8,847 words) "readable prose size"
  • Canada = Prose size (text only): 67 kB (9,936 words) "readable prose size"
  • Germany = Prose size (text only): 54 kB (8,456 words) "readable prose size"
  • Japan = Prose size (text only): 51 kB (8,104 words) "readable prose size"
  • East Timor = Prose size (text only): 53 kB (8152 words) "readable prose size"
  • Malaysia = Prose size (text only): 57 kB (9092 words) "readable prose size"
  • New Zealand = Prose size (text only): 62 kB (9761 words) "readable prose size"
  • Philippines = Prose size (text only): 62 kB (9178 words) "readable prose size"
Hatnote

The link should be shown as below: Avoid link clutter of multiple child articles in a hierarchical setup as hatnotes. Important links/articles shoukd be incorporated into the prose of the section. For example, Canada#Economy is a summary section with a hatnote to Economy of Canada that summarizes the history with a hatnote to Economic history of Canada. See WP:SUMMARYHATNOTE for more recommended hatnote usages.

checkY== Economy ==

Main article: Economy of Canada

☒N== Economy ==

Main article: Economy of Canada

See also: Petroleum industry in Canada and Agriculture in Canada

Further information: Economic history of Canada and Early Canadian banking system

Charts

Shortcut

As prose text is preferred, overly detailed statistical charts and diagrams such as economic trends, weather boxes, historical population charts, and past elections results, etc, should be reserved for main sub articles on the topic as per WP:DETAIL as outlined at WP:NOTSTATS.

Galleries

Shortcut

Galleries or clusters of images are generally discouraged as they may cause undue weight to one particular section of a summary article and may cause accessibility problems, such as sand­wich­ing of text, images that are too small or fragmented image display for some readers as outlined at WP:GALLERY. Articles that have gone through modern FA and GA reviews generally consists of one image for every three or four paragraphs, see MOS:ACCESS#FLOAT and MOS:SECTIONLOC for more information.

Footers

As noted at Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and series boxes the number of templates at the bottom of any article should be kept to a minimum. Country pages generally have footers that link to pages for countries in their geographic region. Footers for international organizations are not added to country pages, but they rather can go on subpages such as "Economy of..." and "Foreign relations of..." Categories for some of these organizations are also sometimes added. Templates for supranational organizations like the European Union and CARICOM are permitted. A list of the footers that have been created can be found at Wikipedia:WikiProject Countries/Templates/Navboxes, however note that many of these are not currently in use.

Transclusions

Transclusions are generally discouraged in country articles for reasons outlined below.

This section is transcluded from Help:Transclusion. (edit | history)
Shortcut
Further information: Wikipedia:Transclusion costs and benefits

Like many software technologies, transclusion comes with a number of drawbacks. The most obvious one being the cost in terms of increased machine resources needed; to mitigate this to some extent, template limits are imposed by the software to reduce the complexity of pages. Some further drawbacks are listed below.

Lists of countries

To determine which entities should be considered separate "countries" or included on lists, use the entries in ISO 3166-1 plus the list of states with limited recognition, except:

  • Lists based on only a single source should follow that source.
  • Specific lists might need more logical criteria. For example, list of sovereign states omits non-sovereign entities listed by ISO-3166-1. Lists of sports teams list whichever entities that have teams, regardless of sovereignty. Lists of laws might follow jurisdiction boundaries (for example, England and Wales is a single jurisdiction).

For consistency with other Wikipedia articles, the names of entities do not need to follow sources or ISO-3166-1. The names used as the titles of English Wikipedia articles are a safe choice for those that are disputed.

Resources


WikiProject iconSoftware: Computing Unassessed
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Software, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of software on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SoftwareWikipedia:WikiProject SoftwareTemplate:WikiProject Softwaresoftware articles
???This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Computing.

Template:V0.5

WikiProject iconAustria B‑class Top‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Austria, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles about Austria on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please join the project.AustriaWikipedia:WikiProject AustriaTemplate:WikiProject AustriaAustria articles
BThis article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
TopThis article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Colors of the flag

What do the colors mean?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.158.65.199 (talk • contribs) 02:44, 11 Feb 2003 (UTC)

If you mean the flag. Then it's the flag. Mintguy 02:52, 11 Feb 2003 (UTC)
I read that it referred to one ancient Emperor wearing a white tunic into battle. When he was finished, his tunic was so colored red by blood that only the white band where his belt was was left. Does anybody know anything about this? -- Zoe 03:19, 11 Feb 2003 (UTC)
I can confirm that (i'm Austrian ; ) --Stefankoegl 18:20, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I've heard that too. Danny 03:23 Feb 11, 2003 (UTC)
I feel stupid now. Mintguy 03:26, 11 Feb 2003 (UTC)
Zoe is right about the legend (not about the "Emperor" bit though); see Third Crusade (where the Austrian participant is not mentioned) and aeiou Encyclopedia: Bindenschild. --KF 05:52 Feb 11, 2003 (UTC)
I heard that the red is just the colour of the Harbsburgian Family. If you'Re all sure that you'Re correct i may be wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.124.128.53 (talk • contribs) 15:34, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
the Habsburgian colours are black and yellow — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.121.8.184 (talk • contribs) 15:12, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The story with the flag color ıs a state myth or more an early political propaganda ( relating to Leopold V ) In reality ın the tıme same tıme a Austrıan nobility famely of Lower Austrıa died out and the posessıons where falling back to the Babenbergs as dukes of Austria by feudal law.This famely close to Zwettel had a red whıte and red shield. For a reason we dont know probably because ıt was simple the dukes overtook this shield. The castles witch name i have forgotten is still existing and you can see their the orignal red white and red shield painted as wall decoration.

May be that Leopold took this red whıte and red flag to invent this politıcal propaganda wich i have heard is older than this story. J. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.100.168.92 (talk • contribs) 10:15, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Flag of Austria

What does the Flag of Austria mean? What does it represent? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.83.124.226 (talk • contribs) 09:50, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The "official" story is: the Austrian Duke Leopold V. fought during the 3rd cusade in Acre, Israel. He wore a white shirt and a belt. After the battle all his shirt was red, except for the part where the belt was before, where it was still white: red-white-red. Of course this is likely to be a myth ... --Wirthi 15:04, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image of Kaprun

Hi Adrian, I find the image of the Austrian town Kaprun really nice, but why did you put it on the "Austria" page? I don't see any relation to the article. Fantasy 08:11 20 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Hi! from Adrian. I am extremely puzzled by your message. Kaprun is in Austria, and the article is called Austria!! I had imagined that a pic actually of an Austrian town would be nice to look at on the Austrian main page, as well as all the tables and facts. Evidently I was wrong and I'll remove it. Best Wishes Adrian Pingstone 08:25 20 Jun 2003 (UTC)
Sorry Adrian, you got my question wrong. I was not complaining, I find the image really nice and I am really happy to find more of them in the future. I just thought there could be somewhere in the article mentioned, why this image is there and what special meaning this image has for Austria. I also find it sometimes sad, that articles are so "trocken" (=dry?), some additional things to make it look more interresting are surely of help. Fantasy 09:16 20 Jun 2003 (UTC)
OK, Fantasy, I understand what you're saying, but I don't think a little piece about Kaprun or Austrian churches or what's in the image is the purpose of the Austria article. It's simply to give the facts about the country. Thanks for putting the picture back, it was only intended as eye relief from all the other dry facts and to show a fairly typical Austrian town. Maybe one day there will be a Kaprun page then I can move the pic over (perhaps I'll write it).
I've also illustrated the Kaprun disaster, that's my wife in the foreground.
All the best Adrian Pingstone 09:47 20 Jun 2003 (UTC)
Great, I am happy that we have the same point of view (specially on the "dry" topic ;-) If you want to show with this picture a "typical Austrian town", so I suggest that we just say so. I will do that, ok? Fantasy 09:55 20 Jun 2003 (UTC)
Excellent change to the caption, I like it a lot better now. I'm sorry I misunderstood you before.
Adrian Pingstone 13:04 20 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Fonts

Is it just me, or does it look like the two words of "Republik Österreich" have different fonts? RickK 06:00, 26 Oct 2003 (UTC)

No it's not just you - that's a weird problem. Fixed! Dysprosia 06:05, 26 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Austrian roots of Adolf Hitler

Why the heck isn't Hitler listed under 'Well-known Austrians'? I'm pretty sure he's well known. mSprout 14:38, 7 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

See the main article, there you will find Hitler et al. It is hard to choose a few "most important" austrians to be listed in Austria#Well-known_Austrians. I think you may change it as you like, until there is some objection. – Hokanomono 10:17, 8 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Edit 45205732/Adolf Hitler

Sorry, but I didn't get a chance to say why I reverted (thanks, popups! I think). While I agree that it's important to mention Adolf Hitler reigns from Austria, the wording was horrible (obviously meant in a sarcastic manner) and doesn't really belong under Culture.

Also, he's in the List of Austrians. Maybe that's enough? — Preceding unsigned comment added by BillG (talk • contribs) 02:59, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Adolph Hitler

Apparently Hitler wasn't actually born in Austria as i thought! There's not a single mention of him in the article! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.138.1.15 (talk • contribs) 03:05, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, very few people born in Austria are mentioned in the article. Actually, only in the paragraph "Culture" some famous Austrians are mentioned and I don't think that the few pictures Hitler painted made him a famous painter. If you check List of Austrians you will find Hitler and all the other people you might be interested in. --Wirthi 10:22, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

country table: currency

Is it really necessary to state in the table, that prior to 1999 the Schilling was Austria's currency? IMPOV the table ought to give nothing more than a concise overview. We might want to put this information somewhere in the main body of the article. Gugganij 07:47, 24 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

I was just wondering the same -- either we should just mention the euro, or else for consistency we should mention all the currencies used in the Republic of Austria - the Austro-Hungarian krone until 1923 and the Reichsmark between 1938 and 1945... -- Arwel 00:31, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I agree, mentioning historical currency doesn't fit the purpose of the infobox. -- Naive cynic 01:26, Nov 18, 2004 (UTC)

An automated Wikipedia link suggester has some possible wiki link suggestions for the Austria article:

  • Can link Latin name: ...ire of [[Charlemagne]]. Interestingly the derivation of the Latin name from the original Old German gives rise to the use of ''Aus... (link to section)
  • Can link classical Latin: ...the use of ''Aust-'' for 'east', rather than 'south', as in classical Latin.... (link to section)
  • Can link 13th century: ...s under the rule of the [[Babenberg]]s from the 10th to the 13th century. The Babenbergs were then succeeded by the [[Habsburg]]s, w... (link to section)
  • Can link whose line: ...y. The Babenbergs were then succeeded by the [[Habsburg]]s, whose line continued to govern Austria until the [[20th century]].... (link to section)
  • Can link monetary system: ...]], Austria joined the [[European Union]], and the [[Euro]] monetary system in [[1999]].... (link to section)
  • Can link social-democratic: ...h has 183 directly-elected members. After three decades of social-democratic ([[SPÖ]]) participation in government, a right-wing coaliti... (link to section)
  • Can link right-wing: ... social-democratic ([[SPÖ]]) participation in government, a right-wing coalition was formed in [[2000]], consisting of the conserv... (link to section)
  • Can link conservative People's Party: ...ht-wing coalition was formed in [[2000]], consisting of the conservative People's Party ([[Austrian People's Party|ÖVP]]) and the right-wing Freedo... (link to section)
  • Can link Freedom Party: ... Party ([[Austrian People's Party|ÖVP]]) and the right-wing Freedom Party ([[Austrian Freedom Party|FPÖ]]). However, after some turmo... (link to section)
  • Can link landslide victory: ...n the elections of [[November 24]], [[2002]], the ÖVP won a landslide victory (42.3% of the vote), whereas the FPÖ was reduced to a mere ... (link to section)
  • Can link Die Grünen: ...18 seats FPÖ ([[Austrian Freedom Party]]) (10.1%) *17 seats Die Grünen ([[Austrian Green Party]]) (9.47%)... (link to section)
  • Can link Vice Chancellor: ...ain with Wolfgang Schüssel (ÖVP) as Federal Chancellor. His Vice Chancellor was [[Herbert Haupt]] (FPÖ) until replaced by [[Hubert Gorb... (link to section)
  • Can link federal republic: ...ve divisions == ''Main article: [[States of Austria]]'' A federal republic, Austria is divided into nine states, or ''[[States of Aust... (link to section)
  • Can link above sea level: ...e highest mountain is the [[Grossglockner]], at 3798 meters above sea level, followed by the [[Wildspitze]] (3774 m). ... (link to section)
  • Can link market economy: ... [[Economy of Austria]]'' Austria, with its well-developed market economy and high standard of living, is closely tied to other [[Eur... (link to section)
  • Can link standard of living: ...' Austria, with its well-developed market economy and high standard of living, is closely tied to other [[European Union]] economies, esp... (link to section)
  • Can link service sector: ...ge-based sectors of the economy, continue to deregulate the service sector, and lower its tax burden.... (link to section)
  • Can link ethnic group: ...Austria]]'' German-Austrians, by far the country's largest ethnic group, form between 85% and 89% of Austria's population. Around t... (link to section)
  • Can link minority group: ...(Gastarbeiter) and their descendants also form an important minority group in Austria.... (link to section)
  • Can link Austro-Bavarian: ...cts. All of the dialects in the country, however, belong to Austro-Bavarian groups of German dialects, with the exception of the dialec... (link to section)
  • Can link Press Freedom: ...idays in Austria]] *[[Reporters without borders]] Worldwide Press Freedom Index 2002: Rank 26 out of 139 countries (three-way tie)... (link to section)
  • Can link information system: ...or Education, Science and Culture] Hyperwave-based cultural information system, a bit like a moderated culture wiki.... (link to section)

Notes: The article text has not been changed in any way; Some of these suggestions may be wrong, some may be right.
Feedback: I like it, I hate it, Please don't link to — LinkBot 11:25, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

need help

my daughter is doing a project on Austria and we need to find the national animal,sport,flower,etc.Any help would be appreciated — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiredwizard (talk • contribs) 20:19, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

This sounds like a very superficial project. Probably Wikipedia is too sophisticated for questions like that. Some suggestions:
Martg76 20:28, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
An animal could be the "Milka Kuh", a violet cow, maskot for an Austrian chocolate company.
See: de:Milka-Kuh, Milka --Andreas Ipp 04:00, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I couldn't find any information confirming that Milka is Austrian. Is it Austrian? – Hokanomono 12:52, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I thought so, but it might also be Swiss. Probably it is swiss, since its founder Suchard is swiss... --Andreas Ipp 10:36, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Milka is an Austrian Company. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.178.146.211 (talk • contribs) 22:13, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What about Lipizzan? – Hokanomono 12:52, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

You are right, white horses are better than violet cows. :-)
I made a new page Spanish Riding School since it was missing...
From Vienna I also find: "the Vienna Boys' Choir (Wiener Sängerknaben), Wiener Schnitzel, Sachertorte, and various pastries. Viennese cafes claim to have invented the process of filtering coffee from the captured baggage after the second Turkish siege of 1683." --Andreas Ipp 10:36, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Well, there's an Eagle holding a hammer and a sichel (english word for it?) on the national flag, i don't know if it qualifies as :antional Animal. An Milka is Indeed an austrian company. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.124.128.53 (talk • contribs) 15:37, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Theır ıs no real national animal existing the eagle ıs seen as a natıonal animal ın a way . In the alps Enzıan and Edelweıs ıs seen as natıonal flowers but that ıs common in switzerland and in Slowenıa too. J — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.100.168.92 (talk • contribs) 10:21, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If I had to choose one I would say the cow. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.178.146.211 (talk • contribs) 22:16, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The word "Austrian" should NOT be used to label the country's ethnic majority

Somebody has repeatedly changed the description of the largest ethnic group in Austria to simply "Austrians". This use of the word is completely misleading and incorrect, a simple look at other references on Austria will confirm this. There is simply no such thing as an "Austrian" ethnicity alone. Before the end of the second world war most Austrians clearly identified as ethnic Germans. Although it is clearly insensitive to label modern Austrians as ethnic Germans, it still does not make any sense to create an Austrian ethnic label on Wikipedia when it exist virtually nowhere else.
The original phrase that was used in this article was "German-Austrians". I personally find this term a bit too complicated and would recommend the use of a more sensitive label. My last suggestion and edit for this subject was the term "Germanic-Austrians". Another posibility would be "Austrians of Germanic descent".
But the fact remains Austrian has not ever been commonly used as and still is not (even six decades after the Second World War) an ethnic label.

Here is how other references handle the issue...

CIA World Factbook: Austria - Ethnic groups: German 88.5%, ....
Lonely Planet: People: 97% Germanic origin, 2% Slovene & .....
Encyclopedia Britannica: population, ethnically Germanic......

I suggest the use of the term "Germanic-Austrians", which is in line with many other references and avoids the insesitive labeling of Austrians as "ethnic-Germans".
I would also suggest that the person who keeps changing the term to simply "Austrians", join the discussion and give their reasons.

FrederikM --80.128.37.75 21:51, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

i think it is alright to call austrians austrians because for an example or two you would'nt call Canadians English or French because of their language or Australians English because of their native toungue but maybe things are diferent in Europe. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexander S. (talk • contribs) 00:26, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I added a new section, an introductory text, to the demographics sections, for the sake of clarity. I as someone who is half Austrian and has lived in English-speaking countries for much of my life, am aware of how confusing the issue of Austrian nationality is to many people outside of the country, i.e are they Germans or not?, How was Hitler German and Austrian?, etc. Therefore I think it is important to have the text I placed the demographics section that quickly explains the historical background briefly and the current situation. If anyopne has any objection please let me know. I do however feel that this will make the article clearer and is a neccesary piece of information in a reference text about Austria and I beleive it belongs at the beginning of the demographics section and NOT in history.

FrederikM --80.128.37.75 21:51, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The use of Austrian as the name of an ethnic group raised my brow as I read this article, too. To me, Austrian describes geography and nationality (in a political sense), not ethnicity. Regionally, German-speaking Austrians are at least as different from one another as Germans are from one another, and generally speaking, share more culturally with Bavarians than Bavarians do with the rest of Germany. Austrians, the vast majority of them anyway, are ethnic Germans. That said, I also see no reason to make it "politically correct" by saying "Germanic Austrians" or "German-Austrians". I think one ought to expect the reader to know in what sense the word German is being used. It has nothing to do with what government issued their passport. For the last sixty years, the idea of a German national/ethnic identity has become nearly taboo, with regional pride and regional rivalries filling the vacuum. That doesn't mean a German ethnicity doesn't exist. --Trweiss 22:07, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Trweiss I agree with you on the subject of being "politically correct" to some extent but I do beleive it is totally neccesary for the simple reason that this is an open encyclopedia. The original word used in the article (and I was one of the first to expand the demographics section here) was "German-Austrian" and that was in my opinion a perfectly acceptable term but it ended up getting repeatedly deleted, my guess is mostly by Austrian visitors. The use of the term "German" alone is really not an option for the simple reason that this page will be visited by many people with little or no knowledge of Austrian and German history, so the term would lead to a considerable of confussion even if it is placed in quotation marks and accompanied by an explanation. The term "German" should also not be used to avoid offending a good amount of the Austrian visitors to this site. As someone with an Austrian passport, I know how sensitive the subject is to some Austrians.
Personally I think the term "Germanic-Austrians" is an acceptable comprimise that is both in line with other English-language references and avoids the incorrect use of the word "Austrian" as an ethnic lable.

FrederikM--80.128.52.254 22:56, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

"Germanic" (as used by LP and EB) is best. It clearly indicates an ethnic origin not a nationality. "Germanic-Austrian" is unnecessarily verbose. Mr. Jones 10:47, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)


I'd like to delete this:
The issue of Austrian nationality and ethnicity was throughout recent centuries and remains to this day a sensitive issue and a topic of dispute. Before the end of the Second World War, most of Austria's population were clearly self-identified ethnic-Germans, who considered themselves part of a larger German Volk (ethnic nation), together with the other German-speaking-populations of Europe. A strong distinct Austrian national identity has emerged since the mid-twentieth century and most Austrians now no longer identify themselves as "Germans". In modern Austria only a small minority of the population, mostly but not entirely people with conservative or far right political views, advocate a pan-German ethnic identity for German-speaking Austrians.

  1. I don't think it is necessary to make an attempt at describing Austrian national identity problems in this article at all.
  2. This above text does not do the job
  3. the above text is pov - not many Austrians would describe or would have described themselves as 'German' or 'Germanic', because the cultural differences are large, and 'Bavarian' would probably be more acceptable
  4. slavic influences in the east are and were important
  5. the west is allemanic in culture, and historically had more of a tendency towards Swizzerland than Germany
  6. the federal character and the diversity is obscured, f. i. Tyroleans would see themselves as Tyroleans first and foremost, and would certainly find it absurd to be called 'germanic'.
  7. German sources equivalent to the CIA factbook talk of 90,7 % Austrians (Fischer Weltalmanach 2001), just for the record.

I don't think it is necessary to make an attempt at discribing Austrian national identity problems in this article at all, and would like to delete the above quoted text.--Fenice 18:16, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm part Austrian, I also call my self Germanic
Dudtz 7/30/05 1:07 PM EST - 17:07, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]


It makes no sence to discuss if Austrians are ethnic Germans or not... About 90% of all Austrians identify themselfs as ethnic Bavarians or Alemanics. I`m allowed to say that because I´m Austrian. Bavarians from Bavaria identify themselfs also as ethnic Bavarians and do not as Germans. It never existed an pan-german-nationality-feeling bevore Adolf Hitler.
It is correct that Austrians of german mother tongue identify themselfs as "Germans" before the second world war. But you have to make a big difference: When a Austrian of german mother tonge say: "I'm German" he always means "I'm german speaking" - also before the second world war.
You also have to make a difference between northern germans and southern germans - they are culturally totaly different!
A "German" is: only an inhabitant of de Federal Republic of Germany, or: summary (not culturally, ant ethnical - but in the sence of the language) of volkgroups.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.245.10.1 (talk • contribs) 23:54, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It never existed an pan-german-nationality-feeling bevore Adolf Hitler. (Bangs head against wall) To use the term "Austrian" to describe the German-speaking minority expresses the POV that Slavic-speakers, or Turks, or whoever, are not Austrians. To use the term "ethnic Austrian" would be absurd. I'm not even going to get into "ethnic Bavarian." The only proper term is "ethnic German" or "German-Austrian." john k 03:49, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Turks are not an "national Austrian minority group"! Austrians of slovene- or croatian tongue also do not identify themselfs as "Slovenes" or "Croatians"! They are also "Austrians".
People from different english-speaking-countries also do not identify themselfs as "English" people. - You have to accept that a majority of Austrians don´t want to be identify as "Germans", because we are what we are AUSTROBAVARIANS.
If you would live in the German-speaking-countries, you would see and accept, that no lager-german-ethnic exist (in the head of the most) and never existed and in future not will exist.
What you mean is: a summary of Volkgroups who have quite the same language
If you have any knowledge about the german language you would see, that only some dialects in the north of Germany - known as "Highgerman" - is the Language wich is standard. In Austria we speak "bavarian" very hard to understand for north-, west-, and east-germans, and write Standardgerman. For example Dutch is much more easyer understandable for northgermans (when they speak dialect) than bavarian! And bavarian is so called an "german dialect" - you have to immagin. When you call me a "German", you also have to call a Dutch as "ethnic german"!
I have seen on your personal page that you are from the USA, would you identify yourself as "ethnic English"?
At the end of the first world war, Austria planed to get a part of Germany, but the plan was to be a very autonom state in a greater Germany. The austrian goverment don't wanted to be under porussian regiment even not the volk. The most of the people in Bavaria and Austria always had an bavarian identity. Bavaria today also is so called a "Freestate" it is an autonom State in the federal republic of Germany, as three other States. You can see, even in Germany most of the Bavarians, and others don't feel "German". In Bavaria about 60% identify themselfs as Bavarians at first... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.245.10.1 (talk • contribs) 01:08, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, a current German "free state" (Freistaat) just uses a different word, but has no legal, administrative or institutional difference with a "federal state" (Bundesland). See de:Freistaat, especially "Die heutige Bedeutung des Begriffs". - Regards, Evv 19:38, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Dutch is a Low German language which is, so far as I am aware, not intelligible with Hochdeutsch. The language spoken by most Austrians and Bavarians is much more intelligible with Hochdeutsch, and as you note, Hochdeutsch is the written language. The fact that Low Saxon dialects are more closely intelligible with Dutch than they are with Bavarian is true - but those languages are also more intelligible with Dutch than they are with standard German. But the basic fact is that both Austrians and Bavarians have always been considered ethnic Germans, and are still so considered. At any rate, your own argument is incoherent. My argument is that it is completely incoherent to pretend that "Austrian" is an ethnicity. If we use the word as synonymous with "the German-speaking population of Austria," then we are saying that any non-German-speaking Austrian is not an Austrian. The term "ethnic Austrian" is ridiculous, because Austrian is not an ethnicity - it is a nationality. It would be like calling old stock White Americans "ethnic Americans." If you don't like the term "ethnic Germans," I am fine with using "German-Austrians." But any other term just confuses the issue. Especially since not all Austrians speak the Bavarian dialect - my understanding was that those in the Tyrol speak an Alemannic dialect. john k 03:26, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
John, the people of Tyrol do speak a Bavarian dialect. It's Vorarlbergisch which is an Alemannic language. With respect to the actual issue, I think it should be taken into account that many Austrians (probably most among those who are younger than 45 or so) literally take offense at being considered "German". And we know that ANY nationality or ethnicity is an artificial contruct after all, right? Martg76 03:45, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, gotcha. As to the issue, I can understand the sensitivities of Austrian people, but there really is no good way to indicate what we are talking about without using the word "German." This may be unfortunate, but it's how it is. "Austrian" is not an ethnicity, and to say that they are of "Austro-Bavarian" ethnicity is completely opaque to most English-speakers. The point is that we are indicating what percentage of the population are first language German-speakers. Using "ethnic Germans" (which is not the same thing as "Germans") or "German-Austrians" is the only good way to indicate this. john k 04:12, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I don't care as much about this as our anonymous contributor above, but I rather favor the current version which speaks of "Austrians of German mother tongue". This wording should neither offend Austrians nor confuse other readers. Martg76 04:26, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
That's an incredibly awkward locution. I'm so sick of pandering to absurd nationalist sensibilities. john k 17:30, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]


The fakt is: that no greater-german-ethnicity exist. It is a summary of ethnicities witch have quite the same language. An "lager bavarian ethnicity" exist!
there are following "german-speaking" ethnicities:
1. Bavarians - living in southern Bavaria and Austria
2. Alemanics - living in Switzerland, Baden-Würtemberg and Elsass (France)
3. Franconians - living in Bavaria, Baden-Würtemberg, Hessen
4. Porussians - living in the rest of Germany
5. lower Saxons - living in the north
those are own ethnicities, in the sence of the language so called "Germans". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.245.211.185 (talk • contribs) 17:05, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

To Anonymous:
Although Bavarians, Alemanics, Franconians, Thuringians were quite distinct groups in the early Middle-Ages, a common german identity soon emerged. This can be mainly traced in the writings of poets and other intellectuals, who freguently complained about the poor state of the HRE. By the 19th century there was a popular feeling of german national unity (ironically german nationalism before 1848 was liberal to left wing, because it was in favour of a united Germany (constitutional monarchy or even republican) and strongly opposed to the conservative princes of the separate German states). Austrian archduke Johann was elected Steward of the German Empire by the German parliament of 1848.
Although Austrians know that their dialects are Bavarian and that Austria was part of Bavaria for a long time, they certainly don't think of themselves as "Bavarians" anymore. This term is now restricted to Bavaria proper. (Unlike people from Vorarlberg who like to emphasize that they are Alemanic). And of course Slovenians consider themselves Slovenians AND Austrians but not Austrians who accidentaly speak Slovenian.
Besides: "Hochdeutsch" is not the written language but all the dialects south of the so called Benrath-line. It is based on old-high german, whereas "niederdeutsch" is based on old-saxon. The German standard-language evolved out of high-german dialects. Therefore, linguists like to say that for Northern Germans Standard-german is a foreign language (and therefore they keep Standard-german clean from local pronounciations unlike people from high-german areas).
The idea of an Austrian identity entirely distinct from German was introduced and embraced only after 1945. However, since most Austrians now identify as Austrians and there certainly is no danger of a second "Anschluss", during the 2005-anniversary celebrations there were frequent (cautious) allusions (by commentators which certainly cannot be labeled as nationalists), that this distinct Austrian identity originally was part of the "Opfermythos".
Changes in reference books: in 1980 the "Fischer Weltalmanah" still refered to "Austrians of German descent". In 2005 the CIA-Worldfactbook changed to "Austrians".
deutschsprachige Oesterreicher (Austrians of german mother-tongue) is the pc-term generally used in Austria since 1945.
Schreiber 22:01, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]


I actually didn't plan to add to this discussion. However, I feel it's necessary as the artice in the current form is incorrect. I think the problem starts with the vague definition: "An ethnic group can be determined on the basis of a complex set of characteristics, including race, nationality, religion, ancestry, and language."
The Austrian census does not collect data in the form it's argued about above. The only ethnic data gathered is citizenship, country of birth and religion. [1] The 91.1 % stated in the article refer to Austrian citizenship and therefore the term Austrian seems most appropriate.--Austronaut 01:31, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Just because someone speaks German does not make the person German. Or are people from Liechtenstein and the German-speaking parts of Switzerland considered "German" as well? And German speakers from South Tyrol? Define "German". Gryffindor 01:43, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently there is some data on the indigenious minority groups of Austria. Do you know how this data is collected and where it can be obtained? Nahabedere 10:11, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
All the data is available from Statistik Austria. The indigenous minorities are defined as Austrian nationals with a colloquial language as outlined by Austrian indigenous minority law. However, there are discussions about the accuracy of the census as most of the minority is bi-lingual and tend to mark German as colloquial language. --Austronaut 18:59, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick: Please consider the motto of the former Emperor of Austria: AEIOU ! (Austria Est Imperare Orbi Universo / Alles Erdreich Ist Osterreich Untertan) We rule the world, and no one else. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.114.183.219 (talk • contribs) 22:01, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Advertising spam?

Hi,

Last night I discovered that my submission on this page was identified as spam
- * Austrosearch Bilingual Austrian Search engine and Directory (German, English)

I sent an inquiry with the moderator that removed it but I feel that maybe I posted the link without first inquiring the moderators regarding it's inclusion as an external link on this page. I have run Austrosearch for the last 7 years at a loss out of my own pocket, thus I feel calling my post spam to be unfair as it is more of my self appointed charity work for a country with one of the world's highest living standards. The other websites already listed as external links are no more nor less relevant to Austria than Austrosearch. Other websites have been very kind to my work promoting Austria such as Dmoz was below.

Austrosearch is listed in Dmoz under the following categories.

  1. Regional: Europe: Austria: Guides and Directories (1 match)
  2. World: Deutsch: Computer: Internet: Suchen: Verzeichnisse: Österreich (1)
  3. World: Deutsch: Computer: Internet: Suchen: Suchmaschinen: Österreich (1)

I submit that I may have my own political views on Austria and those are kept in the features section. I do not filter submissions based on political affiliations, only on relevance that the websites included in the directory have some direct basis relating to Austria. Austrosearch crawls, indexes, and caches for the public's benefit hundreds of News articles daily in German and in English.

Kindest Regards, Jason — Preceding unsigned comment added by Austrosearch (talk • contribs) 22:19, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I am not certain for how long this will remain on as a top result, but I did a check for websites that link to Austria - Wikipedia and my website was the first search result on msn
1-10 of 1,423 containing link:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austria -site:wikipedia.org.

Today I discovered the #wikipedia irc channel and found folks to be very informative and more than willing to let me know what got my site initially removed. I acknowledge now after those discussions that it would not be appropriate if I were to submit the link to the Austria - Wikipedia page. Nevertheless it is my hope that someone find it of merit to be added as Austrosearch works hard at it's mission as a non partisan source and record of information and fact directly pertaining to Austria. Regards,
Austrosearch 23:07, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Body of a reply to an email sent by Jason:
Yes, I removed your link for the following reasons:
1. Policy: See Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links, images, or media files
2. Your link was placed in a position on the list suggestive of the behaviour of a spammer, i.e. at the top of the list, ahead even of those of the Bundeskanzleramt and the Austrian National Tourist Office.
3. At the time, the link to your user page was showing red, and you had very few contributions (indeed, I think none other than to austrosearch.at), which again is suggestive of a newly-arrived spammer's behaviour -- it's a good idea to build up a profile as a contributor of useful edits to the body of articles, which will help to allay fears of you being a spammer.
If I misjudged you, then you have my apologies. On the information available at the time, and given the need to make a swift decision while monitoring edits to over 2000 articles, I think I acted properly. If you wish to reinstate the link at a less-prominent position in the list, then I will not remove it again, though I see from Talk:Austria that others on IRC have given you reasons why the link may have been removed, so someone else might still do so.
Incidentally, it was not necessary for you to seek out one of my actual email addresses to contact me -- most users like myself have an option set in their preferences to display an "email this user" option in the navigation bar to the left of their user page. Even quicker would have been for you to leave a note on my User talk:Arwel Parry page!
End of quote.
  • -- Arwel 23:47, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Being a new contributor to Wikipedia is definately a learning experience. Being a member of several open source communities I must say I am a bit embarrased how things started out. I think it really should be considered to warn folks such as myself wishing to contribute to wikipedia that starting off adding your own link is definately the wrong first move.
Thanks for your newbie tolerance!
Jason Austrosearch 00:37, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I see nothing wrong with your link. I've re-added it. Mr. Jones 10:57, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

POV speculation

To meet increased competition from both EU and Central European countries, Austria will need to emphasize knowledge-based sectors of the economy, continue to deregulate the service sector, and lower its tax burden.

This seems rather POV speculation. Who added this? Is it from the CIA fact book? If so, perhaps it should be attributed. Mr. Jones 10:47, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Reverted vandalism

I reverted 213.132.117.4's vandalism. People really need to grow up. =\ --Kross 09:36, May 4, 2005 (UTC)

Restructure, rewrite

I've restructured and rewriten some parts of the article. I stop now, however I want to point out that the article is in desperate need of

  • a more detailed history section (especially 19th and 20th century)
  • an expanded Religion section
  • Education/Social situation etc. sections

Themanwithoutapast 05:05, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

new template: subarticleof

I have replaced a few substituted instances of the template {{Main}} by {{seesubarticle}}. This because the accompanying template {{seemain}} was hopelessly confusing with Main. I have placed the accompanying template {{subarticleof}} on the according subarticles. For feedback and suggestions please visit Template talk:seesubarticle and Template talk:subarticleof. Thanks --MarSch 11:34, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Regarding "ÖVP politicians have suggested NATO membership"

IMHO (as an Austrian very much interested in politics), it is a very minor fact that some ÖVP politicians have occasionally proposed joining NATO. If we mention this in the main article, we should also mention in the Iceland article that some politicians have proposed to join the EU. The proposal to join NATO was of importance during the Cold War, but after the fall of the Soviet Union, the idea of joining NATO is not even remotely considered by ÖVP politicians any more (openly, at least), because public opinion is somewhere above two thirds against that proposal. While browsing through pages on Austria, I just felt that this factoid was not really notable. ::shrugs:: Would be interested as to why you think this is notable. Thanks in advance! ナイトスタリオン…ㇳ–ㇰ 23:16, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mh, well, sometimes you learn something new about your country... it seems that Schüssel did indeed say something along the lines of "should consider all options, including NATO membership" in November 2001. Still, I do not consider this possibility noteworthy enough to mention it in the main article, which should give a short overview of Austrian politics; NATO membership is definitely not an important topic in Austrian politics at the moment. ;) ナイトスタリオン…ㇳ–ㇰ 23:26, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You're right - doesn't fit into the article - not noteworthy enough. In reverting I just wanted to make the point that Schüssel etc. have several times advanced the idea to join NATO. I'll remove it from the article. Themanwithoutapast 23:54, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Where is Vienna?

I think the federal cpaital is not mentioned properly in this article. It should be obvious from the first paragraph that Austria Vienna is the capital — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.16.208.218 (talk • contribs) 14:41, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, if you write "Austria Vienna" then it's not the Capital but a professional soccer team in Vienna ;-) --Reichsgauleiter Hansen 02:10, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Improvement drive

The article on Franz Kafka has been listed to be improved on Wikipedia: This week's improvement drive. Add your vote there if you want to support the article.--Fenice 06:18, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

{{cleanup}}

I have removed the cleanup tag from this article. It was put there by an editor who apparently hasn't seen the kind of articles that do need the tag; this article is neither ungrammatical nor poorly formatted nor confused. And, for what it's worth, there is no explanation on this talk page what should be cleaned up, either. Maybe {{fact}} (Citation needed) or {{dubious}} ((disputed — see talk page)) would have fit the bill. Rl 06:52, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Someone vandalized this article, under "recent political developments." I usually don't mess with the editing side of Wikipedia, so I'm not sure what should be done with this. I leave it to you good people.--69.129.39.230 01:46, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Catholic

It is not entirely clear what Catholicism means in the section on religion. For instance, "the absolute monarchy of Habsburg imposed a strict regime to maintain Catholicism's power and influence among Austrians". I suppose that means "Roman Catholic Church", not "orthodox Christian church" or both. Same thing for "Catholic leaders such as Theodor Innitzer and Ignaz Seipel". Rl 18:07, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think the context makes it clear that only Roman Catholicism can be meant. But maybe this is due to my Austrian preconceptions; to most Austrians it would probably never occur that anything else can be meant by the term. Martg76 22:33, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, though I'm also Austrian and can't really say what it sounds like to foreigners. What would you consider a clearer way of putting it, Rl? — File:Austria flag large.png ナイトスタリオン ㇳ–ㇰ — 19:58, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Something doesn't seem completely unbiased in the part where the article points out the reasons on catholicism's diminishing numbers. To me it sounds like too many personal opinions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmcuervo (talk • contribs) 03:14, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think the following section is misleading: Both these numbers have been on the decline for decades, especially Roman Catholicism, which has suffered an increasing number of seceders of the church. This is due partly to child sexual abuse scandals by priests' as well as the alleged unwillingness of the Roman Catholic Church to implement reforms. (emphasize by me) The part mentioning child sexual abuse scandals at least needs to be reformulated. Either the statement refers to sexual abuse scandals outside Austria (e.g. USA) or it refers to abuse scandals inside of it. Concerning the latter I am not aware of any other case than that of Cardinal Groër, who was removed by JPII because of sexual misconduct with teenagers. In both cases the statement as it stands gives an biased impression and should at least be reformulated. Gugganij 12:32, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Since no source for the alleged reasons for the decline of the number of Catholics in Austria were provided, I removed them. Gugganij 13:17, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Salzburg - map of the 9 federal states

At the pink map where the federal states of austria are shown, the boarder of federal state Salzburg (Number 5) is wrong:[2]
The right boarders are shown at the german Wikipedia site: [3] [4] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Makea (talk • contribs) 19:06, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That's true. I think this map shows the dioceses of Austria. the northeast of Tyrol is a part of the archdiocese of Salzburg.[5] --WmE 18:08, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it does not really show the Austrian dioceses, since the eastern part of Lower Austria is part of the archdiocesis of Vienna, as can be seen in the fourth link. ナイトスタリオン ✉ 18:53, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Economy

"To meet increased competition from both EU and Central European countries, Austria will need to emphasize knowledge-based sectors of the economy, continue to deregulate the service sector, and lower its tax burden."

Was this pulled out of an IMF report? Doesn't seem appropriate to have judgements about what Austria needs to do in the future. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Winmax (talk • contribs) 16:16, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:German-speaking Wikipedians' notice board

This new notice board might be of interest to editors here. You can help with our current projects or ask for help with yours, and ask any related question on our talk page. Hope to see you there, Kusma (討論) 15:13, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On the name of Austria

The name of Austria is partially explained on the main page. However, it only explains the German word/name Osterreich; and does not explain where the English word Austria comes from.

Do I take it that the English word is just a corruption of the German word? We can't say Osterreich properly so it came out as Austria? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peter Judge (talk • contribs) 09:08, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The word "Austria" in Latin

When was the name "Austria" starting to get used in Latin? It is clearly not a calque of ostarrichi, and doesn't seem to be a direct borrowing of the High German word, could it have come from another Germanic dialect? For instance Old Norse "austr" (east) looks extremely similar. 惑乱 分からん 14:21, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That i a bigquestıan. It could come from the pagan godness of Ostara from wich the name of easter and the rabbıt and the eastereggs are commig from,but itıspure unhıstorıc .Hıstoric is that their where the 3 commıtate ın the endtime of the roman empıre and that Laurıacum the today town of Enns survıved as a early crıstıan center north of the alps. Thıs area the bavarıan took and as they sah the Enns rıver as theır border to the east theycalled all wıtch they could cocer east of ıt Ostarıchı but as I said it could meen the realm of the godness Ostara or the Eastern Empire. İ would by instinkt as the Bavarian ( wıtch are Bohemian sucsessors of the Marcoannin trıbe and mıxed elements .. Langobards east germanıc elements) where pagan then that fırst ıs wrıght but ıt can never be proofed. J — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.100.168.92 (talk • contribs) 10:35, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On the origin of the name "Österreich"

Marc Bloch's Feudal Society has a more accurate account of how the Osterreich came to be the name of the german boundary in the alps and with eastern Europe. In the eleventh century (or tenth, can't really remember) Otto the Great sent two large garrisons to the southeastern borders of the empire to protect against Magyar assaults. There garrisons were called the "Eastern Command" or, for a simpler translation of the primitive german "ostaricki," the "East-Rule." The sense being conveyed would thus be "Eastern Regime," but only "command" really keeps the military reality of its origins in sight.

Given the modern term "Reich" and its uses, Austria is often mistaken by English scholars as being derived from "Eastern Empire;" though it goes much further than the primitive roots allow, it's still much more accurate than "Eastern Realm." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.85.63.18 (talk • contribs) 18:20, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OTTOMAN EMPIRE ?

There is no article with Ottoman Empire. Ottoman Empire( Turks) ruled this country for 400 years. Nobody know this? Turks were defeated in Vienna. If they not, the Europe would be in danger, may be todays Europe would be never exist. Don't forget the History. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.240.33.154 (talk • contribs) 11:04, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

do not worry! Even if Ottomans had conquered all of Europe nothing would happen. If Ottomans had a similar colonialist attitude like Europeans (look at American continent, Australia and Africa) now half of Europe was speaking Turkish instead of Greek, Bulgarina, Romanina etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.214.151.23 (talk • contribs) 21:29, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Austria was ruled by the Ottoman Empire? Please have a second look into your favourite history book. Yes, the Ottomans tried to take over Vienna but failed twice (Vienna was quite fortunate that the reinforcements/relief came just in time - one day later would have been to late probably). They ruled over Austria? No, not to all I know and believe. Of course they got hold of some parts of eastern Austria in order to reach Vienna, but that does not mean they ruled Austria. Additionally, Vienna lies at the far east of Austria, so they only needed a narrow corridor to reach the capital. What you probably mean is that they got hold of some of the regions the Austrian Empire was ruling in the region of Balkan (now Serbia, Bosnia, etc.) Those were taken over by the Ottomans on their way from Istanbul to Vienna, but that regions were not part of Austria then and are not now. --Wirthi 09:51, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
i'd like to make the point that technically if part of Austria was ruled by the Ottoman empire than those parts would be part of the Ottoman empire and not Austria therefore the Ottomans did rule SOME of Austria. --alex medical services 00:11, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why AUT?

Why exactly was AUT adopted as the 3-letter code? (I know AUS is Australia, and I think that AUT stands for Autriche, which is french for Austria, but I'm not sure) (131.130.121.106 19:26, 8 June 2006 (UTC))[reply]

As an Austrian I have never thought about that issue. Guess what you are saying is true; AUT will originally be derived from Autriche, the french name for Austria. I guess those 3-letter-codes were developed by the IOC in Geneva, making French the predominent Language. Check out Spain thats code is ESP from l'Espagne (or Spain: "España"?). --Wirthi 20:01, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe for the same reason that an A in a circle is the country symbol for Austrian vehicles. Though I hadn't thought about the French word—I figured it was from the English word.… — EncMstr 20:42, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's just because "AUS" is already taken by "Australia". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.178.146.211 (talk • contribs) 22:20, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{{native_name}}}

Why does it say {{{native_name}}}? It should say Republik Österreich.--Sonjaaa 16:00, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First Paragraph Parentheses

I just noticed that the opening parentheses in the first paragraph is never properly closed. Someone should probably fix that. ~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lightfight (talk • contribs) 17:33, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is a wiki, you can do that yourself! I have entered the character now ... --Wirthi 20:37, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

South Tyrol

A still nowadays very important and very problematic point was the loss of the German speaking South-Tyrol to Italy after WW I.
Thats not true and POV. Since 1972, when Austria and Italy finaly agreed about the autonomy statute of south tyrol only very few people got a problem with it and for sure neither the official Austria nor Italy. I will delte it.--85.124.233.216 03:23, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. you are right. The Austrians did not want to have back South Tyrol. So therefore it's not a political topic anymore. --Reichsgauleiter Hansen 02:07, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NATO - Membership

Hello folks! We should add a short notice that Austria is a neutral country and therefore not member of any international military organization (NATO) execpt EURFOR (=EU-Force).

Please do add it. This is very important. Your friendly Reichsgauleiter Hansen 01:10, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Volksgruppenpolitik

Does anyone think that there is far too much space devoted to this? I think it would be more appropriate if all the information concerning the rights of slovenes were moved to Demographics of Austria. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Motekker (talk • contribs) 04:26, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, as an Austrian I can tell you it's been one of the most political issues in the past five years, and has been an issue since we became independent... I don't think it's too much, personally. —Nightstallion (?) 11:18, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

belief in God

i would appreciate if you could tell me where you found the info about belief in God in Europe. thank you --alex medical services 00:18, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

it is in german - but the link is in the article - there is a table with % if you scroll down [6]. Themanwithoutapast 20:02, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

austria userbox

This user idolizes Austria, he has been 3 times in Austria and still wants more!

--Ifeldman84 19:40, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

official languages

The infobox shows several official languages, but English isn't there. I've heard from dozens, maybe a hundred Austrians, they have to study at least four years of English in school. Traveling in remote parts of Austria is considerably easier than Germany for me since most Austrians' English is better than my German. Should English be listed as officially required? Or is that not done anymore? 71.193.192.51 21:10, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, we have to study English but it's not an official language. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 62.178.146.211 (talk • contribs) .
Right. Just that many people have to learn it doesn't make it an official language of the nation. --Wirthi 17:54, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Any idea why there is a requirement to study English? Why not French or Italian instead? — EncMstr 19:39, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, mainly because English is mentioned in the curriculum ;-) Of course many schools offer other languages; for example in most Grammar schools you can choose between French and Latin (and sometimes others as Spanisch or Russian). At least one of those is usually obligatory starting in 7th grade, the other in 9th grade. Why English: well, check List of languages by number of native speakers and remember that English _is_ the most common language to use when two people from totally different cultures meet. --Wirthi 10:28, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In fact you have to choose both Latin and French in grammer schools. One language in the 7rd grade the other in the 9th grade. Furthermore you can (it's compulsory) choose one so called Wahlpflichtfach e.g. Italian, Spanish, Russian or sports in the 11th grade. -- WmE 22:26, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Non-standard and potentially POV map should be reverted

The map for this country has recently been changed to a format which is not standard for Wikipedia. Each and every other country identifies that country alone on a contintental or global map; none of them highlight other members of relevant regional blocs or other states which which that country has political or constitutional links. The EU is no different in this respect unless and until it becomes a formal state and replaces all other states which are presently members; the progress and constitutional status of the EU can be properly debated and identified on the page for that organisation; to include other members of the EU on the infobox map for this country is both non-standard and potentially POV.

Please support me in maitaining Austria's proper map (in Wikipedia standard) until we here have debated and agreed this issue? Who is for changing the map and who against? The onus is on those who would seek to digress from Wiki standard to show why a non-standard and potentially POV map should be used. Austria deserves no less! JamesAVD 15:21, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This user has decided to remove references to the EU from the page of every member state. See his talk page for more details. yandman 15:31, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not discuss here, but at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countries so a uniform decision can be reached. Kusma (討論) 15:41, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The users above are misrepresnting my actions. Certain non-standard items have been included in the infoboxes of the pages of some European states. I have removed the undiscussed and unsupported changes and started a discussion here on the best way forward. I have in no way 'removed references to the EU'! The EU is an important part of the activities of the governmenance of many European states, to the benefit of all. That does not mean that an encyclopedia should go around presenting potentially POV information of the constitutional status of the EU in the infoboxes of states which are supposed to be standardised across Wikipedia. I'm interested in what users here feel? JamesAVD 15:44, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am not trying to say anything about your actions. All I'm saying is that this discussion is not very much relevant for the Austria page and should be held at a central place instead. As you have started this thread on many country pages, I am only trying to direct discussion about the issues you raise to the correct places. Kusma (討論) 15:50, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, Kusma, you had been suggesting way back that the (very thin) discussion on that page, out of the sight of the many contributors to the country pages involved, was sufficient to override the Wiki standard which should be changed by broad discussion. You were naming this page long before the point where I made this problem known to the contributors of all of the relevant pages. It would be more efficient if all contibuted to a discussion on that page but in all likelihood individuals will want to contribute on the talk page of the relevant country. They should feel free to do so. Please also, if you have a strong opinion, join in this debate. JamesAVD 16:32, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PLEASE DISCUSS THIS AT Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countries#Location Maps for European countries-- discussion continues as it involves more than just this country.
Thanks, —MJCdetroit 20:33, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neighboring countries

Hi, I want to point out a factual error on the page, at the bottom, there's this box with neighbors organized by cardinal directions. Slovenia and Slovakia are swapped on it. If I knew how to edit it, I would have :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.113.16.248 (talk • contribs) 09:21, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

EDIT: Nevermind, figured it out :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.113.16.248 (talk • contribs) 09:24, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed Austria Project

There now is a proposed WikiProject for Austria at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals#Austria. Any editors interested should add their names there and we will see if there is enough interest to began the project in earnest. Badbilltucker 21:50, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Word "windische"

Hi, the following scentence is wrong.. "To the latter group the term "Windische" (originally the German word for Slovenians) "... The word "windische" is not used for slovenians. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.178.227.95 (talk • contribs) 21:00, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are wrong. It is used for Slovenians in Austria. As reference I can only give you the german wikipedia-atricle de:Windisch --Wirthi 21:37, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't the argument that it used to be the term for Slovenes? My understanding is that, in old German, "Wends" were peoples living to the east of the Germanic peoples (usually Slavs), and "Welsh" were people to the west (Latins or Celts). john k 16:37, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Name

Why is Austria's name in Hungarian and Czech given? Surely they arent national languages??--WoodElf 07:47, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the Czech Republic (and Slovenia) was once part of Austria. So, sort of, was Hungary. But it seems unnecessary for the intro. But giving the name for Austria in all 11 languages of the old monarchy might be worthwhile somewhere. john k 16:36, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, no, I think the reason is that there are ethnic minorities of Czech and Slovenians in Austria and therefore, their language have some official status. For background details on population and politics, see also this private website on Austria. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 131.111.8.104 (talk) 17:48, 18 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Rewrite

I will come back and rewrite and expand more of the article. Reference examples are articles on Sweden or GErmany. Themanwithoutapast 11:55, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anthem

The Anthem is not called "Land der Berge, Land am Strome", this is just the first line.
In Books, it is called "Österreichische Bundeshymne".
The Anthem is based on KV 425 by Mozart with words by Paula Preradovic. --Helmut Gründlinger 20:11, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Austria's full name

Austria's full name is Bundesrepublik Österreich (Federal Republic of Austria), not just Republik Österreich (Republic of Austria). For reference one need only take a glimpse at an Austrian passport. Danke! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.153.8.3 (talk • contribs) 12:43, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Austria&oldid=108108644"