Talk:Austria-Hungary

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Former good article nominee Austria-Hungary was a Geography and places good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are 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.
November 15, 2007 Good article nominee Not listed

Austro-Hungarian Empire[edit]

If it is often called "Austro-Hungarian Empire" in English sources (and I don't think I've ever seen it NOT called that in English texts), why isn't that the name of the article here on the English Wikipedia? --Khajidha (talk) 17:27, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Because it has never been an official name, thus it would be improper. Not even in German or Hungarian existed such a name.(KIENGIR (talk) 22:37, 14 February 2017 (UTC))
So? This page isn't in German or Hungarian, it's in English. And pages here are not necessarily under official names, they are under the English common names. Unless "Austria-Hungary" is a more common usage in English than "Austro-Hungarian Empire" this page is at the wrong name. --Khajidha (talk) 02:39, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
I understand, but to change the reference and the name of a former official entity is not the best action, also not in Wikipedia. Since the name "Austro-Hugarian Empire" redirects here, this does not need further action. Even if some entities have a common English name, officially they are not used by the English.(KIENGIR (talk) 16:26, 15 February 2017 (UTC))
No, I don't think you do understand. Again, page names here have nothing to do with official names. Use of common names, even for "former official entities" is EXACTLY what Wikipedia does. --Khajidha (talk) 16:44, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
You can be sure I understand, and I have experience regarding what we are discussing of. Wikipedia tends to the more precise regarding the official names. Simply we don't have the same opinion, I don't support neither any imprecision, nor a transition from a precise state to a less precise one.(KIENGIR (talk) 23:17, 15 February 2017 (UTC))
Then you need to start a HUGE number of move requests for virtually every country article, because they are at common names. To pick another historical example, by your criteria there never was such a country as the Soviet Union. --Khajidha (talk) 14:10, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
Well, you are partially right regarding the Soviet Union, but at least this term existed also in Russian and were used as a shortened name. Similarly like Great Britain, instad of "Great Britain and Northern Ireland United Kingdom". But this current case such term is imaginary. I am totally satisfied with the current redirection and the "often referred" section in the lead.(KIENGIR (talk) 23:26, 16 February 2017 (UTC))
The term is not imaginary, it was used quite often in English. You STILL seem to have some problem understanding that official names and the native language names have no priority in terms of page names. If the majority of English language sources called this country "Eepageepastania" then that is what the page name should be. --Khajidha (talk) 15:43, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
I am not that much sure about the term "Austro-Hungarian Empire" being more used in English language sources than "Austria-Hungary". Someone expert on Google searches may present the facts, but I am pretty sure by being familiar with related literature that the results for both terms will be somewhere similar. FkpCascais (talk) 23:49, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
It bears investigating, but KIENGIR seems to have some trouble understanding the concept of common names. --Khajidha (talk) 15:43, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
As you were told and explained, I repeat I have no problem with understanding, I simply don't support it, my reasons above.(KIENGIR (talk) 23:31, 17 February 2017 (UTC))
Reasons which are irrelevant to the question at hand. Articles are to be located at the English common name, regardless of "officialness" or the native name. The intro suggests that "Austro-Hungarian Empire" is the common name, but this article is not located there. My question is "why?" Show me that Austria-Hungary is more commonly used in English. --Khajidha (talk) 19:17, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
You are circling around something that has been already entirely discussed. I don't agree the reasons would be irrelevant. Read back above if you still have questions. A simple google search presents 15 000 000 for Austria-Hungary, and only 719 000 for Austro-Hungarian Empire, and I don't know why I should show anything.(KIENGIR (talk) 23:23, 18 February 2017 (UTC))
1) Where? 2) Every reason you've given has been "Austro-Hungarian was not official" or "Austro-Hungarian was not used in the native languages", article naming is based on common English names, therefor your reasons are irrelevant, 3) That's funny, my google search returns roughly 500,000 for each. Coupled with my own (admittedly anecdotal) experience, that doesn't make Austria-Hungary the common name in English. 4) The very intro to this article suggests that "Austro-Hungarian Empire" was the common English name, so it must be demonstrated that it wasn't if the article is to be at some other name. --Khajidha (talk) 03:41, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
1) ? 2) As you were already told, I don't agree 3, Yes, Funny 4, There is not any must or contraint on my shoulders.(KIENGIR (talk) 12:26, 19 February 2017 (UTC))
Where was it discussed? I can't seem to find it. --Khajidha (talk) 13:05, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
I did not refer any earlier discussion, however I don't know the history of this page long back in time i.e. under what circumstances the article's name were set. Maybe some discussion archives...(KIENGIR (talk) 22:40, 27 February 2017 (UTC))
the rigth name is "Austro-Hungarian Empire".--Bolzanobozen (talk) 11:45, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

User Marcocapelle campaign against the category: "Kingdom of Hungary"[edit]

You systematically removed the Kingdom of Hungary category: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Austria-Hungary&type=revision&diff=775443548&oldid=775138968

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Austro-Hungarian_Compromise_of_1867&type=revision&diff=775443592&oldid=774109650

Than your sock account Salzenger immediatelly appeared:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Austria-Hungary&type=revision&diff=775517612&oldid=775517466

--Blemse (talk) 07:29, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

  • This is not the right platform to handle sock-puppetry accusations. I'm also pinging User:Slazenger who is apparently the other accused party. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:45, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Please, first answer the question. Why did you remove the Kingdom of Hungary category from various articles? Thank you.--Blemse (talk) 07:53, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

  • Please remove all this sock-puppetry bullshit from this talk page if you're not willing to substantiate your accusations. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:56, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
  • I'm honored to be included in this. User:Blemse made unconstructive edits that resulted in the duplication of the entire page below the category listing. As this was his third questionable edit (two others having been reverted previously) to the article, it was reverted. As mentioned by the others, feel free to take this to ANI if you feel so strongly about it. You'd be better served using this time to review your edits before posting rather than prattling on about sockpuppetry. As mentioned in the talk page for User:Marcocapelle, there is a proper channel for this. Allegations without proof only reflect poorly on the accuser. --Slazenger (Contact Me) 00:23, 17 April 2017 (UTC)



Everybody can check the history of the page and compare all modifications. These edits went against the "Kingdom of Hungary" category (like in other wiki articles). Maybe there were racist causes. --Blemse (talk) 06:25, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Blemse, would you please stop making such baseless accusations? Try to concentrate on Slazenger's above remarks, which are quite clear about the reasons of the deletion of the category. If you think he is wrong, try to summarize your arguments without making uncivil remarks. Borsoka (talk) 06:54, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
  • It is enough to read the "Revision history" of the article, and it is clear that Marcocapelle deleted/removed the "Kingdom of Hungary" from the categories, without any explanations. Marcocapelle removed it from the Austro-Hungarian Compromise article too. I restored the categories. Than user Slazenger reverted my edit, and restored Marcocapelle's version, However in the comment section of his edit Slazenger has committed a tactical error: Slazenger started to complain in the editorial comment, that "Blemse" reverted his edits in some articles. Remember: I reverted originally Marcocapelle's edits, who is a "different" person (accrodong to him). This self-debunking comment of Slazenger was visible for at least 30min in the Revision history of the article. Than somebody modified the self-debunking comment. Many Wiki admins have right to modify or even completely delete/remove silently (means even the removal won't appear in the revision history) some unwanted edits from the revision history panel of the articles, or rewrite brutal editorial comments in the revision history panel. It is not rare in the case of brutal racist edits and editorial comments on Wikipedia (Which is understandable). Many Wiki admins are accessible via non public way (via E-mail). But the usage of these Admin rights for an user - who wrote a self-debunking editorial comment - is disgusting abuse. It was all just to save the face of his friend.--Blemse (talk) 10:47, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Your statement doesn't meet with the reality. You were against the category "Kingdom of Hungary", that's why you removed it. Screenshots about your edits: https://ibb.co/bAraJ5 and https://ibb.co/kkarrQ --Blemse (talk) 07:04, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Austria-Hungary. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:19, 12 July 2017 (UTC)