Jump to content

Talk:Austria-Hungary

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Furius (talk | contribs) at 16:58, 28 July 2023 (→‎Requested move 21 July 2023: Reply). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Vital article

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


Heavy Hungaro-centricism

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

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

Unlikely, but if you think there is material mising on Cisleithania, WP:SOFIXIT. (I'm not sure why you would think mentions of those two is of significance). DeCausa (talk) 07:28, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I see your point, but on the other hand this is an article about Austria-Hungary. 165.234.101.99 (talk) 14:46, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In the Czech Republic, the glass, sugar, wood, toy, furniture and raw materials industries have developed as iron and steel industries. The Czech mechanical engineering industry was smaller than the Hungarian industry in electronics and electrical machinery. Don't forget that to develop mechanical and electrical engineering requires more innovation and engineering knowledge, it is the fastest growing changing sector and men are more interested in it, you can see how many magazines there are that deal with machinery or electronics. On the other hand, Hungary had engineering universities (not apprenticeships!!) in the 18th century, which is reflected in the number of Nobel prizes in science and the number of famous international mathematics prizes, which is very high if you compare it with the Nobel prizes and mathematics prizes of any former communist country. Hungary owes all these successes to the quality of education in the Monarchy and in the interwar period. Pharaph (talk) 15:37, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So the machinery building industry, the electric and electronics industries were more developed in Hungary than in Bohemia, both in the number and size of such factories and companies. Pharaph (talk) 15:40, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

RfC: Should the dual flags be displayed along with the civil ensign?

Consensus has long since determined that there should be no flag. closing this to avoid distraction. DeCausa (talk) 21:52, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.



Should the dual flags displayed along with the civil ensign (such as in this revision: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=1062963982) with maybe a note alongside it linking to the Flags of Austria-Hungary page? Vamsi20 (talk) 21:44, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I've had this idea for about a month now, but that one video really sealed the deal for me to put this.
Vamsi20 (talk) 21:46, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No. The civil ensign does not appear in this article and was removed 2 years ago. This was resolved by an RfC back then. DeCausa (talk) 21:54, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment That RfC was no consensus, there was only a compromise.
Vamsi20 (talk) 22:09, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No Given what DeCausa said I agree with not adding the flag Chefs-kiss (talk) 06:56, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No flag is better. A entire generation has already been deceived! They think the Civil Ensign was the National Flag! Dumalinas (talk) 01:05, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No it shouldn't, It is strictly the civil ensign. Yup01oi (talk) 15:39, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Still, Dumalinas is right here. There should NOT be any symbol that is trying to portray the flag because Austria-Hungary did NOT have a flag. Crenshire (talk) 21:49, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I know i am a bit late but i think if there is going to be flags it should just be the Habsburg Monarchy and Kingdom of Hungary flags.

Edit: like on the Simple English Wikipedia Von bismarck (talk) 13:47, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If we add the flags of the Kigdom of Hungary and Cisleithania we should also add the flag of the Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia as the Lands of the Crown of Saint Stephen did not have one flag but two. Ajhuheu (talk) 17:49, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Make it simple. No flag. Keep it the way it is! Sheanobeano (talk) 23:40, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with sheanobeano here. just put the coat of arms and the link under it. There have been years of discussion about these flags. Crenshire (talk) 14:25, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Can we add at least the civil ensign back? I know it's the unofficial flag, but everyone is so used to the civil ensign since 20 years ago, you don't need to add it, i'm not forcing you, but you can add the flag of Austria and Hungary too!

Make Austria-Hungary article split into seperate articles

I think the Austria-Hungary article should be split into the main Austria-Hungary article, an article about the ethnic relations of Austria-Hungary, an high detailed article about Austria-Hungary's industries, an article about its belligerence in World War I, an article about Austria-Hungary's inland waterways and regulation, and a article about Hungary's role — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.167.21.233 (talk) 22:37, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is an encyclopedia, not a scavenger hunt. Also that is not very practical for users just trying to read about Austria-Hungary. 165.234.101.96 (talk) 17:27, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well then what about users that can’t load all of the article about Austria-Hungary because they have a slower internet connection? 2603:80A0:1700:3DDE:2912:AF3:4883:EAB1 (talk) 22:41, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
2603… and 165… are the same user 2603:80A0:1700:3DDE:2912:AF3:4883:EAB1 (talk) 22:42, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
what do you mean by this? Chefs-kiss (talk) 06:58, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No. This is not a treasure hunt. You also did not reason why exactly you think they are apt for splitting. WP: SPLIT Chefs-kiss (talk) 06:55, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the readable prose size is 123kb, which is too big per WP:SPLIT. There already exists some subsidiary articles and I don't neceesarily think the ones identified by the IP are the right ones. But WP:SUMMARYSTYLE is what we should be following and I don't think this article does it particularly well. DeCausa (talk) 07:09, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Politics appears to be a bit of a monster based on the overall section sizes count in the talk header, as well as based on the overall level of complexity of the section in terms of the number of subsections contained within it. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:12, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Politics of Austria-Hungary" seems like a viable split. Oddly, there's no history section. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:15, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like some of the history is bound up in the politics section, some in the 'belligerence' section, and some in the 'demise' section. Overall, the page structure is a bit convoluted and not very easily navigable. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:18, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that politics might need seperation but i am super against the proposed ones. History section also seems fine. Chefs-kiss (talk) 12:00, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There ain’t no way I’m allowing this article to split the same way the Empire did. Keep the article the way it is. 165.234.101.97 (talk) 20:14, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with that idea, because what about people with 2 bars and people with slow wi-fi? 2600:1014:B1EF:61DC:3DCD:6638:C9DB:2490 (talk) 21:03, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's not necessarily about splitting in the sense of removing everything from here. It is the idea of creating child articles that can take some of the strain away this article, which is currently being stretched to contain as many little factoid in one place and in doing so, generating a vastly overlength, unconcise body of material that needs rationalizing. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:14, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed but to where is the question. Economu during WW1 seems fine and Austria-Hungary during ww1 as well but the proposed categories by the poster are not suitable. Chefs-kiss (talk) 09:01, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The size of the article about Austria-Hungary is too big 2600:1014:B1EF:61DC:3DCD:6638:C9DB:2490 (talk) 21:02, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the article is too big. This is partially my fault because I took all the material from the de.wiki article and just plonked it in as best I could. It should be split and this article reduced to summary style.
Politics of Austria-Hungary is certainly viable. Austria-Hungary during World War I is another (this article goes into far too much detail and A-H is the only major belligerant not to have an ... in World War I article). Economy of Austria-Hungary is currently shorter than the section of the article here. "Formation", "Foreign affairs", a reduced WWI section, and "dissolution" could then be brought together to produce a good History section. The infrastructure section can't really be reduced by very much.
There essentially is an article on Hungary's role, as requested by the initial poster, in Lands of the Crown of Saint Stephen. Furius (talk) 07:16, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I Shall stand my ground in claiming this article shall not be split up. 165.234.101.97 (talk) 16:36, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please explain why you think that the guidelines at WP:SPLIT and WP:SUMMARY STYLE should not apply. Furius (talk) 17:34, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I OPPOSE a split. Few people know much about AH and this is a good overall summary. People only interested in specific subtopics can easily and quickly read about it here--but they might easily miss a separate article with a title that is unfamiliar to them. The suggestions at SPLIT are not fixed policy, but just suggestions by editors who seem unaware of the need for narrative coherence in historical writing. Will anyone benefit by a split?? I think few will. Will anyone suffer--yes lots of people who lack an overall sense of what AH was all about. Rjensen (talk) 19:18, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, Austria-Hungary should not have its article split, as it would be a nightmare for people just trying to learn about the empire.
(Also I don’t see any other historical articles being split up.) 165.234.101.97 (talk) 20:10, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well then, maybe you could put all of the new articles inside the related articles section 2600:1014:B1EF:61DC:159F:A3D4:F175:4C6C (talk) 20:36, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nonsense. The sections would still appear here in summary style, so readers would get a clearer overall summary, with guidance to pages on specific subtopics that they might be interested in. The links to the sub-articles would appear (as normal) directly below each heading. This is totally normal. Compare, for example the article on France - you get a clear overview from that, and it guides you very easily to more detailed articles like History of France and Politics of France. Other historical articles that have been split and summarised in this manner include Ottoman Empire, Roman Empire, and Kingdom of Scotland. Furius (talk) 01:25, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, these types of objection show a fundamental lack of understanding about how the wiki format is supposed to work. This is not a plaform for essays; it is a platform for discrete interlinked subject summaries. Iskandar323 (talk) 05:59, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I second third that as both nonsense and a fundamental lack of understanding of our format. WP:SUMMARYSTYLE. DeCausa (talk) 09:14, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Pls split it it is too big 2603:80A0:1700:3DDE:F982:4F1A:644D:9A6B (talk) 03:00, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Claiming this article is too big may be fair, but in my opinion we should not split this article into bite sized chunks. In my opinion doing this would only make it harder to navigate, further more Austria-Hungary specifically has always been an historically entity that takes quite a while of reading to understand. Splitting the article up would make it far harder for newer users to learn about the Empire. 165.234.101.97 (talk) 14:52, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
(Also most people just wanting to learn about a subject don’t wish to become lost in a Wikipedia Rabbit hold.) 165.234.101.97 (talk) 15:50, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hole* 165.234.101.97 (talk) 15:51, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Having read this back again, I see your valid points, and have decided to change my views, perhaps we should split this article up. 165.234.101.97 (talk) 17:33, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wait why are you splitting this article rather than an other equally large article like the United States? 165.234.101.97 (talk) 19:25, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please read WP:WAX; this is one of the lowest forms of argument on Wikipedia, but to answer you, the US has 87kB readable prose, here it's 119kB. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:55, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think we should split the article. 2001:48F8:4028:1C23:0:0:0:C1A8 (talk) 01:10, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Why? Imagine if we would split the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth article into two separate ones (LOL). 188.146.112.60 (talk) 21:14, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Fair point, go ahead and split the article. 165.234.101.98 (talk) 13:23, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You may conclude this discussion now. 165.234.101.96 (talk) 16:20, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers, thanks! Furius (talk) 21:53, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You may now close this discussion. 165.234.101.98 (talk) 19:36, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Now, as we created a separate article for WW1, we can drastically reduce the WW1 related content in this article, and concentrate to the other topics of Austria-Hungary. 2001:4C4E:24D5:E300:68D5:5E29:E8EB:12A8 (talk) 10:26, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Split, April 2023 discussion

This page should be split into two or more different sections. It has more than 100 kilos and is so hard to read. Consider splitting sections like the article Flags of Austria-Hungary. Memer15151 (talk) 22:47, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I think there is little or no material on the page that shouldn't appear somewhere on wiki, but it shouldn't all be here.
I've already split the government section, so that can now be reduced.
I want to do the same from the WWI section and have said so a few times now, but it's been unclear whether I have consensus for that. Furius (talk) 06:35, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The history section as a whole is 41 kB of prose long, ie. itself a full-length article, and over 1/3 of this article. Forking that off would quickly and easily go a long way to fixing this issue. CMD (talk) 07:57, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have moved a very long paragraph to Bosnian_Crisis#Buchlau_Bargain as a start. The moved material ought to be edited and better integrated there. Jim.henderson (talk) 17:45, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
But it's extremely uneven - the WWI material (4 years). is substantially longer than the whole rest of the history section (47 years) Furius (talk) 18:11, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
How do you want this done then? 165.234.101.99 (talk) 19:05, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would split off Austria-Hungary during World War I as a separate article and then reduce the material on WWI on this page to the length of the "formation" sub-section. I would cut down "dissolution" (which is already a separate article) to about the length of the "beyond Kleindeutschland" section. Along with reductions, to the "government" section, that alone might be enough to get the article down to a manageable size.
The tables in "language" and "religion" sections could also be reduced / removed; Furius (talk) 00:01, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Tables don't contribute to the readable prose size, so don't cut those for that. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:28, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The education section is also grossly bereft of in-line citation and could be cut. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:32, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
While tables don't count towards prose size, I would agree that they are currently excessive. Re history, the proposed mini-splitting seems like a sensible article topic, it doesn't compress enough by itself. Given how Austro-Hungarian history takes up whole books, it'd be quite sensible to have a dedicated history article. (Not the same scope exactly, but History of Austria is another article that is desperately in need of splitting, so this subarticle would have multiple beneficiaries.) CMD (talk) 06:38, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That makes sense. I'm not sure that I have the energy to conduct a 2-way split at the moment, but it does seem like a reasonable course of action. Furius (talk) 22:17, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've split the WWI section to History of Austria-Hungary during World War I. Furius (talk) 22:57, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely split off the WWI article. We have articles about its various subtopics but no general one about AH's part 8n the war. Jim.henderson (talk) 19:30, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Jim, where can I give you thumbs up? :) I agree, a separate article needed for wartime Austria-Hungary. Many important basic info is missing from this article, due to the extra long wartime section. Pharaph (talk) 20:14, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've done the split - you can see it now at History of Austria-Hungary during World War I - but I haven't had time to cut the section down here. Furius (talk) 21:11, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think this page needs to be modeled again, maybe in the style of the German Empire article. I think splitting it in two is not a good idea. Ruttoperuna (talk) 17:13, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We're not splitting it in two. We're creating more detailed sub-articles and shortening the article here to WP:SUMMARYSTYLE. Furius (talk) 21:58, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 4 May 2023

i would like to edit this page ° Albertanball (talk) 22:45, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: this is not the right page to request additional user rights. You may reopen this request with the specific changes to be made and someone may add them for you, or if you have an account, you can wait until you are autoconfirmed and edit the page yourself. M.Bitton (talk) 23:10, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I Agree, People Should At-lest Be Half-Barred From Editing This Page, So We Don’t Have Another Edit War Over The “Correct One Flag Of Austria-Hungary”, No Offence Intended To The People Who Like The Civil Ensign
By TheOrangeFox TheLaughingOrangeFox (talk) 12:10, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Austria-Hungary does not have a common flag, since it was not one country. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austro-Hungarian_Compromise_of_1867#Terms

--Pharaph (talk) 11:54, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request

In the "succeeded by" menu the link under Hungary leads you to the kingdom of hungary but there were two republics before that so I would like to make the request to change the link to the first Hungarian republic. Attila-Balázs (talk) 18:06, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrariety, by that definition the Hungarian Soviet Republic would be have to be displayed. 2001:48F8:4028:1C23:0:0:0:8900 (talk) 00:56, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

After the WW1, Kingdom of Hungary was followed by the First Hungarian Republic, which was liberal and capitalist.--Pharaph (talk) 13:18, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]


Russia didn't have longer railway network than A-H Empire in Europe before WW1

Russian Empire was a transcontinental country, 40% of its railway network did not located in Europe before WW1, but in its Asian parts. --Pharaph (talk) 20:36, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong. According to this source, https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Page:Statesman%27s_Year-Book_1921.djvu/1289 only 23% of its railway network was not located in Europe in 1913, and the length of route in Europe alone was 35,987 miles, longer than the 43,280 kilometres (26,890 miles), given for Austria-Hungary in The Cambridge Economic History of Modern Europe: Volume 2. The Proffesor (talk) 22:50, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong. On the eve of World War I, imperial Russia had a rail network extending 58,500 kilometers. (The total length) In 1913 it carried 132.4 million tons of freight over an average distance of 496 kilometers, and 184.8 million passengers boarded its trains. https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/russia/railroad-1.htm It was shorter than the railways of the German Empire.

An other source, Russia had the most backward railway system. Read this article too: https://encyclopedia.1914-1918-online.net/article/railways_russian_empire --Pharaph (talk) 05:18, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

European parts of the Russian Empire had no longer railways than the A-H railway network.

Russia is a transcontinental country. We can say that European parts of Russia had bigger population and territory than Germany or A-H Epmire, but it is not true that its European parts had longer railways than A-H railway network, and considering all of Russian (even clearly Asian networks) automatically as "European" network raises semantic and interpretation problems in the article.--Pharaph (talk) 14:13, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Moreobver your source is wrong. IT states Russia has 46,573 miles of railways (74 951.9781 kilometers). However it is not true, because they count even forest industrial miner narrow gauge railways, which is different than Russian standard gauge. In the case of Austria-Hungary we count only the international standard gauge railways, so the typical narrow gauge industrial/mine/forest railways are not counted.--Pharaph (talk) 16:44, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 28 June 2023

May I edit Austria Hungary Nathan Andrae Bueno (talk) 04:25, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: this is not the right page to request additional user rights. You may reopen this request with the specific changes to be made and someone may add them for you, or if you have an account, you can wait until you are autoconfirmed and edit the page yourself. Cannolis (talk) 05:30, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 11 July 2023 (2)

SUBC1PYZH (talk) 10:27, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

to make flags of the states

 Not done: this is not the right page to request additional user rights. You may reopen this request with the specific changes to be made and someone may add them for you, or if you have an account, you can wait until you are autoconfirmed and edit the page yourself. —Sirdog (talk) 11:01, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 14 July 2023

87.116.164.148 (talk) 14:41, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Can we add at least the civil ensign back? I know it's the unofficial flag, but everyone is so used to the civil ensign since 20 years ago, you don't need to add it, i'm not forcing you, but you can add the flag of Austria and Hungary too!

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 16:42, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 21 July 2023

Austria-Hungary → Austria–Hungary – MOS:ENDASH, following these multiple discussions:

2001:4451:824F:B700:D5D3:2171:B3EF:E335 (talk) 15:34, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support per MOS:DASH. Rreagan007 (talk) 17:57, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. MOS:DUALNATIONALITIES (which is part of MOS:ENDASH!) says it should be a hyphen. Talk:Austria-Hungary/Archive 2#Dashes unanimously concluded that it should be a hyphen. Furius (talk) 22:38, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Plus WP:COMMONNAME: sources consistently use a hyphen rather than an en-dash: [1] [2], [3], [4] (books), [5], [6] (other encyclopedias). Furius (talk) 09:23, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Regarding the reference to Austria-Hungary in MOS:DUALNATIONALITIES the MOS says it's hyphenated because it was the name of a single jurisdiction during its 1867–1918 existence. But it wasn't a single jurisdiction. It was two distinct entities/jurisdictions. It also says Use an en dash between the names of nations or nationalities when referring to an association between them. which actually is really the description of Austria-Hungary: two separate states in association. I think the MOS has misunderstand the nature of Austria-Hungary. DeCausa (talk) 23:09, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I also note that one of (just) four supporters in Talk:Austria-Hungary/Archive 2#Dashes said The dash is being misused in this case per WP:DASH. If we are referring to one unified country, it should be a hyphen. We would only use a dash if both Austria and Hungary were separate entities, which of course in this context they are not. which is just a misunderstanding of what Austria-Hungary was. DeCausa (talk) 09:47, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    They managed to enter World War I as one entity. Largoplazo (talk) 22:42, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    No more (and arguably less) than did Britain and Canada. DeCausa (talk) 23:17, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    As they were never referred to as "Britain-Canada" as though they were a single entity, that's irrelevant, isn't it? Also, Britain and Canada weren't equal partners. If Canada was obliged to enter the war out of fealty to Britain whether Canada wanted to or not, then Britain was calling the shots. Which country was calling the shots in Europe, Austria or Hungary? Neither. They acted as a union, one with the name "Austria-Hungary". They also weren't two entities coincidentally making all the same decisions but acted as a collective. You don't see "Austria and Hungary coincidentally entered the war at exactly the same date and time", it's "Austria-Hungary entered the war". Largoplazo (talk) 11:13, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Exactly. Austria-Hungary was also considered as a single entity, because it was basically a union of Austria and Hungary. Also, the map Wikipedia uses to highlight Austria-Hungary in Europe doesn't highlight 2 (or 3) different states, it highlights just one, and many sources state Austria-Hungary as if it were a single entity. 🌶️Jalapeño🌶️ Don't click this link! 14:00, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    For clarity, I'm neutral/don't care whether it's a hyphen or endash. Just pointing out those statements (for those that do care) are incorrect. DeCausa (talk) 09:53, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I guess it depends on how you're defining "entity"; there are plenty of entities (EU, UN, HRE) made up of multiple states. Throughout this article, we talk about A-H as an entity (e.g., saying that it was the "second largest country in Europe" in the lead). That's quite different from something like "France–Britain rivalry" (the example in the MOS for an en-dash), which is about two unconnected states. Furius (talk) 11:17, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Possibly, I don't actually draw any conclusions about hyphen v endash - as I say I'm in the "not bothered" camp. But the statement in the MOS that A-H is a "single jurisdiction" is categorically incorrect. There's also some loose wording in this article - it's not a particularly good one. For instance, someone's put in the opening sentence the highly dubious statement that it was "a multinational state" (my emphasis). The reality was that post 1867 it was two states with a shared monarch and one or two other shared institutions. If that makes an "entity", then it's an entity. But it certainly wasn't a "single jurisdiction" or "one unified country". I think calling it "a country" at all is a stretch although "country" is notoriously fluid. DeCausa (talk) 14:47, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Is Polish–Lithuanian union, Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth, Polish–Swedish union, Denmark–Norway and Sweden–Finland wrong? Not making an WP:OTHERCONTENT point - just curious. DeCausa (talk) 15:01, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    With the adjectives, I read MOS as saying they should be en-dashes. But I can't see why there should be one rule for AH and another for DN and SF, unless there's a common name argument... The inconsistency suggests that we ought to post a note to the MOS talk page to get wider input. Furius (talk) 21:20, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - A wider dash, is preferable. GoodDay (talk) 17:23, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Could you explain why you support this and why you want a wider dash? 🌶️Jalapeño🌶️ Don't click this link! 14:02, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose This should definitely by a hyphen, not a dash. Walrasiad (talk) 17:26, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. This is not about a juxtaposition between Austria and Hungary, but instead about a time when Austria and Hungary were essentially the same country. JIP | Talk 13:58, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see anything directly relevant in MOS:DUALNATIONALITIES. Can you please quote the relevant aspect? —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 18:54, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Wrong: Austria–Hungary" Furius (talk) 19:06, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Very directly relevant. Furius (talk) 19:07, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@BarrelProof and @Furius: It literally says in MOS:DUALNATIONALITIES that a dash is wrong. "Wrong: Austria–Hungary; the hyphenated Austria-Hungary was the name of a single jurisdiction during its 1867–1918 existence"
It should be a hyphen, not a dash. 🌶️Jalapeño🌶️ Don't click this link! 19:13, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's the most directly relevant it can get. 🌶️Jalapeño🌶️ Don't click this link! 19:13, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And on top of that, look at this: Talk:Austria-Hungary/Archive_2#Dashes unanimously concludes that Austria-Hungary shouldn't use a dash. 🌶️Jalapeño🌶️ Don't click this link! 19:15, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yet MOS:DUALNATIONALITIES takes it's position on Austria-Hungary, as its says, because it's a "single jurisdiction" when it wasn't and the 4 opinions in Talk:Austria-Hungary/Archive_2#Dashes is based on statements like Austria-Hungary was "one unified country", which it wasn't either. Maybe it should be a hyphen rather than endash, but not for the reasons given in either of those two links. DeCausa (talk) 19:51, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I don't know how I missed that. I suppose this RM is to consider the validity of that instruction. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 20:53, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
For now the only argument is that Austria-Hungary wasn't a single jurisdiction, but a connection between 2 countries, and as such it should use an endash. "For people and things identifying with multiple nationalities, use a hyphen when using the combination adjectivally [...]" implies that Austria-Hungary should use a hyphen, since it's a thing (country) identifying with multiple nationalities (i.e. Austrian, Hungarian and (sometimes) Croatian). 🌶️Jalapeño🌶️ Don't click this link! 21:03, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well, this title is not "using the combination adjectivally", is it? Obviously, it's one of the examples given, but do the instructions outside of the example exactly cover this case? That sentence seems to be primarily about the "Indian-American scientist" and "popular with Indian Americans" cases. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 21:44, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The full guidance is "hyphen when using the combination adjectivally and a space when they are used as nouns", in which case we'd have "Austria Hungary" (but since this form is used by absolutely no one, it would be precluded by WP:COMMONNAME), so the relevant piece of guidance is probably the earlier statement "Generally, use a hyphen in compounded proper names of single entities." It's a bit unclear why the MOS has the Austria-Hungary example where it appears...
And you're of course right, BarrelProof, that we can reconsider whether that rule should apply in this instance. I've posted a comment to the MOS talk page to invite comment from style guide experts, who might be able to clarify the rationale of the MOS's statements Furius (talk) 22:02, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, if this example is going to stay in the MOS, it should be moved to that other list under the sentence about "compounded proper names of single entities". It doesn't fit where it currently is. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 23:46, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. RS do not usually use a dash in this case. And this isn't a case where we can just enforce a house style as if we can decide how the two elements should be joined or what their relationship is. Austria-Hungary was a single jurisdiction as far as international law was concerned. It was not formed from the unification of Austria and Hungary but from a constitutional change to the Austrian Empire in 1867. "Austria-Hungary" was a term in use, in English, at the time. See here. It cannot be compared to, e.g., Denmark–Norway. Srnec (talk) 01:33, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I would challenge that they were "a single jurisdiction". A jurisdiction normally means a legal system. See, for example, Pearson, Raymond (2005). "Hungary:A State Truncated, A Nation Dismembered". Europe and Ethnicity: The First World War and Contemporary Ethnic Conflict. p. 88.: According to the new [1867] constitution, all governmental functions other than the supreme military, diplomatic and dynastic competencies (which were reserved as imperial) were devolved under the separate jurisdictions of 'Cisleithania' (Austria) and 'Transleithania' (Hungary). DeCausa (talk) 08:45, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Austria-Hungary joined the war as a single entity. Politically, Austria-Hungary was regarded as a single entity. Also, per WP:COMMONNAME, most sources consistently use a hyphen, so we should use a hyphen as well. Even the source you used uses a hyphen in Austria-Hungary. 🌶️Jalapeño🌶️ Don't click this link! 13:57, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    A good example of why Austria-Hungary should be hyphenated is Winston-Salem. They originated from the towns Winston and Salem, and after some time, they started to be referred to as one town, and after a referendum, it became official. Very similar case with Austria-Hungary, except that it was with countries instead of towns. See the similarities? Winston-Salem slowly became referred to as one town, and then it became official. Austria-Hungary slowly became referred to as one country, and then they joined World War 1 as a single entity.🌶️Jalapeño🌶️ Don't click this link! 14:04, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That's nearly the opposite of what happened with Austria-Hungary... Furius (talk) 16:58, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The hyphenated version is the common name of the entity, the name by which is was referred to in writing at the time, the name under which it was known internationally. This is notwithstanding the degree of separate sovereignty the subentities Austria and Hungary had within the union. I see no reason to treat it different from North Rhine-Westphalia or Rhineland-Palatinate or, as Jalapeño mentioned just above, Winston-Salem. In addition, this example is specifically spelled out at MOS:DUALNATIONALITIES. Even WP:BOLD probably doesn't contemplate overstepping a guideline in a case that's been singled out for attention in the guideline. So this isn't the right place to hold this discussion anyway. It would have to be held there. Largoplazo (talk) 16:24, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Austria-Hungary&oldid=1167583161"