Talk:Austria–Hungary relations

Name of article
I moved this article from Austria–Hungary relations to Hungary–Austria relations. Although it is conventional to put the countries in alphabetical order in article names of this type, I think in this exceptional case Hungary should be listed first in order to avoid any possible confusion that the article name is referring somehow to Austria-Hungary. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:13, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Move request

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: page moved as the target of the standard name anyway, no reason not to locate at the standard name. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:51, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Hungary–Austria relations → Austria–Hungary relations – Naming convention is country names in alphabetical order. This article was moved to where it is to avoid confusion with Austria-Hungary. There are more such cases, e.g. Sweden-Norway and Sweden-Finland (which however are in the reverse order alphabetically and so does not cause confusion). There are hatnotes to disambiguate articles. HandsomeFella (talk) 13:28, 18 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Support. Standard practice. Jenks24 (talk) 15:50, 18 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Support. To accord with Wikipedian style for compound modifiers of this sort (as opposed to hyphenated names of countries, and the like). N oetica Tea? 02:13, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose. I think that avoiding confusion is more important than alphabetising; variations on "Austria-Hungary" are widely used to describe a different, single entity and the average reader is not comparing the structure of dozens of similar articles' titles. bobrayner (talk) 11:32, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose. The visual difference between "Austria–Hungary" and "Austria-Hungary" is not great enough to prevent confusion among our readership. So much so, that Austria–Hungary is a redirect to Austria-Hungary. There can be, however, no such confusion about "Hungary–Austria". Surely the obvious, easily-met needs of our readers should take precedence over mechanical application of an internal WP style guideline. Why invite confusion when it can so simply be avoided? Dohn joe (talk) 17:14, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment. I moved the article to the current name, thinking that it was a reasonable exception to make (see section above). Thinking about it again, I can see both sides, and am not strongly in favour of either approach. For some time, the article Austria-Hungary was incorrectly at Austria–Hungary, which I think was what prompted me to make the change in the first place. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:25, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Alphabetical is a good base rule, but there's nothing inherently better about it; it's merely a rule of thumb.  Using Austria-Hungary is just asking for confusion.  Any hatnote would end up comical anyway - "This article is about relations between Austria and Hungary, not relations of Austria-Hungary?"  (Yes the real hatnote would be less silly but the point remains.) SnowFire (talk) 20:31, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment: the hatnote would obviously have to be worded a little better than that – maybe something like this: This article is about the diplomatic relations between Austria and Hungary. For the historical double monarchy comprised by these countries, see Austria-Hungary. Come to think of it, the hatnote is needed regardless of the outcome of this move request, as this article could as well be perceived as an article about the double monarchy's foreign relations, only with the country names inconsistently ordered. HandsomeFella (talk) 22:24, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment: hatnote added. HandsomeFella (talk) 14:55, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I actually don't see the point of a hatnote for Hungary-Austria relations... I doubt anyone would confuse this name with the Empire, since that isn't the Empire's name. SnowFire (talk) 20:56, 21 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Support, as HandsomeFella pointed out above me, we need a hatnote anyway, so no point in not using the correct standard title. --The Evil IP address (talk) 10:50, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Nit: You can argue that Austria-Hungary is the standard title. "Correct" implies that Hungary-Austria relations implies something different and misleading than Austria-Hungary relations does, which isn't the case.  A-B and B-A mean exactly the same thing in this context. SnowFire (talk) 20:55, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Indeed, well argued. I thought for some time if I could hold something against this, but I apparently can't. Changed my wording. --The Evil IP address (talk) 18:49, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Contradiction in the description of the referendum?
"According to the Treaty of Versailles, 1919 and the Treaty of Trianon, 1920, Hungary had to cede its westernmost part, called Deutsch-Westungarn, to Austria, since these districts were inhabited by Germans for centuries. German: Ödenburg (now Hungarian: Sopron) would have been the natural capital of the new Austrian State of Burgenland. Hungary did not agree to relinquish this city, so the Allied powers ordered a referendum, which the Hungarians won. Although many Austrians considered the polls to be irregular, the decision was treated as definitive. The area called Burgenland by the Austrians was handed over to Austria in the autumn of 1921."

So what happened exactly? The Allies wanted it to be part of Austria, Hungary disagreed, called a referendum, won it, and the decision was "treated as definitive". But then it was handed over to Austria anyway? That doesn't sound like it was definitive to me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.27.120.14 (talk) 20:26, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Austria–Hungary relations. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110607150820/http://www.ena.lu/alois-mock-gyula-horn-open-iron-curtain-austria-hungary-27-june-1989-030705913.html to http://www.ena.lu/alois-mock-gyula-horn-open-iron-curtain-austria-hungary-27-june-1989-030705913.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 03:33, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Austria–Hungary relations. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120215184752/http://volksgruppen.orf.at/kroatenungarn/aktuell/stories/103313/ to http://volksgruppen.orf.at/kroatenungarn/aktuell/stories/103313/

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 06:50, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

84 citizens?
From the table in the article:


 * 84 Austrian citizens lived in Hungary in 2011

That sounds too low. Can that be right? --Gerrit CUTEDH 08:17, 11 May 2022 (UTC)