Talk:Austria-Hungary/Archive 4

Austro-Hungarian Empire
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"
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)
 * , 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)


 * I have no idea what you are talking about in your dispute with Slazenger, but in case of Austro-Hungarian Compromise I left an edit comment "removed parent category of Category:Hungary under Habsburg rule" which is simply applying the WP:SUBCAT guideline. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:34, 28 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
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:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761579967_1____7/austria-hungary.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111123182839/http://www.wien-vienna.com/austrohungary.php to http://www.wien-vienna.com/austrohungary.php

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) 06:19, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 9 November 2017

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: Not moved &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 13:46, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Austria-Hungary → Austro-Hungarian Empire – As the article already states "often referred to as the Austro-Hungarian Empire ... in English-language sources. The name "Austro-Hungarian Empire" is more descriptive than "Austria-Hungary". PBS (talk) 11:59, 9 November 2017 (UTC) --Relisting. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 15:58, 16 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Support as the nominator. I was surprised when a Goolge Book search of "Austria-Hungary" and "Austro-Hungarian Empire" appeared to show that  "Austria-Hungary" was the more common name. However when I restricted the search to 21st century, "Austro-Hungarian Empire" returned about 660 volumes while "Austria-Hungary" returned less than 380. -- PBS (talk) 11:59, 9 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment I read with interest the discussion higher up this page in which users Khajidha, KIENGIR, FkpCascais and  Bolzanobozen participated. Yes FkpCascais you are right both names are used (see my Support comment above). KIENGIR you argument about redirects works both ways if the article is moved the redirect from "Austria-Hungary" will exist so we can put that on to one side. As to your arguments about not being the official name, as Khajidha pointed out most county names are not under official state names, and besides "Austria-Hungary" was not the official name of the state. A direct comparison is with predecessor states of Austrian Empire and before it the  Holy Roman Empire neither article of which is at its formal self-identifying (German) name. -- PBS (talk) 11:59, 9 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Support, see the previous discussion for my reasons. --Khajidha (talk) 12:20, 9 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose, as per the already reffered earlier discussion.(KIENGIR (talk) 19:57, 9 November 2017 (UTC))


 * What is the problem that needs solving? The current title is more concise, and according to this Google Ngram, is more common.  —  AjaxSmack  01:07, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
 * The Google Ngram is primly showing usage prior to the 21st century (a Google Book search as I did above returns a different result). The current title is more concise, but it is too concise and not precise enough, because searches on "Austria-Hungary" will turn up anything which includes the two modern countries (Eg Migrants Cross Austria Border From Hungary and Hungary produced a Euro 2016 shock with a win over 10-man Austria). So "Austria-Hungary" is not a natural search criteria when looking for information on the Austro-Hungarian Empire. -- PBS (talk) 11:20, 10 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Current title still looks like the common name to me. Also good enough for Britannica. Jenks24 (talk) 17:00, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
 * @User:Jenks24 How did you asses what the common name is? -- PBS (talk) 20:50, 10 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Austria-Hungary is a perfectly common name in widespread use throughout the literature. - Darwinek (talk) 20:02, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose Austria-Hungary was good enough for Britannica 1911, as a historical topic I'm not sure why the common name would have changed in the past 100 years. This is definitely the Primary topic for Austria-Hungary. power~enwiki ( π, ν ) 06:53, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
 * In 1911 Austria-Hungary still existed, so it was not a historical topic when that source was written and there are some fairly obvious reasons why usage patterns may have shifted in favour of a formal political name since then. – filelakeshoe (t / c) &#xF0F6;  09:29, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose. PBS may be on to something about usage patterns changing towards using a political name for this former state, which often feels natural in historical writing, but I am not convinced a move is necessary. Austria-Hungary is still commonly used enough, and I agree with Power above that this state is still the primary topic for it - no other state named "Austria-Hungary" has ever existed. – filelakeshoe (t / c) &#xF0F6;  09:48, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Darwinek and power especially. Ribbet32 (talk) 00:38, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose the current title is also common. --Norden1990 (talk) 09:34, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose, as per above remarks. Borsoka (talk) 12:42, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Relisting comment - there is a consensus not to move at this stage, but this is an important topic, and conversation was still ongoing today so I'll give it one more round on the list. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 15:58, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Darwinek, et al.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 18:35, 16 November 2017 (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 or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Source for area of A-H
No source is given for the information in the info-box. Where does this come from? FOARP (talk) 15:49, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Looking into this, the only sourced statistic for area is that given for Austria Hungary as a whole in the Encyclopedia Britannica in 1911 (239,977 square miles). However, it is not entirely clear from the description whether this does or does not include Bosnia Herzegovina (19,702 sq. m). There is no source given at all for the larger area of 1918 nor any explanation as to what additional area this includes. As such I'm striking both from the info box until a source can be found. FOARP (talk) 12:12, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link 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:
 * Added tag to https://www.library6.com/books/523600.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110830204726/http://members.dame.at/diverpeter/baron_gautsch.htm to http://members.dame.at/diverpeter/baron_gautsch.htm
 * Added tag to https://www.library6.com/books/523600.pdf

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) 03:44, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Missleading maps of administrative internal divisions
All maps we have showing the internal divisions of both Austrian Empire and Austria-Hungary are incorrect. They ignore the Military Frontier. The MF was a major factor within internal politics of the empire. It was a multi-ethnic province directly ruled from Vienna. Hungary, Croatia-Slavonia, Voivodeship of Serbia and Banat of Temiswar all claimed the territories atributed to the MF to be restored to them, since they lost all control and power of decition in the territories within the MF. Local languages were disregarded and German was imposed. For exemple, Croatian-Slavonian deputies spent decades in the parliament in Budapest demanding the restauration of their authority in parts of the MF earlier were part of Croatia-Slavonia. That was their main agenda and clearly means it was a major issue and that Vienna by creating the MF removed the local rule from the neighbouring provinces inside the territory of the MF.

Why is this important? Because it is a fact that Military Frontier existed as separate province from its neighbours for long time, and as such, it should be indicated in the maps, as otherwise gives a false perception that other provinces ruled over areas which they actually didn´t, and were part of MF directly ruled by Vienna, and with its own governers and authority structure. FkpCascais (talk) 21:12, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I also noticed many mistakes in maps in many articles, but did not have enough time you care with them. If it was opened here, plus one addition:


 * - the "File:Austria-Hungary map new.svg" has a mistake, because Muraköz (Medimurje) is located at Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia, although then it was part of the Kingdom of Hungary and only after by the Treaty of Trianon it was ceded to the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes.(KIENGIR (talk) 22:12, 13 November 2018 (UTC))
 * However, as the Military Frontieres were abolished in 1881, not necessarily all maps are wrong if they depict the situation after 1881 (it does not have any connection to the other mistake I reflected)(KIENGIR (talk) 22:26, 13 November 2018 (UTC))


 * Military frontier can be put on a map, but the interpretation FkpCascais is giving here is incorrect and I will oppose it entering the article. Of course he hasn't backed up his claims with sources so here's one source which I found some time ago: "After many pleas from Jelecic, in 1850 the King's proclamation, which was signed by all 8 Austrian ministers, was finally announced...For Military Frontier, the King decided that it will remain within its present territory. However, it will with, Croatia and Slavonia, constitute a single land with disaggregated provincial and military administration, and representation.", page 157. This source is very clear with it's definition. Military Frontier is a part of Croatia-Slavonia, however it has a separate administration and representation. This separate administration and representation was abolished in 1881. I support adding MF to maps with this source that will give a context.  141.138.55.73 (talk) 00:10, 14 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Indeed KIENGIR, you are right, Military Frontier was abolished in 1881. However, most (to say all) maps show the situation just prior WWI and fail to point it out, leaving the impression those internal borders were as such all time. Maps showing the internal borders in different time periods, and more precition in pointing out the exact period the maps correspond to, would be extremelly beneficial.


 * Dear IP, first, you should understand the difference between Military Frontier and its sections. Military Frontier was never part of Croatia-Slavonia, some sections of it were later incorporated into it. Second thing, your source is the result of the claims Croatian-Slavonian parliament made, but doesn´t indicate if all, some, or any, points were accepted and became reality. Croatian-Slavonian parliament made many claims and demands, but they were too often turned down by Budapest and Vienna, which had the power of the decition. FkpCascais (talk) 04:33, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I have no problem of inclusion any map that is correct, depicting the situation before 1881. However, before that it should be supervised by the community that surely it does not have any mistake, at least also that mistake - that is out of the context of the MF debate - should be corrected as well that I reflected above.(KIENGIR (talk) 08:42, 14 November 2018 (UTC))
 * It's not a hard sentence to understand. If the King has proclaimed something and that was signed by all 8 ministers, I would think it's pretty official. Luckily I don't have to think, I have a secondary source141.138.55.73 (talk) 17:52, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

FkpCascais, so what exactly are you not getting about this source? It says that Military Frontier will continue to exist as a separate administrative unit, but that it with Croatia and Slavonia constitutes a single land. Does the term land confuses you? A land in this term is a "crown land". 141.136.229.217 (talk) 22:56, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I know that you desparatively want Military Froniter to be something separated from Croatia, but it wasn't. Let's leave this wikipeida secondary source stuff aside. If the king has proclaimed something and it was signed, what else should have been done for you to be satisfied and accept it? 141.136.229.217 (talk) 22:59, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
 * So, how is that I find duzens of sources saying Military Frontier existed as separate administrative unit dierctly ruled by Vienna (not Zagreb!) all way until 1881, while you just have one Wikisource with a Croatian text from 1905 basically not eeven saying what you claim but having that transcript of the declaration from 1850 which alsoo says "nothing was to change"? Find a real source, not Croatian, saying Military Frontier became part of Croatia in 1850, or back off and stop this madness. FkpCascais (talk) 23:11, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
 * BTW, the only one desperate here is you. I have tons of sources and evidence backing me, and no, Croatia-Slavonia and Military Forntier didn´t became any sort of "single land" in 1850. Deal with it. FkpCascais (talk) 23:18, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
 * It's not a wikisource any more. And yes, it's not a count which matters, but quality. This source indeed says the first part of your claim, but it adds a second one by directly referencing the kings proclamation. Why are you focusing on one part saying about separate administartion and representation, and ignoring the second part which says that it will however with Croatia and Slavonia constitute a single land? I don't have a transcript of the declaration. I wish i had it, because it would be interesting to read, but I only have a secondary source which is mentioning the declaration and saying that this declaration defined Military Frontier, Croatia and Slavonia to be a single land in 1850. So Croatian source is not good enough for you even though it directly references the kings proclamation? Look, you could have all those arguments before I found the source, but it's time to admit your defeat. I mean, the source is speaking for itself "However, it will with, Croatia and Slavonia, constitute a single land with disaggregated provincial and military administration, and representation.", what's not clear in this sentence? You are the only one of all editors on Tesla talk page who is complaining about the source. 141.136.229.217 (talk) 23:23, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Not even going to read that... Just find a source saying Croatia-Slavonia and Military Frontier became same unit in 1850, otherwise don´t bother. SUch event would have clearly found its place in some more books other than one Wikisource of a etxt from 1905 which, btw, says that but also says more things which turn that affirmation down. Just find more sources. That would solve it, but you clearly don´t have more sources, because that NEVER HAPPENED. FkpCascais (talk) 23:28, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
 * For years you were saying that it's separete because it was ruled by Vienna and I finally managed to find a source which says that your SYNTHESIS "Ruled by Vienna->Not same unit" is incorrect. 141.136.229.217 (talk) 23:32, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't need anything more than the kings proclamations interpreted by a secondary source. If it says more things, you are free to quote the source and prove that I have lied, but of source you won't do that. 141.136.229.217 (talk) 23:35, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
 * So no source? FkpCascais (talk) 23:35, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
 * What? The source is listed here, and I have extracted a qoute. You are the only one that is having trouble understanding that quote. Out of 6 or so editors on Tesla page. 141.136.229.217 (talk) 23:39, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Your source doesn´t even say what you pretend. You need more sources, and preferably in English.
 * Exemple, this is a source: The Habsburg rulers menaged to free most of Croatia from the Turks by 1699. The Treaty of Carlowitz, signed in that year, acknolledged this. The newly freeded areas of Croatia regained domestic autonomy, including their own Diet, or legislature. However, the Habsburg rulers continued to exercise direct control over the area of the "Military Frontier" because of its strategic significance. The separate military governament for the "Military Frontier" was not finally abolished until 1881. The tradition of the frontier remained long after 1881. (Nordic, Central, and Southeastern Europe 2015-2016, by Wayne C. Thompson, page 432).
 * Scholar, in English, and speaking clearly, not citing some declarations. Just this one brings ttoally down all you pertend. Also, you really think Zagreb and Timisoara were part of a "single land" from 1850 till 1881? You see how much sources you need to back that up, don´t you? FkpCascais (talk) 23:42, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
 * This is exactly what my source says. "My:separate administration"="Your:the Habsburg rulers continued to exercise direct control", "My:separate administration"="Your:separate military governament", but my also says "single lang". Is it my problem you have a source which ommits to mention that? Mine mentiones it and further is adding a direct quote supporting this claim. It simply cannot be stronger than that. Your source doesn't have a footnote and you are considering it to be of higher value. 141.136.229.217 (talk) 23:47, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Just find a scholar source that confirms that. FkpCascais (talk) 23:48, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
 * This one confirms it by stating the kings proclamation as a reference. 141.136.229.217 (talk) 23:51, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
 * No it doesn´t. It just cites what a declration issued by Croatian-Slavonian sabor in 1850 says. But also says "it all remained the same as it was". WHich brings down that anything changed. You need a source confirming what stated that declaration, really happened. And there is none, because that never happened. It was just an empty declaration. FkpCascais (talk) 23:54, 9 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Lets be clear once and for all:
 * Your source says: In 1850 Croatian-Slavonian sabor issued a declaration saying "Croatia, Slavonia and MF should constitute a single land. Despite this, everything should remain as it is".
 * Are you having problems with the native language of the source? This quote you stated doesnt exist. Especially the word "should" as you stated it141.136.229.217 (talk) 00:29, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
 * You need a source that says "Croatia, Slavonia and MF became one single land". Do you understand? You need a source that confirms what declaration said was done. FkpCascais (talk) 23:58, 9 December 2018 (UTC)


 * I can write "The Moon is pink". You may have then a source saying "FkpCascais wrote the Moon is pink and he signed it". That is not enough for going to Moon article and writing it is pink! FkpCascais (talk) 00:01, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
 * First of all it quotes the kings proclamation, not a declaration by Croatian-Slavonian sabor, as it is sayd "in 1850 the King's proclamation". Second, how can you not understand that it is a secondary source citing it, not me. By it being a secondary source, it gives the interpretation to that quote. If the author feels that the quote from the primary source is simple enough to understand, he can just put the quote. If the quote is misleading in any way then we can expect from the secondary source to explain. Why am I explaining to you most basic Wikipedia rule? The source is not saying it was just an empty declaration. Why are you adding this made up claims? "It all remained the same as it was" - are you referring here to the part of the source which says "it will remain within its present territory." after which in the next sentence says "However, it will with, Croatia and Slavonia, constitute a single land". Where does it say "it remained as it was" I would like to read the full context in the source.141.136.229.217 (talk) 00:04, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
 * You are not putting the correct quotes. Whare does it say should? Where is the sentence "Despite everything remained the same"? Put a correct quote, you can do it on the native language, I can read it, but stop misquoting 141.136.229.217 (talk) 00:06, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
 * "Za Krajinu odlučuje kralj, da će i nadalje ostati „unutar svoga dosadašnjega zemljišnoga prostora"; ipak će „sa svojom materom zemljom Hrvatskom i Slavonijom činiti jednu zemlju, no s razlučenom provincijalnom i vojničkom upravom, te s razlučenim zastupanjem".
 * I didn't even translate "sa svojom materom zemljom (With its mother land Coratia and Slavnoia)"? 141.136.229.217 (talk) 00:11, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Whare is the sentence "sve je ostalo isto kao prije (it all remained the same as it was)", I'm not seeing it. 141.136.229.217 (talk) 00:13, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
 * It is irrelevant what that declaration says. You need to provide a source peferably from a contemporary historian, saying that happened. You don´t have it because it didn´t happened. Moon is not pink despite me having written that. Without a good source you want get anywhere. FkpCascais (talk) 00:37, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
 * It's not irrelevant, and I have provided a secondary source from a contemporary historian saying that happened. 141.136.229.217 (talk) 00:41, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
 * It is because the source just cites the declaration and says "Bla bla should do this", you need a source saying that happened.
 * Where you provided a souce? FkpCascais (talk) 00:43, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Why are you mentioning the word "should" which is nowhere to be found in the source? This secondary source is clearly saying that the kind decided in his proclamation in 1850 that Military Frontier will with its mother land Croatia and Slavonia constitute a single land. Why would I need another source to say the same thing? Look at this "Za Krajinu odlučuje kralj (For Krajina the king decides)". 141.136.229.217 (talk) 00:50, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Your entire source speaks in future tense! You read it very well. Exemple "da će i nadalje ostati" (that should stay together). That entire part is writen suggesting what shall happened, and not saying it happened.
 * Now, where is that alleged conetmporary source you just now said you already presented? Was it you or was it Bilseric? ;) FkpCascais (talk) 00:57, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Again incorrect. "da će i nadalje ostati" (that should stay together) is a direct quote that the secondary source does from the 1850 declaration. You are trying to say that your interpretation of the primary source is more legit that the one put by this secondary source. The secondary source is the one that we are discussing the whole time Najnovije_doba_hrvatske_povjesti_(R._Horvat). 141.136.229.217 (talk) 01:06, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Its all written from that period citing what the declaration said. You need sources to confirm everything said there happened. All sources indicate it didn´t and that Croatia had no matters with MF all waay until at least 1881. What happened with the source you said you already presented? FkpCascais (talk) 01:14, 10 December 2018 (UTC)


 * No you are completely wrong here, the secondary source is from 1906. It's perfectly legit for a secondary source to state a claim by citing the primary source. Ask any experienced editor on Wikipedia. If you want another source to confirm this one, how about the one posted on Tesla page which is saying the same thing: "At that time Croatia was the military frontier district of the Austro-Hungarian Empire and the area was sometimes referred to as the Krajina.". 141.136.229.217 (talk) 01:38, 10 December 2018 (UTC)


 * What now. Do I need third source because 2 aren't good enough? It's time to face it that youre interpretation is wrong. It's really nothing you can do to disprove this source since it directly references the kings proclamation. 141.136.229.217 (talk) 18:51, 10 December 2018 (UTC)


 * , I see that you are confused to which source I referring. Look to the top of this discussion. I posted on November 14. 141.136.219.74 (talk) 20:48, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

, so if you don't disagree any more, I will put this source to the article. It already is stated in Military Frontier article. 89.164.154.220 (talk) 20:19, 28 December 2018 (UTC) Sock struck Nil Einne (talk) 16:43, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Especially, this part I did not participate in the discussion, only to the map question raised by FkpCascais, thus you cannot qualify me agreeing/disagreeing on anything in this matter. Seek consensus first, I recommend you to involve and WikiProject Croatia and WikiProject Former countries/Austria-Hungary task force.(KIENGIR (talk) 13:09, 30 December 2018 (UTC))
 * Ok. I can have a look when I get more time. I'm editing several other articles so I don't have much time now. This book contains a lot of great material that can be included into many articles. It's a quality piece. It would be great if an English translation could be found. Maybe I'll look around. Until then, I'll do the edit and see if someone reverts. Then we can discuss. Bye until then. 89.164.154.220 (talk) 19:51, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 03:37, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Naval Ensign of Austria-Hungary (1918).svg

(Controversial?) change to Flag of Austria-Hungary
Should the Flag of the House of Habsburg be added above the Civil Ensign in the infobox, as such: User:Havsjö/sandbox?--Havsjö (talk) 13:43, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Hello Wikipedians. I have a long time thought about this proposal regarding a change to the infobox (and perhaps other places on wikipedia, if you read the full text) regarding the Flag of Austria-Hungary. Please read the full text before drawing a conclusion!! The Austro-Hungarian Empire did not have a national flag (both due to the unqie nature of the empire and due to being a very "old style country" of an older age, where such things weren't as obvious/common, see similar messy flag situation in Russian Empire! (although that is a different topic, hehe..)). Within the Empire, Austria used the black-yellow flag, while Hungary used the Red-White-Green flag. For merchants ship and such, the empire implemented a common civil ensign, but this was/is not the "Flag of Austria-Hungary". In most cases, Austria and Hungary used their respective national flag to represent themselves at all occasions. and the empire often represented with both flags.

BUT, the black-yellow flag was also the Flag of the Habsburgs, the rulers of the entire Empire. Because of this, this flag was did see as the sort of de-facto flag of AH. The "patriotic flag" for the united empire. Here is a link https://imgur.com/a/DYCflYL  showing example cases of this in in several instances from WW1 propaganda. One may also find propaganda with AH being represented by both the Austrian and Hungarian flag together (Or only Hungarian, for specifically Hungarian language propaganda targeted towards Hungary). But in most cases, one can see clearly from this example, the Habsburg flag in usage as the de-facto flag of the entire empire, due to the dynasty's ruling role. (Note that the civil ensign will never be used to represent AH in any such way as this was simply the merchant ensign!)

The German language wikipedia (and therefor, also Austrian wikipedia) shows the black-yellow flag to represent Austria in many military contexts for this reason, as the civil ensign for merchant shipping really has no place in such contexts! Some examples of this are are here, here, here or here The problem is I feel Wikipedia has been quite harmfull by having this civil ensign as the (only) flag of AH in this article. In very many cases (especially online) I see people use this ensign to represent Austria-Hungary in all cases, treating it as the definitive flag of Austria-Hungary (also like they "changed to flag" from black-yellow to the "double-flag" after the establishment of AH), which I feel Wikipedia plays a large role in with its prominent display of the flag here!! This is what has brought me to propose this change, as I feel this is honestly harmfull and is warping the perception and how this flag was treated. The civil ensign, was of course a real flag which saw plenty use and should not be exchanged or replaced on this page. It is truly a common (as in, "for both parts of the Empire" context) flag for Austria-Hungary, after all. But the Black-Yellow flag did not stop seeing usage as the flag of the Habsburgs and their empire after the double monarchy began and has been described sometimes as the unofficial "national flag" in the way it was used. I say "national flag" loosely, though, as both Austria and Hungary used their respective (actually "national") flag in most cases, but if you were to display the "Flag of Austro-Hungarian Empire", it would be the Habsburg flag first and Civil Ensign second.

I suggest that in the same manner as the page for the Commonwealth of the Philippines, this page should have the Black-Yellow flag named "Flag of the Habsburg Dynasty" (or Family/Monarchy) at the top and the Civil Ensign underneath, named "Civil Ensign".

I understand this rather "big" change to a long standing situation which I could see could cause some knee-jerk reactions among people here, but that is why I implore people here to think about this what Ive said here before shooting this idea down. This is very helpful both for Historical Accuracy and for the understanding/education of (uninitiated) people who will read this page. (The civil ensign is of course still present in the infobox.)

A second, perhaps more controversial suggestion, is that if this would be implemented, that the Flag icon, Austria-Hungary, like this, should use the Black-Yellow flag in all military contexts (such as all infoboxes for battles which the empire took part in) instead of the civil ensign, for the same reasons as shown above. However, this is a separate suggestion (although which I hope people should agree on too!), so please dont reject everything if you dont agree with the last part.

Anyway, if you consier the infbox change as Suggestion 1 and site-wide military usage as Suggestion 2 please write Support 1/2 Support 1, Oppose 2 or however you feel regarding these changes! --Havsjö (talk) 13:43, 3 February 2019 (UTC)


 * The German Wikipedia is heavily inaccurate sometimes. The Black-Yellow flag meant for the Austrian Empire this timeline (regardless before and as well originally denoted the Habsburg Monarhcy), thus it cannot be used for military contexts of Austria-Hungary, anyway until 1915 the War Flag of Austria-Hungary I added recently, in 1915 a new war flag was introduced but never came into effect or use. In case, returning back to the infobox question, if we use multiple flags, we should add all of them, and the same should go for the coat of arms, as after 1915 it also changed.


 * Thus


 * Suggestion 1 -> Add "Flag of Austria and the Habsburg Monarchy" as "Flag of Austria" and "Flag of Hungary" into the infobox, becase there was not a common official flag, and with this you should be satisfied as the black-yellow flag for Austria is represented. But then also the "Medium Coat of Arms of Austria-Hungary" should be added since the one appears were used only until 1915.


 * Suggestion 2 -> In case the change would be supported, it may be the "War flag of Austria-Hungary" (having this is only valid until 1915), but not any case the black-yellow, because it would be inaccurate and misleading.(KIENGIR (talk) 15:10, 3 February 2019 (UTC))


 * I see your point on Suggestion 2, regarding the military flag, but I meant it may be better to have the "imperial flag" (of the habsburgs) rather than the civil ensign for war relation stuff (as the imgur link I posted originally also shows!). But for suggestion 1 I dont think its right (or even technically possible in the infbox) to add 3 flags. Besides, the Hungarian flag was only for Hungary proper, not for, say, Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia, which was part of the "Hungarian Half", but not "Hungary" (If I have understood you correctly(?)) So it would not cover everything. Therefore, the black-yellow flag is included in the infobox not as the "flag of Austria" but as the "flag of the Habsburg dynasty" (followed by the Civil Ensign), as these are the 2 flags which represents the entire empire (and if only the civil ensign is used it gives an incorrect perception of the reality regarding the "empires flag" and flag usage etc). The flag section in the article itself then explains the various flags and the messy details and so on for specific parts of the empire, naval ensigns etc.. (PS. the current coat of arms was also used for far longer than the "medium coat", which was only used for the shaky last 3 years of the empire)--Havsjö (talk) 15:41, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

I have created a sandbox on my page to show how I think it would look/be made: EXAMPLE--Havsjö (talk) 16:15, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
 * What is your brief and neutral statement? -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 19:39, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Should the Flag of the House of Habsburg be added above the Civil Ensign in the infobox, as such: User:Havsjö/sandbox?--Havsjö (talk) 21:11, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
 * See WP:RFC: the opening statement belongs after the tag. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 00:11, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Havsjö,
 * regarding Suggestion 2, if we have a War Flag, we should use that instead of the Black-Yellow Flag (and insted of the civil ensign that is used now), thus I support in case only the change to the War Flag I presented not else.


 * regarding Suggestion 1, I tend to accept your proposal you made in your sandbox (ok, let's not include 3 flags...), but having also included then the medium coat of arms I presented, then I think we would be in balance (regardless what was used longer in the Empire, but the latter is more recent and used mostly in historical references).(KIENGIR (talk) 21:12, 4 February 2019 (UTC))
 * I did not disagree with the war-flag idea for Suggestion 2, I was just explaining what I meant originally, hehe. Anyway, neutral question: How often was that flag used outside naval stuff? I dont think ive seen it outside of usage for the KuK Navy? I thank you for your support of Suggestion 1. I am a little unsure about the Coat of Arms (since the current one was used for 48 years out of the empires 51 and then one you propose only for the last 3...) But honestly I dont really have any strong opinions on the coat of arms one way or the other and I would not object if it was changed. (Maybe this is a separate topic from the flag discussion? or maybe its good to include "while we're at"!) --Havsjö (talk) 22:11, 4 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Suggestion 2 -> Understood. Answer: if you check the description of the flag: "naval and war flag of Austria-Hungary form 1880 until 1915", I think this is enough, if we wish to be the most accurate.


 * I think we should not introduce more separate topics as you have been noted people who are not necessarily well-experienced in this topic first glance may hardly see clear in these things. Thus I recommend for us to make a consensus, after waiting i.e. one week, and if noone objects then let's do the changes.


 * Suggestion 2 -> Treat it as a balance, I respect your wish to include something that's a bit inaccurate since it is represeting the Habsburg Monarchy (but then nominally the Asutrian Empire), and not really Austria-Hungary, in return I ask you the accept the medium Coat of Arms that was official and referred today more often (thus 2 flags, 2 coat of arms, fair deal I think - I never said to remove the existing one.(KIENGIR (talk) 22:22, 4 February 2019 (UTC))
 * Alright, I can accept that. But FYI, I should tell you that the inclusion of the Habsburg flag is not really "inaccurate" and several sources talk about it as the national flag of Austria-Hungary (even though they officially did not have one, going back what I was talking about in my original post). Anyway, like you said, I hope some more people will give their thoughts on the matter as well--Havsjö (talk) 22:30, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
 * , Thank you! (FYI, I just wrote "a bit" :) ) Cheers(KIENGIR (talk) 22:33, 4 February 2019 (UTC))

I have some more pictures which further (rather perfectly) illustrate my point which I think would be good to share: https://imgur.com/a/HQbDwmo . Notice how the flag book from 1920 even lists it as "National Flag of Austria-Hungary before the World War", technically incorrect, but since it was basically used as such, an easy mistake? The other picture shows Germany, Ottomans, Austria AND Hungary. Yet the flags dont show both countries flags (which you can also find in this kind of propaganda) but just the flags of the full empires: Germany, Ottoman and Austro-Hungarian. (A good example of how it was used for the whole empire)--Havsjö (talk) 22:56, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, I don't think this we could use or rely on, it does not seem necessarily reliable, could be as well a mistake or an appelation to the lands ruled by Habsburgs, though anyway in your sandbox everything looks fine recently, presenting the black-yellow as the House of Habsburg is the less controverisal.(KIENGIR (talk) 00:04, 5 February 2019 (UTC))
 * Well yes, the 1920's book is incorrect, they did not have a real national flag, but I thought it further illustrated well how it was used as an unofficial/de-facto national flag that it was even presented/believed to actually be so (in "contemporary" times). I again, think that the "national flag" should be used instead of the civil ensign for military contexts. I mean, we use the national flag for all other countries. The German Empire uses its flag and not the Reichskriegsflagge (outside of Naval context, like how the Naval/War ensign is used for AH now). This also carries over to "allegiance" section for military people, like this: Oskar Potiorek. It would be more fitting since their allegiance is with the Habsburg's Empire (and its flag) and not the merchant flag, if you catch my drift--Havsjö (talk) 00:18, 5 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Just to clarify to the other readers, regarding Suggestion 1 we reached a consensus thay may be seen on Havsjö's sandbox. Now we are discussing Suggestion 2 on further:


 * Please to avoid any confusion do not call "national flag" what is not a national flag, let's refer to it as black-yellow flag! Based on our discussion in my talk page, I propose for war contexts the following three (the 1st for common involvement, the 2nd for strictly naval involvement, the 3rd for strictly Hungarian naval involvement):(KIENGIR (talk) 00:36, 5 February 2019 (UTC))


 * I also post here what I said on your talk page regarding this: The thing is, countries (and especially european countries) in these times did often have a naval ensign, which was almost treated on the same level as the "national flag" (a concept that was not as common at this time either, with flags not always being as "defined" as today) A good example of this is the Russian Empire, with its many messy flags (red-white-blue, white-yellow-black, the imperial yellow with black bird) and very common usage of its Naval Flag (white with a blue X) (a mess further expanded on on the Russian version of that page and http://www.vexillographia.ru/russia/index.htm (the russian version of it, anyway)). They were all used at the same period and are used to in different times and places to "represent Russia" as "their flag" almost randomly! Anyway, the Naval flag of AH (like the Reichkriegsflagge of Germany) were quite defined as the flags of their Navies, while the army did not have such an "definitive" flag equivalent but used more heraldic banners such as the one to the right. (i.e. its not like the Flag of Italian Social Republic, which had a clear regular and war variant. So I do not think it the bird standard flags should be included among the civil/naval ensigns on the AH page, perhaps on a separate section under the Austrian/Hungarian/Croatian flags would be fitting? (and maybe its time to make that rather big section its own article?)--Havsjö (talk) 00:39, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Also, btw, note that on the https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Marineehrenmal_Laboe_-_Marineflaggen.jpg image here, the Naval/War Ensign of AH is even included. Listed as "Flagge der kaiserlich-königlichen Österreich-Ungarischen Kriegsmarine (1786-1918)" or "Flag of the Imperial-Royal Austro-Hungarian War Fleet [or Navy] (1786-1918)"--Havsjö (talk) 00:47, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
 * If my eyes don't cheat me this is the that war/naval ensign that I originally proposed for war cases (in my previous comment the "2nd", though the armour is in the middle, not pushed to the left..)....you want this or the the "1st" designated in my previous comment?(KIENGIR (talk) 00:51, 5 February 2019 (UTC))
 * That is what I mean, it is indeed that flag (and you can see on the information table that it is pushed to the left as well), but it was only for the Navy (which it is used as for on Wikipedia already, such as here Battle of Antivari or SMS Zenta here. But its not a "War Flag" for the whole country. But which is why I feel the Black-yellow should be used for military matter which is not Naval, as this "Imperial flag"/"Flag of the Habsburg's (and their empire)"/"unofficial national flag" is a better fit than the current merchant ensign for these more "national" affairs and which is what should be shown the alliegance is towards, such as here Svetozar Boroević, they would not "swear allegiance" to a merchant ensign--Havsjö (talk) 00:58, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I should also mention that the bird flag to the right is the imperial standard and this banner could be used as the flag of the KuK Army in general, such as the Bavarian Army etc which can be seen in Adolf Hitlers infobox. It should not replace the "country flag", just like how German Imperial Army flag does not replace the German Empire country flag in infoboxes of battles etc.Edit:simplified what im saying, hehe--Havsjö (talk) 01:07, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I see. I propose now to wait and postpone suggestion 2, we should gather more information to find out the best solution. Let's wait one week if anyone would oppose the consensus proposal for suggestion 1. In case it is accepted and executed, let's return to suggestion 2.(KIENGIR (talk) 01:25, 5 February 2019 (UTC))


 * No to the RFC question, which only concerns the infobox on this page. And I implore the two of you to use less boldface. We should not institute this change based on propaganda pictures. What flag flew at Austro-Hungarian embassies? What flag flew on Franz-Josef Land? (I know that one.) What flag flew alongside the Red Cross flag at field hospitals? Srnec (talk) 04:05, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
 * The change is not simply based on the propaganda pictures, I just thought they were a good way of illustrating what I mean since they are easily available images of "patriotic display of the flag" and are "premade with context", since you automatically know they are trying to represent the countries of the Central Powers (and gives a good reflection when it comes to the more "patriotic and military", you would never find the civil ensign in such contexts). Showing the Civil Ensign used at different places is not real a "counter argument" since I of course agree with that is saw common usage and should remain alongside the Black-Yellow flag, but like I said originally, only using it gives of the wrong impression of the historical reality (and should not have been so accepted here definitively in the first place..) I would also point somewhat of a conundrum: if I provide good sources about this issue, it would probably correctly say "The Austro-Hungarian Empire did not have a national flag", however "worse" sources would probably say "The Black-Yellow flag was Austria-Hungary's national flag", based on what I have been trying to show in how it was used as the de-facto/unoffical/"like a" national flag (that even contemporary sources (erroneously) listed is as such). "More correct" sources would rightfully state "it did not have a flag", which then is technically more true, but also in a way "wrong"!! Which is why I have tried used so many images to try to illustrate this reality better  (in the second link i am also trying to show that it definately not "only Austria/Cislethania" being shown, even though this is quite obvious in most of the first links pictures as well). Of course, in most cases, Austria and Hungary would use the respective flag in their repsective business, so there would not be any use of a common flag (aside from the civil ensign for civil ships, obviously), but one of the things they were truly united in was, for example War, which is why the war propaganda is also good to show this "common flag" of the Habsburgs be used for the whole empire. Also, keep in mind the black-yellow flag had been the "national flag" of entire land of the Austrian Empire since the days of the Habsburg Monarchy. The Habsburgs were still rulers of the same lands (although now as both Emperor of Austria and King of Hungary) even after 1867 and when you can then see that even though only Austria after that officially used the flag as its national flag, it till saw use to represent the entire Empire (as the Habsburg flag) even in the last years of the country in WW1 (and be sometimes shown as "unofficial national flag of AH" etc etc) it was still indeed used in the way ive talked about and shown a lot... I hope this clarifies my point better and make you reconsider a bit--Havsjö (talk) 07:14, 5 February 2019 (UTC)


 * I am not sure it is true that Austria-Hungary did not have a "national flag". Of course, it is true in the sense that Austria-Hungary wasn't a nation. But did Austria-Hungary the state have a flag that represented it as a state? That's a surprisingly difficult question to answer. I think, however, that it did and that the dual flag was that flag. The problem with your images is that they are all of one kind. They are German propaganda images. I am not disputing the use of the black-and-gold or its appropriateness in some contexts on Wikipedia, but the fact that the Hungarian flag was flown alongside the black-and-gold flag on state occasions makes me suspect that the black-and-gold was largely seen as an Austrian flag in international contexts (something Germans speaking among Germans, as in your pics, might not care about). Srnec (talk) 13:21, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
 * (PS. You asked " What flag flew on Franz-Josef Land? (I know that one.)" and I can tell you "no", that was for civilian ships (like the image you linked also shows), not flown on land in AH. A civil/merchant ensign, not the "Flag of Austria-Hungary", which is what people get the impression of with the way its treated, especially on Wikipedia, and which why I trying to make this change!)--Havsjö (talk) 07:14, 5 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Are you saying that the "civil ensign" was NOT flown at embassies or field hospitals? And what flag was planted on Franz-Josef Land, given that all accounts agree an "Austro-Hungarian flag" was planted? (It wasn't A-H land.) Srnec (talk) 13:21, 5 February 2019 (UTC)


 * I quite clearly said it was indeed a true, common austro-hungarian handelsflagge (merchant ensign) and which is why it should also remain. I have nothing "against it" and dont want it removed and of course agree it was commonly used etc etc But I only argue for the inclusion of the black-yellow flag. Which you didnt mention at all in your response... Btw, genuine question, do you have any picture or anything regarding embassy flags etc? Ive always wondered what flag they used in such places, but haven't found any concrete fact. (Wow, I totally missed ur first response! the context is now quite a bit different!)


 * Well, Austria-Hungary did 100% definitely not have a common national/state flag, and the respective flag for Austria and Hungary was mostly used for (and sometimes also for areas like Bohemia and Croatia-Slavonia (I know Bohemia even had their own flags in Olympics, for example). I have indeed actually not found any concrete information about flags at embassies etc, but I would strongly assume both Austrian + Hungarian flags. Ive only ever seen the merchant ensign as, well, a merchant ensign used on vessels at sea (and it was prescribed to only be used at sea...) I see your point regarding the german "angle" on the propaganda pictures. But there are very many pictures of equal style (also in German) with Hungary and Austrian flags. its basically like this. >Propaganda specifically for Austria = Black-Yellow flag (Austrian Flag) >Propaganda specifically for Hungary = Red-White-Green flag (Hungarian Flag) >Enemy/Foreign Propaganda/Representation  = Civil ensign makes it easy to represent AH, but not a very "patriotic" flag, so its basically never used in such contexts by AH itself. >Propaganda regarding the entire Empire = Black-Yellow and Red-White-Green (Austria and Hungary) or only Black-Yellow (Flag of the Habsburgs and their empire) TERRIBLY sorry for not seeing your message before, I really thought this conversation took a very different direction!!--Havsjö (talk) 15:29, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Here are also some more Central powers memorabilia https://imgur.com/a/3USMss5 showing some German stuff with both the Austrian and Hungarian flags and occasions were even Hungarian stuff show only the Habsburg flag. Just dropping it here to "broaden the view". All these pictures I send arent the reason for change itself, but just for "demonstration purposes" to show it what im talking about --Havsjö (talk) 16:15, 5 February 2019 (UTC)


 * What is the basis for the statement that ? It may be true, but it seems to me that certain contexts may have required a flag internationally recognised as the flag of Austria-Hungary (and not just her merchant marine), whether the Austro-Hungarian government made much use of it or not. Using the civil ensign would assure recognisability. That is why I keep mentioning embassies (where I suppose two flags may have done the trick) and field hospitals (where I think the Geneva Convention may have required a national flag). It is genuinely amazing how hard it is to find RS on this. Srnec (talk) 21:56, 5 February 2019 (UTC)


 * In the Austrian Empire, since the days of the Habsburg Monarchy, the country/empire had not had a so called national flag, these kind of very "old world" empires did not always have the modern definition of a national/state flag. The Black-Yellow flag of the Habsburgs Family (since this was the Habsburg Empire) was used in a similar way to it however and can be called the unofficial or de facto national flag, but was still just the flag of the Family. When they changed the constitution in 1867, nothing really changed flag-wise since the empire did not have a flag. It was still the Habsburg Empire and their family flag had the same status etc, as it had before the agreement. Two years later the common civil ensign (the handelsflagge or "merchant ensign") was introduced to include Hungary in it as well. The now far more autonomous/independent Hungary also used its own flag way more. So Hungary generally used their flag and the Austrian part kept using the Black-Yellow. It was however, like ive said, still sometimes used for the whole Habsburg Empire since it was the flag of the  still ruling Habsburgs, and had been used as such for 100's of years with nothing having changed its legal/official status. For AH itself, Ive never seen a instance of this civil ensign treated/called more than a handelsflagge and it was specifically prescribed to be only used at sea. But I would assume it became more "definitive" in the eyes of much of the worlds since all AH vessels they would encounter would fly this flag. (and I would also assume this was the described "Austro-Hungarian" flag planted in the Expedition, since that was the flag they evidently flew on their ship (as it was supposed to). But it was not a flag raised on land in any way and not a very "patriotic flag". You could not even be a citizen of Austria-Hungary, it was Austrian or Hungary, and most things was separated in such a way that either one or the other flag flew. (and which is why I believe both would fly at the common/shared embassies) So basically, the "national flag of Austria-Hungary" was the Flag of Austria and the Flag of Hungary (but then there also Croatia-Slavonia with its flag in the Hungarian half...!) But if you were to ask "what flag did the "united empire" use?" The answer would be the (same "unofficial" status as it always had) Habsburg flag and/or the Civil Ensign. (Even though the Habsburg flag did see less use now than in the Austrian Empire, since the empire was more "split up" now, but nothing had really changed for its status as the flag of the Habsburg Empire). Really a giant mess that doesnt really mesh with our modern notions of how countries and their flags "should work", but which is also the reason why I want to reduce the status of the civil ensign as the "clear" flag of Austro-Hungary in peoples eyes, since it cannot correctly be called that and was not regarded as such by the people of Austria-Hungary itself--Havsjö (talk) 08:50, 6 February 2019 (UTC)


 * According to de:Rudolf Agstner, the merchant ensign and the consular flag were the same. The consular flag was decreed as a symbol of corporate identity on 18 February 1869 and introduced on 1 August that year. This was flown by consulates only. Legations flew both the black-and-yellow Austrian flag (as he calls it) and the red-white-green Hungarian flag. Embassies flew both of those as well as the imperial standard (see here). I am not convinced putting the black-and-yellow flag above the current one is an improvement. How the black-and-yellow flag was perceived by German speakers (in A-H and in Germany) does not seem terribly important to me compared to what flag represented A-H to the world. For that, the civil ensign/consular flag seems best (which is why Entente propaganda seems to prefer it). Srnec (talk) 03:25, 7 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Wow, thats an excellent source! Finally a clear answer on the embassy question. I admit I the "status" of the Civil Ensign has become a bit raised in my eyes (even if it was only for consulates), interesting note about the colours of the flagpole as well. I agree the the Austrian part (and Germany) would probably be consider the Black-Yellow flag more far more "definitive", but even in the Hungarian part a "patriotic citizen" could still fly/raise the Black-Yellow flag for the Habsburg House and say "this is us" even though they did not have that flag officially like the Austrian part (which was, btw, more than just "mainland Austria"), as they still were part of their Empire just as much as Austria. As could even outsiders consider those lands the "Habsburgs Empire", as it still were, with that dynasty's flag still being the Habsburg flag of that Habsburg empire, as it "always" had been. But anyway, I can defiantly a good argument to keeping this information outside of directly in the infobox being made now! Again, great source! (PS. Semi-Unrelated Note: I found an interesting picture of what seems to be the Black-Yellow flag flying on the Royal Palace in AH occupied Belgrade, Serbia in 1915. ) (PPS. Wow, I found many very interesting pictures with flags in them from Occupied Areas in WW1 from the Austrian Archives!! --Havsjö (talk) 10:23, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

I have to admit to being ignorant of the flag situation wrt A-H Empire, so I won't offer an opinion on that. However, I did wonder about other, analogous temporary unions that might offer insight, or additional angles of looking at the situation. Anyway, reading over the situation reminded me of the short-lived United Arab Republic, which, for a while, had one flag, later adopted by one of the two countries involved (Syria), while the other one (Egypt) retained the "United" name for a while, though they were the only on in the "Union". Not sure which flag they used, at that point. Naturally, every situation is different; just throwing this out there, in case it helps in some small way. Mathglot (talk) 08:11, 7 February 2019 (UTC)