Talk:Austrian Armed Forces/Archive 1

Comment
The Austrian Military is regarded as one of the best trained in the world I sthis really neccesarry, all 1st world countries from the USA, Western europe, japan, Australia have a well developed and trained military when compared to Afica and less weathier countries. Enlil Ninlil 23:31, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Introduction
"Between 1918 and 1921, the Austrian semi-regular army was called Volkswehr ("People's Defence"), and fought against Slovenian indigenous inhabitants in Carinthia" This army wasn't even semi-regular. They were local militias in Carinthia. This should not stand here, it has nothing to do with the regular Austrian military. --Kl4Uz 13:15, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

The Austrian Military is regarded as one of the best trained in the world - that´s a very bold statement. I served in the austrian army in the 90's, and our training was poor. The only well trained units compared to other european countries armed forces are the air force, some special units and those units which serve abroad (on UN-missions etc.)


 * Your individual and personal experience of serving as a conscriptionist are nice and interessenting to read, but does not contribute to an article of an encyclopedia at all. What branch did you serve in? Which rank did you carry? Which advanced training did you undergo? NCO-career? Officer career? Have you been on field duty together with units of other countries so that you are able to compare skills? As long as you served as draftee your comment is not worth a dime. Would you consider the pronouncement of an assembly-line worker as being relevant for characterizing a company's know how? Either way, "one of the best trained armies in the world" sounds a little bit too patriotic and glorifying.-- CSA8720 (talk) 13:47, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Appearance
"Branches of service are identified by beret colors: scarlet for the honour Guard; green for infantry; black for armor; cherry for air force; and dark blue for quartermaster."

Actually, members of the air force wear a so called "Fliegerschiffchen" (flight-cap) (as can be seen on this picture). As far as I know, the colour cherry is not used. However, members of the 25th Infantry Bataillon ("Jägerbataillon 25") are wearing a wine-red (bordeaux) beret and the military police ("Militärstreife") wears a coralline beret. Further information can be found here on the offical homepage of the Austrian Armed Forces (however, it is in German!). NTurrini (talk) 14:16, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

ENGVAR
The first non-stub variety used in this article was BrE with Oxford spelling, and the article should remain in that variety. One can see this here. RGloucester — ☎ 21:44, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Can you take a consistent tack on this, or is it just ok to revert english when it has gone from British English, if, lord forbid, someone types something in American English, and it's changed to British, can you be as responsive to changing it back? Like humour??  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.14.212.141 (talk) 08:03, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
 * The first non-stub variety used AMERICAN ENGLISH! Please stop crusading to make everything your preferred english (as done in Adhessive Plaster ~ipuser 90.192.101.114 (talk) 08:05, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
 * It was not "American English". I showed it above. It was BrE with Oxford spelling, which is not even a form I prefer. "Defence" is found with "-ize" spelling, and also with "US" without the full stops. Those are clear markers. RGloucester  — ☎ 14:58, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Austrian Armed Forces. 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/20170317171915/http://lcweb2.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?frd%2Fcstdy%3A%40field%28DOCID+at0158%29 to http://lcweb2.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?frd%2Fcstdy%3A%40field%28DOCID+at0158%29
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160304133446/http://www.doppeladler.com/oebh/kette/leopard.htm/ to http://www.doppeladler.com/oebh/kette/leopard.htm/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20170317172339/http://lcweb2.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?frd%2Fcstdy%3A%40field%28DOCID+at0162%29 to http://lcweb2.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?frd%2Fcstdy%3A%40field%28DOCID+at0162%29

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) 16:21, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 11 September 2018

 * 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. While there is a general indication that Austrian Armed Forces is not perfect, there is no consensus to move the article to Bundesheer at this time. (non-admin closure) &mdash; Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 17:52, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Austrian Armed Forces → Bundesheer – The official name of the Austrian military (as used by everyone) is "Bundesheer", comparable to the German Bundeswehr. The Bundesheer has never been referred to as "österreichische Streitkräfte(=Austrian Armed Forces)" and hence, I don't see why this article should be called that way. Colonestarrice (talk) 11:08, 11 September 2018 (UTC) --Relisting. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 talk to me &#124; my contributions 13:53, 20 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose – The subject of this article uses the name 'Austrian Armed Forces' in English. See their website (http://www.bundesheer.at/english/index.shtml). This is also the WP:COMMONNAME in English-language sources. The German name is irrelevant. This is the English Wikipedia, and we use WP:ENGLISH names here. RGloucester  — ☎ 21:42, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment. The WP:COMMONNAME is most certainly not "Austrian Armed Forces." I'm theoretically open to moving the article to "Austrian military" or "Military of Austria," but these terms, while certainly better than "Austrian Armed Forces," still have the same ambiguity issue. Kramler (talk) 22:57, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
 * How do you square your comment ("This is the English Wikipedia, and we WP:USEENGLISH names here") with the actual wording of the use English policy which states "the choice between anglicized and local spellings should follow English-language usage e.g. the non-anglicized titles Besançon, Søren Kierkegaard, and Göttingen are used because they predominate in English language reliable sources"? AusLondonder (talk) 23:46, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Bundesheer is not unambiguous, and one will note that in historical documents, said term is used to refer to the Bundesheer of the German Confederation, which is the source of many false positives in your Google searches. There is no reason to use a general term 'Austrian military', when the organisation itself uses 'Austrian Armed Forces' as its English name. RGloucester  — ☎ 23:50, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
 * You didn't answer my question about your misinterpretation of the WP:UE policy. On the English-language website, though. Do you really believe that a translated version of a website is an authoritative source? AusLondonder (talk) 00:11, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
 * It is not a mere 'translated version'. It is the official website of the Austrian Armed Forces. They have chosen to use the 'Armed Forces' identity, and that is their prerogative. This is not a new change. They have always used this identity, which is also common in English as the formal name for this organisation in reliable sources (see Google Books, which I cannot link for technical reasons). Names such as 'Austrian military' and 'Austrian army', as with any other such organisation, of course exist in common speech as short forms, but are not suited to the encyclopaedic register. The 'Bundesheer' name is confusing to English-based readers, is not used by the organisation itself in English, is no less ambiguous than this title, and no more common. Consider the WP:NATURALNESS part of the article title criteria, and one will find that there can be no reason to support 'Bundesheer' as the title of this article for a generalist audience. If this were some sort of fanciful translation introduced by a crazed Wikipedia editor like myself, then WP:ENGLISH would not apply, but that's not the case here. No evidence for Bundesheer as a common name has been provided, other than one Google search marred with false positives for the German Confederation-era organisation, and with various hits in the German language. I have no ulterior motive here. I'm just trying to put forth a bit of reason. If no one in this place is interested, I'll happily be on my way. Please, however, spare me the vulgar jibes that plague this place, as I have grown unaccustomed to them in my absence. RGloucester  — ☎ 01:49, 12 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Support. This article is specifically about the Bundesheer. "Austrian armed forces" is routinely used to refer to pre-Bundesheer historical militaries, even militaries that weren't simply "Austrian" in (either modern or contemporary) technical usage. (Examples: Sondhaus, In the Service of the Emperor: Italians in the Austrian Armed Forces, 1814-1918; Duffy, The army of Maria Theresa: the armed forces of Imperial Austria, 1740-1780; Bushell, Cultures at War: Austria-Hungary 1914–1918; Roider, The Habsburg Foreign Ministry and Political Reform, 1801-1805.) and does not have this issue. Kramler (talk) 22:57, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Support Bundesheer is the WP:COMMONNAME. The use English policy makes clear that "the choice between anglicized and local spellings should follow English-language usage e.g. the non-anglicized titles Besançon, Søren Kierkegaard, and Göttingen are used because they predominate in English language reliable sources" - there is no blanket rule saying we use an invented translation in every case. AusLondonder (talk) 23:44, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
 * This is not an 'invented translation'...it is the name used by this organisation to refer to itself in English...see my link above. No wonder I've kept away from this hellhole...even Hades is more reasonable. RGloucester  — ☎ 23:50, 11 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Support The literature verrrrrry strongly prefers either "military" or "Bundesheer". ("Armed forces" seems to be some kind of Britishism. Frequency-wise, it appears more than twice as often in UK-published papers than you would expect based on the global average, probably because Austrians themselves generally use AE. But even in UK material the other two still predominate.) Damvile (talk) 01:29, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Support per WP:COMMONNAME. This mania for naming everything in English (including the misguided notion that just because a foreign organisation's website uses a specific English name then it must be the common name; in actual fact, it's usually because they can't conceive that English-speakers might actually be educated enough to use the native name and thus invent a name for themselves that they think English-speakers may be more comfortable with) is extremely disconcerting and is not what WP:UE says at all. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:35, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose per WP:USEENGLISH and WP:COMMONNAME. Most English speakers don't know the German word for this and will be searching for "Austrian armed forces". Rreagan007 (talk) 18:14, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment You may be mistaken about what COMMONNAME means. It's less about what readers search for and more about what appears in print. The fact that "Austrian armed forces" is not the common name in English is obvious just from looking at the ngram above, or alternatively from looking at a few comp Austrian studies and comp con law textbooks. "Austrian armed forces" is what redirects are for. Damvile (talk) 01:59, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
 * You also appear to misunderstand the use English policy. It does not mandate a translation: "The choice between anglicized and local spellings should follow English-language usage, e.g. the non-anglicized titles Besançon, Søren Kierkegaard, and Göttingen are used because they predominate in English language reliable sources" AusLondonder (talk) 03:07, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Did you even look at the results brought up by the Ngram? Bundesheer is not unambiguous, as I said above. If you wanted a 'fair' Ngram, you'd put in 'Austrian Bundesheer', which eliminates false positives in German and references to the German Confederation-era organisation, which shows mixed usage, but a broad dominance in favour of 'Armed Forces". Please see the 'divided use' section of WP:ENGLISH (WP:DIVIDEDUSE). I will not deny that some English-language sources use Bundesheer, but the evidence clearly shows that it is not the common name. Per WP:DIVIDEDUSE, we should use the least surprising title, the one that most reflects the other article title criteria, and that's this title. RGloucester  — ☎ 16:01, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
 * In case someone does not know how to look at the sources actually brought up by the Ngram, please look at the 'search in Google Books' section below the graph. RGloucester  — ☎ 16:04, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
 * what are you doing? "Bundesheer" has very few false positives because the overwhelming majority of books containing the word are talking about Austria, not Germany – not really surprising, seeing how the Austrian Bundesheer has been existing and actually doing things for nearly 100 years now, whereas the German Bundesheer was around for barely half that long and mostly only existed on paper for most of that time. And while your version of the ngram rules out false positives with regards to "Bundesheer," it very conspicuously retains the false positives from "Austrian armed forces," of which there are many, many more – which is something you were aware of because I already pointed out a couple of specific books that illustrate this fact. Are you sure you were doing this in good faith? If someone wanted to misrepresent the evidence, they'd cripple the ngram in much the way you did, wouldn't they?
 * The situation is even clearer once you go beyond looking at search result counts. If your first language is English and you have read one book that mentions the current Austrian defense force, chances are this book was written by either Bischof or Pelinka, both of whom leave "Bundesheer" untranslated. If you have read one book that mentions the "Austrian armed forces," that book was almost certainly a history book talking about something not the Bundesheer – maybe something Austro-Hungarian, maybe some incarnation of the pre-Ausgleich Imperial Army, maybe the historical Volkswehr. Kramler (talk) 19:58, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Nonsense, I'm afraid. Do a Google Books search for 'Bundesheer', and most of the results are either in German or referring to the German Confederation body. There are also examples of 'Austrian Armed Forces (Bundesheer)', but that does not support Bundesheer as a common name. Do the same for Austrian Armed Forces, and nearly all refer to the present organisation, which refers to itself as such. I cannot link Google Books anymore, due to problems with the Safari browser, but you can confirm this yourself if you're not simply trying to ram an unreasonable proposal through to suit your own ends. RGloucester  — ☎ 20:06, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
 * And what "ends" might that be? Pray tell!
 * On the issue, I'm already fairly familiar with the literature in this area – specifically, I know which books don't just clutter up Google but are actually read and cited. I don't imagine a few random data points from your personal filter bubble would change my mind even if I could reproduce them. Kramler (talk) 20:22, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
 * You forget that Wikipedia is written for a generalist audience, not for specialists in the narrow topic that is the Austrian Armed Forces. See WP:AT: 'The choice of article titles should put the interests of readers before those of editors, and those of a general audience before those of specialists'. Of course someone like yourself would support the use of 'Bundesheer', and of course 'Bundesheer' will appear in some specialist sources on the subject. However, for a generalist audience, 'Bundesheer' is not an appropriate title. Generalist material favours 'Austrian Armed Forces', and indeed, this is a natural title that is consistent with how articles on other such entities are named. It is also the name that the entity itself chooses to use in English. See WP:NATURALNESS and WP:CONSISTENCY. No good reason has been put forth for as to why this organisation should use an exceptional, untranslated title, nor has anyone demonstrated what benefit such a move would give to the general reader. The 'common name' argument has been clearly disproven. Unfortunately, it feels like I must bring up the essay Specialized-style fallacy...give it a perusing, and you might change your mind. RGloucester  — ☎ 21:09, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
 * No, I don't forget Wikipedia is written for a generalist audience. Nothing I pointed to is "specialist" literature. The history books I named are popular history books. Bischof and Pelinka are writing Austria 101 textbooks marketed to journalists and college kids. (They also write specialist stuff, but the textbooks are what sells and why they're relevant.) When I wrote the following,
 * If your first language is English and you have read one book that mentions the current Austrian defense force, chances are this book was written by either Bischof or Pelinka, both of whom leave "Bundesheer" untranslated. If you have read one book that mentions the "Austrian armed forces," that book was almost certainly a history book talking about something not the Bundesheer – maybe something Austro-Hungarian, maybe some incarnation of the pre-Ausgleich Imperial Army, maybe the historical Volkswehr.
 * I was being literal. WP:CONSISTENCY is great policy but it's not meant to be a Bed of Procrustes. There are many, many more people writing and reading about the army of the continent-spanning empire that fought a hundred wars than about the army of the tiny, landlocked, neutral microstate that mainly uses its soldiers for UN peacekeeping missions and natural disaster relief. "Austrian armed forces" or whatever is an appropriate title for a historical overview article but not for a page that does not talk about the historical militaries most readers are reading about when they encounter that term.
 * "Austrian armed forces" is also emphatically not "the name that the entity itself chooses to use in English." The official English translation for "Bundesheer" is "Federal Army." It's in the official English versions of the B-VG and of their other foundational documents, in their official translation style guides, and on half their gear.
 * You still haven't told me what my alleged nefarious "ends" are, by the way. Kramler (talk) 22:35, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Provide sources that show that the organisation itself uses 'Austrian Federal Army' as its public identity in English, and I'll happily be on my way. As of now, their website, and official documents they release, say 'Austrian Armed Forces', as indeed do most reliable sources, like this one and this one. You have at yet failed to provide any sources that suggest that 'Austrian Armed Forces' primarily refers to past incarnations of Austria's army. As of now, the evidence is very clear that this is not the case. RGloucester  — ☎ 00:17, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
 * is of the relevant constitutional law. It establishes "Federal Army" as the canonical English name. Since the military is subservient to the constitution and not the other way around, this, and not some random PR text on some random military PR site, is what matters. I absolutely agree that "Federal Army" would be a profoundly stupid name for this article -- the Bundesheer is neither particularly federal nor simply an army sensu stricto, and absolutely nobody outside of Austrian officialdom and the Google Translate brigade actually uses the official translation -- but if you insist on working from a WP:PRIMARY source, then the constitution is the source you chose.
 * Your claim that "most reliable sources" use "Austrian armed forces" is disproven by the ngram alone. Second, and for the umpteenth time, not all reliable sources are created equal. Of the authors that matter most, the ones talking about the Bundesheer tend to say "Bundesheer" and the ones that say "armed forces" tend to not be talking about the Bundesheer. Third, you know very well that two hand-picked hits from page 42 of a Google search prove absolutely nothing about which variant is more common.
 * Also, what are those illegitimate "ends" you said I was pursuing? What exactly did you mean by "someone like yourself"? I believe this is the third time I'm asking. Kramler (talk) 23:59, 19 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose. The target should instead be reverted to the two-way DAB it once was. It's up to the proposers to provide evidence that Bundesheer is recognisable to English readers (for example, by evidence that it's the common name) and there is none so far, instead we just have repeated appeals to the official name. Bundeswehr and Wehrmacht are both common and unambiguous terms in English sources; Bundesheer is neither common nor unambiguous. Andrewa (talk) 14:55, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Perhaps |German_Federal_Army this will explain why I turned it to a redirect page Colonestarrice (talk) 15:39, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
 * It explains it. But it doesn't justify it. See User:Andrewa/The Problem With Page Views. Andrewa (talk) 13:09, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Um no, it's the opposition who have appealed to what they think is the official name. The proposers have pointed out that the opposition is wrong about what the official name is. The proposers have also
 * demonstrated that the current title cannot claim to be the WP:COMMONNAME;
 * shown that "Bundesheer" does not appear any less often than "Austrian armed forces" in an English-language ngram;
 * argued that "Bundesheer" would yield fewer false positives in an ngram than the expression "Austrian armed forces," which is much more ambiguous and the majority of whose appearences in the literature refer to historical militaries that are not the subject of this article.
 * Thing is, the opposition keeps moving the goalposts. First they argue from a broken ngram. When it is pointed out that their ngram is broken, they start arguing from some army PR website somewhere. When that doesn't shut us up either, they start quote mining Google Books. Time to channel James Randi! What evidence are we supposed to provide? What evidence would be enough? What evidence would it take to make people admit that you can't discount standard textbooks by internationally bestselling experts like Bischof and Pelinka in favor of some random nobodies hand-picked from a Google search? How many more authors do I have to show are using "Austrian armed forces" to refer to something not the Bundesheer before it will be admitted that the term is ambiguous?
 * There are quite a few Austrian government and politics articles with bad names. They are slowly being fixed, but bad names are not the most pressing problem in general and this article is not the most problematic bad name in particular. I'm reluctant to invest hours of library time into a match whose rules I am apparently not allowed to know. Kramler (talk) 00:07, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Let me be sure I understand you... you say that the term is ambiguous, and then say that we should move that article to that ambiguous name? That seems to me to be an argument against moving the article. Andrewa (talk) 13:09, 21 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Andrewa: No. Both terms are ambiguous, it's just the way it is and it can't be helped. "Bundesheer" refers either to the Austrian Bundesheer or to the nominal federal army of the German Confederation. "Austrian armed forces" is used to mean the Austrian Bundesheer, the Austrian Volkswehr preceding it, the Austro-Hungarian army, the army of the pre-Ausgleich Austrian Empire, the Habsburg contingent in the Holy Roman Empire, and Babenberg-era medieval peasant hordes defending the Margraviate against the Magyars.
 * So both terms can mean two or more different things, but what does each of them typically mean?
 * If you see the "Bundesheer" in print, the word will almost always be referring to the Austrian Bundesheer. (The German Bundesheer existed for about half long as the Austrian Bundesheer has been existing for now, and it existed mostly only on paper. It fought in one war and is primarily notable for completely evaporating within a few days of first being shot at. The German army that actually mattered at the time was the Prussian army.)
 * If you see "Austrian armed forces" in print, the expression will almost always be referring to some historical fighting force or other that is not the Austrian Bundesheer. (Austria has had "armed forces" for over a millenium. They fought lots of wars, produced a lot of notable military innovations, changed Western fashion a few times, and are very popular topic among professional historians, general history buffs, militaria collectors, and reenactors alike. The Austrian Bundesheer has been existing for less than a century. It provides flood relief work and assistance with UN peacekeeping missions. Neither is very romantic and neither generates a lot of fandom.)
 * I already named a few notable authors and books as cases in point.
 * Google Books is of limited use because not all books are equally widely read. Kramler (talk) 20:54, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, both titles are ambiguous. But the argument for moving from one ambiguous title to another seems to depend on discounting Google books (which we have normally accepted as evidence of common usage) and preferring instead personal opinions as to what sources are more authoritative (which is completely contrary to our policy and practice to date). Am I missing something?
 * I'm not saying that the current title is the best one. I am simply saying that, on the evidence, the proposed title is even worse. Andrewa (talk) 21:53, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Fine, let's base the decision on Google Books, since that's apparently what we do:


 * About 40% or so of the "bundesheer" hits are in English-language text, and the vast majority of them refer to the Austrian and not the German Bundesheer; proof:


 * Looks like "armed forces" loses in a rout!
 * Will you now please admit that RGloucester's two (2) hand-picked examples are not a great argument?
 * Remember this was your idea, not mine.
 * I've said it before, but in case it was overlooked: the outcome of this debate doesn't matter to me all that much. I keep posting because the debate ticks me off. I have argued from a relevant ngram and from widely read, highly influential experts. The dominant counterarguments, so far, are random quote mines, blatant falsehoods, and personal attacks. Vague insinuations are made about my character and motives, just vague enough to be impossible to defend against. And now, the conscious and deliberate terminological choices of credentialed experts like Sondhaus, Duffy, Bushell, Roider, Bischof, and Pelinka are dismissed as "personal opinion." As my "personal opinion," to be specific. Come on.
 * You're an admin; you're supposed to care about the credibility of this web site. Can you really not see how embarrassing this thread would look to any knowledgeable outside observer, even someone who would personally agree the article should stay were it is? (There are valid arguments against the move, after all, they're just not these.) People occasionally snark that disputes on Wikipedia are frequently won not by the side with better sources but by the side with more unemployed 4chan professors on its side; the side than can do better Gish gallops and has more time on its hands to muddy the water with, pardon my French, random crap. Are we going to insist on making this page a case in point? Kramler (talk) 04:56, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
 * The only thing embarrassing about this thread is your screaming at the top of your lungs about some roster of 'credentialed experts', whilst refusing to look at the evidence in front of your face (and ignoring the Wikipedia article title criteria). There is absolutely nothing embarrassing about the title 'Austrian Armed Forces'. It is the most appropriate title for this article. The article may well be moved to satiate your deference to the style of a few 'experts', but, in the end, it's the reader who will suffer for your folly. I haven't the energy to try and wade through this mire; the evidence to stop this move is already on the table. In the meantime, perhaps relax and have a cup of tea. RGloucester  — ☎ 05:15, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
 * (I have I think fixed the stringing of the above post,, feel free to revert it if I have it wrong.) Andrewa (talk) 03:09, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I do indeed care about the credibility of this web site. But you are misinterpreting me I think. I have no doubt that the opinions of these experts are worth citing, and I respect your personal opinion that we should also defer to them on the matter of the article name, and even your opinion that Wikipedia loses credibility to the point of it being embarrassing and looking ridiculous if we don't do things your way. I even agree that for like-minded people to yourself, the current title costs us credibility. But my opinion is, Wikipedia loses far more credibility if we prefer this opinion of yourself and these others to the consensus that established our naming conventions. Andrewa (talk) 03:09, 24 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Both you (obliquely) and RGloucester (insistently, many times) have argued that the article title should reflect WP:COMMONNAME and that Google Books is one good way to find out what the WP:COMMONNAME for this subject is. So I provided evidence that Google Books supports "Bundesheer" as the WP:COMMONNAME. Instantly, both WP:COMMONNAME and Google Books become completely irrelevant: neither your nor RGloucester's reply bother to address the results I posted; they are self-evidently beneath notice.
 * Before Google Books results were suggested as the standard to go by, RGloucester argued that the article title should reflect the preference of the Austrian government. When I pointed out that RGloucester was mistaken about what the preference of the Austrian government actually was, the preference of the Austrian government became irrelevant. At one point, an argument about the WP:COMMONNAME in opposition to the move was made from an ngram. When I pointed out that the ngram in question was transparently biased, ngrams became irrelevant. The list goes on.
 * You reference the naming conventions, but to the best of my understanding the naming conventions say that we should follow the evidence. I have made an honest effort to provide evidence; the kind of evidence that I see being accepted as relevant and convincing in other naming discussions. I have also proactively asked, a week ago, what kind of I should be providing from the point of view of editors who think that the evidence I am providing is insufficient. Nobody replied.
 * We do seem to want fundamentally the same thing, quality articles with defensible names; I'm happy this discussion ends on an upbeat note of agreement. Kramler (talk) 00:24, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I never said anything about the preference of the Austrian government. I said "Provide sources that show that the organisation itself uses 'Austrian Federal Army' (or any other name) as its public identity in English". You did not do this. You produced a translation of the constitution, but that is not what I was referring to. I was referring to the 'public identity', that is to say, in more vulgar terms, the 'brand' name that the organisation uses in English. That's 'Austrian Armed Forces', and there is no contesting it. All official communications issued by the organisation in English use that name, and have done for as long as it has been around.
 * As for COMMONNAME, from the first moment that Google Books and ngrams searches were produced, I pointed out flaws in that method in this particular case, dealing with the ambiguity of names like Bundesheer, and indeed, the problem of parenthetical references to the native name of the organisation after the English name, and indeed, to problems of the self-same Google Books searches producing large amounts of German-language results. Your searches above did nothing to resolve these problems. More importantly, I also addressed questions of WP:NATURALNESS and WP:CONSISTENCY, which you have not been able to challenge. Instead, you continued to appeal to the style choices of a few 'experts', without actually addressing our concerns about how their reasons for choosing such a name may not apply here. More importantly, you conveniently choose to ignore the many other sources that actually use 'Austrian Armed Forces', giving undue to weight to those you deem valuable, without providing any basis for that valuation.
 * In the end, you need to justify why we should forsake the name used by the organisation itself, why we should leave Bundesheer untranslated but translate Deutsches Heer, why we should ignore the WP:DIVIDEDUSE section of WP:ENGLISH, and why, per WP:TITLECHANGES, this change would be an improvement for the READERS of the encylopaedia. In as much as you failed to do this things, I cannot support the proposed move. RGloucester  — ☎ 01:19, 26 September 2018 (UTC)


 * I don't agree with very much of this; in particular, I believe my numbers disprove the "large amounts of German-language results" thing quite conclusively. I also believe I have been able to challenge the applicability of WP:CONSISTENCY; I believe I have demonstrated that this is a legitimate special case due to how the use of "Austrian armed forces" in reference to historical Austrian armies completely eclipses the use of "Austrian armed forces" in reference to the current Austrian military that this article is supposed to be about. I do acknowledge your reply is free of dudebro personal innuendo and goalpost moving and actually addresses arguments that have been made. Kramler (talk) 03:34, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Replying to 00:24, 26 September 2018: I have reviewed the above discussion, and can still see no evidence that justifies a move in terms of WP:AT. The nomination is devoid of merit. Subsequently, several other equally invalid arguments have been presented and evidence has been supplied for these, and the discussion is so cluttered with these and other distractions that I may have missed a relevant argument, but I have honestly tried! So, no change of !vote. Andrewa (talk) 11:55, 29 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose per Andrewa and Rreagan007, and revert the June switch of to a primary topic. It should remain a dab page unless an RM specifically determines otherwise.  &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 12:03, 3 October 2018 (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.

future acquisitions for the Austrian air forces?
Since the Typhoons are getting a bit long in the tooth, has there been any plans announced in Reliable Sources for purchasing F-35's? 104.169.29.171 (talk) 21:20, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Steyr SSG M1
Under "Equipment" and then "Sniper Rifles" there is the "Steyr SSG M1". There is no WIKI page on this weapon...

However, there are three WIKI pages, in sequence, for the Steyr SSG 69, Steyr SSG 04 and Steyr SSG 08. The number is the year of introduction, being 1969, 2004 and 2008.

Now I went out to the Internet and found a listing for the Steyr SSG M1, which does not follow the same nomenclature. It is a brand-new sniper rifle, dating apparently from 2018. I will put here a website with lots of details:

https://www.all4shooters.com/en/shooting/pro-zone/steyr-mannlicher-ssg-m1-sniper-rifle/

So I think we need to come up with a listing on this gun. Obviously the "69" came first, it was the mainstay for decades, and is not a very modern design. However:

The '04 was a BIG update to the '69, and The '08 was a SMALL improvement to the '04 And I am guessing that the M1 is another set of SMALL improvements to the '08.

In short, we might be able to roll the '69, '04, '08 and M1 all into one WIKI page titled: "Steyr SSG".

However the entries for '69 include a whole lot of "Users", which would be hard to separate, so maybe a page for the '69, And then another page for the: 04, 08 and M1 all combined, since they have had much shorter service lifespans, and very few different users.

Anyway, I think that we need to take a look at how this particular set of sniper rifles is listed, and make room for the M1, and then organize the others.

(I'm going to cut-and-paste this into the Talk section of the SSG 08 too.)

All the best,

James 203.150.132.236 (talk) 07:56, 29 August 2019 (UTC)