Talk:Austro-Hungarian gulden

denomination capitalization
I don't think the denominations should be capitalized because we're not speaking German. However, I see your point, since we are using the German words. I'm going to take it to the Numismatics talk page, much as I don't want to start another huge discussion there. Ingrid


 * I agree that it'll be a horrible discussion. The problem is that I've recently been living in Germany and can't really get out of the habit of writing German nouns with capitals. Dove1950 22:22, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Austrian Empire
The Austrian Empire page says that it existed from 1804-1867. Ingrid 23:48, 17 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't want to go in and change the Austrian Empire page as the nomenclature of the Hapsburg realm was a mess. After 1867, there were two governments, the Imperial (Kaiserlich) and Royal (Königlich). The royal government ruled Hungary (which included Transylvania, Slovakia, Slovenia and part of Croatia) and the imperial ruled everywhere else, including Austria. Austria-Hungary is a term which covers the whole Hapsburg realm fairly accurately and I use it throughout. Dove1950 22:22, 18 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't understand. Most of what you've said refers to the period after 1867 (which I'm glad to know more about). What would you call the empire, or whatever, from 1804-1867? Are you saying that you use "Austria-Hungary" to refer to what others here use "Austrian Empire" to refer to? That is, the period from 1804-1867? I am not an expert on Austrian history, and so cannot argue whether that's appropriate or not (and have no idea what it is appropriate to call the region during that time). Ingrid 00:02, 19 January 2006 (UTC)


 * The Austrian Empire page is inaccurate and misleading. Holy Roman Emperor Francis II took the title Emperor of Austria in 1804 and gave up the title of Holy Roman Emperor in 1805. Nothing changed in terms of the governance of his realms (other than those being enforced by the French invaders). The changes occured in 1867, as I described above.


 * I still don't understand the problem with calling it the Austrian Empire. I've checked a couple of history books, and they call it the Austrian Empire. If Francis II called himself Emperor of Austria, what's the problem? Ingrid 23:12, 19 January 2006 (UTC)


 * The problem is that the Austrian Empire didn't exist in any governmental form in 1804. When Francis II took the title of Emperor of Austria, the term Kaisertum was used rather than Kaiserreich. The later means empire, the former was invented in order not to mean empire. Furthermore, the gulden was the currency of Austria and Hungary, so saying that it was the currency of Austria is misleading. This subject is a minefield, particularly because we're trying to translate terms from German which don't exist in English. That's why some history books translate Kaisertum as empire. What we have now is accurate and not misleading. If we start splitting up the various phases of Austria-Hungary's history according to Francis's titles, we'll generate something open to incessant editing that will almost certainly confuse without being necessarily accurate. I hope I'm not increasing the confusion here. Dove1950 20:36, 20 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I appreciate your thoughtful replies, and I hope my lack of understanding is not too frustrating for you. The reason that it bothers me the way it is is that it's not internally consistent. Wikipedia (Austria-Hungary, Austrian Empire) says that Austria-Hungary did not exist before 1867, and that the Empire of Austria did. Your objections to calling it the Austrian Empire seem reasonable, but more appropriately discussed at talk:Austrian Empire or if there is such a thing Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Austria. Unless/Until that is changed, I think we should use it. I am not suggesting using other of Francis's titles, or anything inconsistent with what is already here. Ingrid 20:46, 20 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Reading more carefully, I notice that using "Austrian Empire" was not correct either. I suggest that it should be "Holy Roman Empire"->"Austrian Empire"->"Austria-Hungary" as it is in the Austrian history template. Ingrid 23:01, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

What guldens should be included in this article?
The topic discussed in the article covers 3 different currency systems:
 * the Gulden Conventions-Münze which was introduced in 1750 (by the Zwanzigguldenfuß) and called so since 1753 (Münzvertrag with Bavaria; 1753. november 21.); 1 Gulden C.M. = 11,693 g fine silver
 * the Gulden österreichischer Währung which was introduced in 1858 according to the 1857 Wiener Münzvertrag (which founded the Deutsche Münzverein); 1 Gulden ö. W. = 11,111 g fine silver
 * the Austro-Hungarian Gulden which was introduced in 1867 as a coin and 1881 as paper money. The reason of introduction is a bit more complicated than for the above currencies: although 1 Austro-Hungarian Gulden remained equal to 11,111 g fine silver, the issuer was new, the banking system was reorganized and even the state had been based on new "constitutional" system (Habsburg Empire -> Austria-Hungary; somewhat like Federal Republic of Yugoslavia -> Serbia and Montenegro in 2003). The reason of the changes was the Austro-Prussian War and its two consequences: the Ausgleich and that Austria was excluded from the Deutsche Münzverein. The Austrian coins changed slighly (the name of Lombardy and Venetia was left from the inscriptions) and Hungarian coins appeared with Hungarian text, coat of arms and traditional mintmarks. The issue of paper money was a more problematic task: Hungary insisted on that a Hungarian National Bank should be founded (the Hungarian counterpart of the Oesterreichise National-Bank), but the Kaiser withheld this plan. The joint bank was finally established in 1878 with Austria and Hungary having equal rights; the first banknotes came into circulation in 1881. This currency remained in circulation long after the introduction of the gold-based Krone (I guess until 1900, but not sure). Timur lenk (talk) 20:13, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Requested move 24 December 2022

 * 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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 

The result of the move request was: Procedural move. As noted in the discussion, the current title is a result of a recent undiscussed move. There's no consensus for either article title, with 1 neutral comment and 1 support as a procedural matter. (closed by non-admin page mover) – robertsky (talk) 05:47, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Austro-Hungarian florin → Austro-Hungarian gulden – In September, an editor moved our article on this Austro-Hungarian currency from "Austro-Hungarian gulden" to "... florin", arguing that "florin" is the neutral nomenclature, common in English, which does not favour the language of either part of the Empire.

However, I think that such a subjective reason should not override Retain be used as an excuse to move the page away from the stable title, and therefore ask that the stable title of "Austro-Hungarian gulden" be restored, unless there are reliable sources which establish "florin" as the dominant English-language name. Thank you. NotReallySoroka (talk) 01:12, 24 December 2022 (UTC) — Relisting. – robertsky (talk) 05:15, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Edited since I mixed up the gulden and it's its successor, the krone. Sorry. NotReallySoroka (talk) 01:14, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Edited again to eliminate confusion. NotReallySoroka (talk) 01:16, 24 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Comment, This is a bit complicated, due to prior history. Some background: the article was moved to a new title by without prior discussion, which is contrary to article title policy which "strongly discourage[s]" such moves. This move should not have been done, especially not for a long-term stable title, such as the prior one. Under these conditions, the Requested moves page says that: "If you disagree with such a move, and the new title has not been in place for a long time, you may revert the move." That leaves some room for interpretation about how long is "long", and what to do now. Had I noticed this move in December, two months after it was improperly moved, I would certainly have simply reverted the move back to the original title, with an edit summary something like: "Revert undiscussed move; please follow the procedure at WP:RM to request a move."
 * However, that's not where we are now, as this RM has been opened to reverse the move, and that opens it up to consensus among editors to decide, so you probably no longer can simply revert the move, as you could have done before. A further complication is that TheCurrencyGuy is now blocked (for unrelated reasons) and won't be able to respond, and would almost surely be opposed to this move request if he could !vote. So now, I think the only paths open to you are to either let this RM play out, or to withdraw it if you become persuaded that the current title is correct, regardless whether the original move was improper or not.
 * Further background: I had commented earlier at an Rfc on a similar topic, and was undecided there. Now I'm undecided for this RM, but for slightly different reasons: on the one hand, I would've reverted the original move on sight, which corresponds to a 'support' !vote here, but on the other, there appears to be some evidence that florin may, indeed, be more common in English sources, which corresponds to an 'oppose' !vote. I think I'll just stay undecided for now, and wait and see what other editors have to say; if the RM is still active in a few days, I might be back to review my !vote. Mathglot (talk) 19:13, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Since the original, undiscussed move was made, user TCG was topic-banned from anything having to do with currency, so they could not !vote here, even if they are unblocked. I regret the ping; I wasn't aware of the TBAN then. Mathglot (talk) 20:09, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
 * Support for procedural reasons, to revert an undiscussed move. (Yes, it was recent enough).  —  AjaxSmack  05:29, 7 January 2023 (UTC)