Talk:List of chancellors of Austria

Use of non-free images on this article
This article has been identified as containing an excessive quantity of non-free content. Per the Foundation's requirement to keep non-free media use minimal, and per Non-free content criteria #3, the non-free images on this article have been removed. Please note: If this is a list type article, please read the WP:NFLISTS guideline. If you wish to dispute this removal, it may be helpful to read WP:OVERUSE, as it answers a number of typical questions and responses to removals such as this. If after reading these, you still feel there is grounds for restoration of most or all of the media that have been removed, please post to Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. ΔT The only constant 22:24, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The presence of a fair use rationale for this article on an image description page does not make it acceptable for a given use.
 * Blanket restoration of the non-free images that have been removed can and most likely will be reverted, with subsequent reporting action possible.
 * If some restoration is desired, careful consideration of exactly what non-free media to use must be made, paying special attention to WP:NFCC #1 and #8. In most cases non-free media needs to be tied directly to the prose of the article, most preferably with inline citations tying the discussion to secondary sources regarding the image per Verifiability.

Merger Discussion
Request received to merge articles: List of Austrian Chancellors by longevity into List of Chancellors of Austria; dated December 2015. Discussion here. GenQuest "Talk to Me" 15:47, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Commons files used on this page have been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page have been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 18:06, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Bruno Kreisky (portrait).jpg
 * Franz Vranitzky.jpg
 * Fred Sinowatz (portrait).jpg
 * Karl Renner (table crop).jpg
 * Leopold Figl.jpg
 * Viktor Klima.jpg
 * Werner Faymann (2009).jpg

Proposal to change the table
I propose to change the table to officeholder table, as it is easier to edit and navigate, shows time in office, easily customizeable, standard with a lot of other Wiki pages making migration of data easy, is sortable and is an overall cleaner version. Skjoldbro (talk) 09:35, 21 March 2019 (UTC)


 * All you previous points have been addressed and fixed where needed, why did you undo it again? Skjoldbro (talk) 13:19, 27 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Nothing has been fixed, your changes have been challenged, thus please establish consensus before reinstating them – per WP:BRD, WP:CONSENSUS and WP:DISPUTE RESOLUTION. Thank you. Colonestarrice (talk) 13:26, 27 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Your points:
 * There has been clear consensus not to use succession numbers on articles related to Austrian politics. See User:Kramler/Kurz is not the 25th chancellor, reinforced here.
 * Why would you superfluously split the tenure column in a took office column and a left office column, if you can have all information clear and simple in a single column?
 * Why would you make a completely redundant ref column?
 * Why would you write down Wilhelm Miklas 10 times instead of 1 time, although getting the same result both ways?
 * Why would you write down Wilhelm Miklas 10 times instead of 1 time, although getting the same result both ways?


 * My replies:
 * The numbers have now been removed, by the way you should probably do something about the Statistics on the page then, since the Chancellors are numbered there.
 * Why wouldn't you? Even pages such as Vice-Chancellor of Austria and President of Austria does it, why should this one be any different? In any case that shouldn't be enough to claim something is a colossal disimprovement.
 * I mean, the refs don't necessarily "need" to be in a separate column, but it does make it easier to find and edit them. Also not enough to be a colossal disimprovement.
 * Because he was the appointer for each one, and with sort-able tables this happens either way. Also not enough to be a colossal disimprovement.


 * This table is 100% easier to navigate and edit, I don't understand why you are so much against it. Skjoldbro (talk) 13:34, 27 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Great, but you replying doesn't make it consensus and me not replying doesn't make it consensus either. Colonestarrice (talk) 13:36, 27 March 2019 (UTC)


 * So why don't you want this table instead? Skjoldbro (talk) 13:40, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

I already elucidated why I oppose your changes with the "points" you quoted above. Your "replies" don't counter them, they're just representative of your own personal opinion on the subject. Colonestarrice (talk) 13:52, 27 March 2019 (UTC)


 * 1. Numbers have since been removed 2. Like I said before, it is common practice to have separate columns for each, your own table on President of Austria has it split 3. There are now, two positions highlighted for possible reference placements, since you don't like the ref column. 4 Unfortunately not something that can be changed in this type of table, but shouldn't be enough to claim that the whole table is bad. Skjoldbro (talk) 14:15, 27 March 2019 (UTC)


 * I have taken the liberty to illustrate the two different types of table, to show how much easier it is to edit and locate things in the proposed table compared to the current one.


 * I have now produced a full version of the table here, this new table has the added value of having the governments for each Chancellor visible along with the coalition parties. Skjoldbro (talk) 15:53, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Do you have anything to add to this table, so we can reach a meaningful compromise? Skjoldbro (talk) 08:02, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Term have now been semi collected with the overarching Term for Took and Left office, and Duration. Skjoldbro (talk) 08:54, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Achieving a consensus is kinda difficult when one person does not participate in the discussion, trying to get to a compromise. Right now I was just following Don't revert due solely to "no consensus". Skjoldbro (talk) 11:29, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

I did participate in the discussion, I did present my arguments, and so did you; but there ultimately was no agreement, no compromise and therefore no consensus. And your obsessive need to force through your version by constant insistence, as well as your cheap attempt to belittle my version as superfluous and extraneous by replacing all references with " Possible ref position ", is not aiding in establishing consensus.


 * "Even pages such as Vice-Chancellor of Austria and President of Austria do it" – that "others do it as well" is not a valid argument. "Why should this one be any different?" – because it's redundant either way.


 * "I mean, the refs don't necessarily "need" to be in a separate column" – "but I want it that way so fuck you" is not a valid argument either. "It does make it easier to find and edit them." – WP:Readers first.


 * "Because he was the appointer for each one" – in the current table he is too. "And with sort-able tables this happens either way." – why would you need sortable tables for a chronological list of Chancellors?

Sincerely Colonestarrice (talk) 13:12, 4 April 2019 (UTC)


 * I wouldn't call it participate in the discussion, but maybe that is my fault for assuming to have this kind of discussion without making it clear. I in no way attempted to belittle your table (WP:AGF), only to point out that this is an established, standard and pretty good table. I placed the " Possible ref position " at the two different positions to illustrate possible places for references, seeing as you didn't like the column.
 * You are right it isn't, but I just found funny if not hypocritical to argue for two different types of presenting the data, when you made both of tables. Is it really that redundant, when you yourself can make tables presenting data the same way? And seeing as the table is read from left to right, makes sense to present the data that way rather than up–down.
 * That was not my argument, sorry if you read it that way (WP:EQ). Like I stated above, I find it better to place references in the column clearly marked "refs", as that does indeed help the reader to better locate them and differentiate them from the notes currently placed next to them. But like I also attempted to explain above the refs could be placed below the name, like with the current table.
 * You are right that is a valid point, but I think that is a small price to pay for, what I believe to be, an overall better table, which can be unsortable. This table is modular and easy to edit. It also shows a clear distinction between Governments and coalition parties, something that you table does not do, might want to look at that – WP:Readers first.


 * In effort to avoid further misunderstandings, I have now moved the refs around to show "the refs don't necessarily "need" to be in a separate column" as seen in the table here. It is also not sortable and images have been increased to the size similar to that of the current table. And while I strongly disagree with the fact that splitting tenure into two columns is superfluously, I have also recollected Tenure, while still keeping time in office. Like I said before, it will still have Miklas 10 times, but I would qualify that as an acceptable cost compared to the rest of the table. Best Skjoldbro (talk) 15:00, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Sebastian Kurz was ousted in a vote of no confidence
Sebastian Kurz was ousted in a vote of no confidence today yet every time I update the article somebody keeps undoing my changes.

"Mag." and "Dipl.-Kfm."
An editor named Colonestarrice is edit-warring to reintroduce titles such as "Mag." (which refers to someone with a mere master's degree) and "Dipl.-Kfm." (which isn't even an English-language term) in front of the names of the various chancellors. While WP:HONORIFICS is strictly speaking about biographies, I think the spirit of the manual of style is quite clear, and that we don't normally add such titles in front of names in lists. --Tataral (talk) 16:45, 31 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Academic titles have a high societal status in Austria, unlike in the U.S. or in France, where you apparently come from. At their current location they're minimal and not hurting anyone, and MOS doesn't discourage their usage outside of biography articles. So I don't see a reason why to remove them. Colonestarrice (talk) 18:39, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
 * But this is the English-language Wikipedia, so any "high societal status in Austria" doesn't really matter. I don't know what France has got to do with this discussion. Both my parents "come from" what used to be "Austria", I speak German and am relatively familiar with that part of Europe. It's a long-established practice to avoid such titles in lists like this one. --Tataral (talk) 19:03, 1 June 2019 (UTC)