Talk:Austria-Hungary

I mean why not just use the merchant flag along with the other flags?

Like when you think of austria hungary your going to think about the merchent flag for sure after that you can use the main flags at the bottom 2601:6C1:180:850:14FC:C62D:11BE:DE4B (talk) 10:52, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

NO 12.41.141.247 (talk) 12:08, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

Well no, the infobox is not used for what you "will think". It is used for actual, correct national flags and national coats of arms. I personally think more often of the Estonian Naval Ensign than the Estonian National Flag, does that mean it should replace the national flag in the infobox? No, of course not. Felleno (talk) 12:16, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

no Nobody89898989 (talk) 03:36, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 July 2025

I Want To Edit This So I Can Add 3 Flags For The Info Box Of Austria-Hungary LeviLan1000 (talk) 14:53, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Mellk (talk) 14:56, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

no Nobody89898989 (talk) 03:36, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

I'd like to add the two flags of Austria and Hungary

I would like to add the Flags of Austria-Hungary that are missing. There are 2 widely recognized flags for Austria-Hungary and those are: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Flag_of_Austria_%28Empire_Total_War%29.svg for Österreich. And for the Lands of St. Stephen within the Austro-Hungarian Empire: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Flag_of_Hungary_(1915-1918;_angels).svg

AS THESE ARE THE CORRECT FLAGS FOR THE AUSTRO-HUNGARIAN EMPIRE. Ninjamaster123456789 (talk) 13:10, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

No - see thread earlier on this page and multiple threads in the archive. The consensus is to have no flags. DeCausa (talk) 13:34, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

nope Nobody89898989 (talk) 03:36, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

Guys

I Added All The Flags LeviLan1000 (talk) 01:17, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

I've removed them. Review the archive of this talk page to see the consensus. DeCausa (talk) 06:50, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

Wait, Please Don’t Sue Me, I’m Just A Kid LeviLan1000 (talk) 13:16, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

Don't worry, they won't sue you, but remember to read the talk page first. JPPEDRA2 ^{why not?} 00:18, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

Just change

Just add austria and hungary flags 78.30.81.128 (talk) 16:16, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

Structure

Instead of worrying about the flags, can we talk about the bizarre structure of this article? At one point there seems to have been a continuous narrative history section. This has somehow gotten cut up so that we have:

• Background and establishment which does what it says on the tin, but rather bizarrely avoids referring to Franz Josef by name until the very last sentence.

• 1866–1878: Beyond Lesser Germany A very short sub-section of the latter, although it is not really about background or establishment, but rather about the foreign policy of A-H over the next 12 years, foreshadowing the shift into the Balkans.

• A range of thematic sections
• A thematic section Military

• 1877–1914: Russo-Turkish War, Congress of Berlin, Balkan instability and the Bosnia Crisis, a sub-section of the military section (!), which continues the narrative story begun about 8 pages earlier.

• 1914–1918: World War I which covers about a third of the article, despite having a stand-alone article and thus being ripe for reduction to summary style.

I'd push for a consolidation of the narrative into a single section and a massive reduction of the narrative of WWI. I'd also like to strip back or delete the "Territorial legacy" section, which is typical WP list-cruft, which in the pursuit of fullness ends up being woefully misleading (there's no reasonable sense in which the People's Republic of China should be being treated as part of A-H's territorial legacy... Furius (talk) 20:56, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

It's clear that nobody actually reads this article... they just come here to admire images of flags in the infoboxen. Furius (talk) 07:47, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 September 2025

The Austrian Hungarian Flag should be the Old Hapsburg one, With Yellow and Black. The Civil Ensign was only used for some official posters. 2601:3C7:C100:2410:F92F:86E4:CE1:ACCC (talk) 02:37, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. It's not clear which flag you are wanting to change in the article or where in the article it's located. If you would still like something changed, please re-open this request and clarify. Thank you. Nubzor [T][C] 02:58, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 November 2025

I suggest to use the term Hungaric (either instead of Hungarian or as an alternative term) because: "Hungaric" is a specific term used in English in historical contexts to distinguish it from the Hungarians as an ethnic group. For example, Natio Hungarica (Hungarian Nation) referred to all nobles in Hungary, regardless of their ethnic origin. The current text predeterminates that Hungarian and Magyar is the same, which in detail is not. Thank you.

~2025-33581-38 (talk) 08:35, 14 November 2025 (UTC) edited 15:49, 14 November 2025 (UTC) by Slomo666 (talk)

 Not done. I’m really not sure why we would need this. NotJamestack (talk) 12:26, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

I moved the content behind the signature so the interruption should be fixed. Slomo666 (talk) 15:49, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

It's nonsense anyway. The word isn't used in English. See its OED entry: "This word is now obsolete. It is last recorded around the late 1600s."[1] DeCausa (talk) 18:29, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

Arbitrary edit and edit war

Hi,

DalidaEditor started an edit war arbitrary, rewriting the successor states, even removing the note "do not change without sourcing legal successors"https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Austria-Hungary&diff=prev&oldid=1323056230

Dalida removed the legal succesor section, claiming that post WW1 Austria and Hungary state is not legal successor of pre WW1 Austria and Hungary state :) perhaps Yugoslavia or Romania is the successor state of Austria or Hungary state? That is not about land, it is about the statehood. OrionNimrod (talk) 15:41, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

Austria Hungary map 1887 https://feefhs.org/sites/default/files/styles/juicebox_medium/public/map/aus-hungary150_0.jpg?itok=-HxzC03l it was Austria + Kingdom of Hungary + Bosnia

For example Hungary state is the legal successor of Kingdom of Hungary state. OrionNimrod (talk) 15:55, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

Hi, just as I stated in my edit summaries[2][3] I sided with Template:Infobox country#Former country and described this as a misuse of the infobox to impose subjective pov towards others countries listed, which goes against Wikipedia:NPOV. Dalida Editor _{please ping or message me} 16:09, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

You arbitrary started the changes and edit war.

What is POV? That pre WW1 Kingdom of Hungary is the legal successor state of post WW1 Kingdom of Hungary? Do you deny that? Or do you think Italy, Romania, Yugoslavia as state is the legal successor state of Kingdom of Hungary (Kingdom of Hungary was part of Austria Hungary, as it was a dual monarchy)? Do you understand that this is about statehood, not about land and borders?

Can you say too that Republic of Germany is not legal successor of German Empire, or Kingdom of France is not legal successor of Republic of France? Borders can change during history, but states can be continuous. OrionNimrod (talk) 16:18, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

Explain me,

Why was the Treaty of Saint-Germain applied to Austria if Austria was not the legal successor of the Austrian half of Austria-Hungary?

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Saint-Germain-en-Laye

Why was the Treaty of Trianon applied to Hungary if Hungary was not the legal successor of the Hungarian part of Austria-Hungary?

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Trianon/Preamble

The United States of America, the British Empire, France, Italy, Japan… (list of Allied Powers)“ And Hungary,

Whereas on the request of the former Imperial and Royal Austro- Hungarian Government an Armistice was granted to Austria-Hungary on November 3, 1918, by the Principal Allied and Associated Powers, and completed as regards Hungary by the Military Convention of November 13, 1918, in order that a Treaty of Peace might be concluded, and

whereas the former Austro-Hungarian Monarchy has now ceased to exist, and has been replaced in Hungary by a national Hungarian Government OrionNimrod (talk) 16:39, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

Sorry but you maybe missed my point, check out my previous reply. I’m talking about the infobox and the attitude towards it, I absolutely do not question the succession of the state neither engage in that topic. Dalida Editor _{please ping or message me} 17:21, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

Then why did you remove the "legal successor state" section? It is not about land, it is about statehood. OrionNimrod (talk) 17:23, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

I will cite my first response:

“I sided with Template:Infobox country#Former country and described this as a misuse of the infobox to impose subjective pov towards others countries listed, which goes against Wikipedia:NPOV”.

The section is not for land or statehood inheritance, but for the simple chronology of the countries that came before and after. Dalida Editor _{please ping or message me} 21:10, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

I did not see anything in the template country box, which is just a template. Imperial Austria and royal Hungary as states is the legal successor of modern Austria and Hungary as states. This is fact. This is not about borders.

Contrary your argumentation, this is not a misuse and neither a subjective pov, there are facts reinforced by community consensus, you cannot change them unilaterally before building a new one (otherwise the note would not be there). I suggest you to revert yourself. OrionNimrod (talk) 09:23, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

I will again cite my previous comments:

”The section is not for land or statehood inheritance, but for the simple chronology of the countries that came before and after.” + “such legal/other division is fabricated on this article.”

If we’re gonna follow the forementioned common usage of Template:Infobox country#Former country, your version goes against Wikipedia:NPOV since it indicates the lack of legitimacy of other states.

Such topics are IMO for a more detailed explanation in the article, comprehensively as you have shown above in your answers, not for a small infobox. Dalida Editor _{please ping or message me} 11:35, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

Hi again, I placed this disagreement at Wikipedia:Third opinion since you didn’t reply for two days and we continued edit warring today.

Also, I would like to note that you are constantly talking about the content of what you want to implement, while I am trying to point out how I don’t doubt the content but the usage of it in the infobox.

Also, there is possible bias, since you and the user who made the edit with the identical argument [4] are both Hungarian, as stated on both user pages.Dalida Editor _{please ping or message me} 18:13, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

Stable version = article stage for many years

You started the edit war to arbitrary change the article not me, even you removed "do not change note without consesus" which means this is clearly a bad faith edit

my ethinicty will not disqualify me to edit Wikipedia... OrionNimrod (talk) 20:04, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

Consensus about something that is never used for such infobox? Also, this is continuous word-twisting.

• The “stable version”, as you call this [5] before my first edit, contains the Kingdom of Hungary (1920–1946) link under the plain name “Hungary”. Tricky way to hide the actual chronological successor: First Hungarian Republic.

You first simply reverted my edit, and then in your second edit [6] decided to put the First Hungarian Republic, but kept the legal/other division.

You still haven’t addressed the main topic of this discussion: what is the purpose of fabricating a legal/other division for this article’s infobox? Dalida Editor _{please ping or message me} 23:34, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

• I have 2 questions. (1) Why does the Infobox distinguish between "legal" successor states and "territorial" successor states. that's highly unusual. (2) The 2 "legal" successor states are both generally unrecognised states. How can they, under international law, be termed "legal" successor states? What's the sourcing for that? Infoboxes should only contain simple straightforward information. Complexity has to be avoided. If there's any complexity in what the sucessor states are then the paramater shouldn't be used. DeCausa (talk) 00:02, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

  Maybe Havsjö did this 3 years ago https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Austria-Hungary&diff=prev&oldid=1119949236 it seems it did not bother anyone for 3 years.

  Probably because there are many new modern states in the area of AH, and it is a clarification that imperal Austria is the direct predecessor legal state as modern Austria, and royal Hungary is the direct predecessor legal state as modern Hungary. That is clear that not Italy or Romania is the legal successor state of imperial Austria or royal Hungary just because they got land from AH. And this is not about the borders, but about the statehood. OrionNimrod (talk) 16:23, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

  Well it seems to me the case that: (1) having 2 unrecognised states as the so-called "legal successor" is incorrect and needs to be changed (2) having the actual legal successor states there might be a possibility albeit with a chronological gap. But the presentation of that complexity appropriately will be problematic. Complexity is not what Infoboxes are for.(3) Distinguishing between legal successors and territorial successors is very unusual in Infoboxes (most likely because of the types of complexity mentioned in 2). It begs the question why is this Infobox to be different to all the others? I propose it should just list the territorial successors or failing that have nothing in the parameter (which I know has been the solution where complexities have prevented easy agreement). Views please? If there's no consensus I'll initiate an RfC. DeCausa (talk) 17:19, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

  You presented a valid point,

  This was a more simple stage before Dalida edit: [7] (you can see a note "do not change", Dalida arbitrary removed that note, I suppose maybe the note was a result of consensus) Dalida added those unrecognised state [8] Republic of German-Austria + First Hungarian Republic (however they exited even if they were not recognized, Treaty of Saint Germain signed by German-Austria)

  We can fix this easily, replacing the legal successors to the First Austrian Republic and the Kingdom of Hungary (1920-1946) OrionNimrod (talk) 12:26, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

  Hi User:DeCausa, can you please initiate RfC as you commented.

  I’ve reached my maximum here since reading the replies of the other party feels like talking to a wall. They endlessly avoid to even mention the infobox problem, the very topic of this discussion, and then their new argument how it’s okay since no one complained for 3 years, as if we don't know the case of Scots Wikipedia, a problem which was only noticed after several years. Dalida Editor _{please ping or message me} 18:11, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

  Hello, I am declining this third opinion request because there are already more than 2 editors involved. Feel free to use other dispute resolution processes like the DRN, RfC, linking this discussion on project talk pages, etc. Katzrockso (talk) 17:45, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

  Ok, I’ve just posted it to Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Austria-Hungary Dalida Editor _{please ping or message me} 23:57, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

I have to agree with DalidaEditor and DeCausa that I don't see a point in distinguishing between legal and territorial successors. Even articles of former countries with many successor states like the Ottoman Empire don't use this distinction. We can list the direct successor states, Republic of German-Austria and First Hungarian Republic, at the top of the list to emphasize them over the other successor states, and I would prefer to keep using these states as is listed in the infobox instead of First Austrian Republic and Hungarian Republic (1919–1920). Gramix13 (talk) 03:50, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

I vote for full npov ie. listing them alphabetically. Dalida Editor _{please ping or message me} 04:31, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

I also agree with DeCausa et al. This is simply a dispute about what is appropriate in the INFOBOX and MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE pertains, which says,

The purpose of an infobox is to summarize, but not supplant, the key facts that appear in an article.

I was about to simply revert in DalidaEditor's edit as the talk consensus here is clear. However, edit history shows a single revert to status quo by Norden1990, who has not yet discussed here and is not listed at the above dispute resolution. Norden, are you content with the consensus? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:28, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

OK, it's fine. However, I would like to reject DalidaEditor's remark regarding my nationality, which is a kind of personal attack. A user with history of edit wars on a sensitive topic (Dacia)... I'm not sure he's the best editor to present moral superiority. --Norden1990 (talk) 16:33, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

My statement “there is possible bias” is a personal attack? Dalida Editor _{please ping or message me} 16:36, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

Definitely. It's pretty boring that if I, as a Hungarian, contribute to editing an article on a topic related to Hungarian history, then I must be biased. --Norden1990 (talk) 17:02, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

I did not said that. This is word-twisting, just as the other editor did.

Since other editors have confirmed the standard use of the infobox, I consider this discussion closed and I will make such edit. Dalida Editor _{please ping or message me} 17:32, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

Infobox flags - signposting to use cisleithania and transleithania for persons

The flag used in infoboxes to represent Austria-Hungary when it's necessary to do so is - correctly, as far as I'm concerned - the black-gold flag of the House of Habsburg. Any other flag is either a flag of only part of the empire, or purely naval in use.

But this is frequently used to represent the nationality of a person, e.g. in the infobox for World Chess Championship 1886. There were multiple nations within the empire, and it seems to me that it would be correct to use one of the flags in the country data template as Cisleithania and Transleithania for most people rather than the general Austria-Hungary flag.

What can be done to signpost infobox editors to use these flags rather the generic one when they want a flag for a person? Richard Gadsden (talk) 18:51, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

Per mos:INFOBOXFLAG flag icons shouldn't normally be used in Infoboxes. In the limited circumstances when they can be used then the flag of the relevant Habsburg state should be used. It would be wrong, for instance, to use the black and gold flag for a Hungarian or a Croatian, for instance. DeCausa (talk) 20:33, 25 November 2025 (UTC)