Jump to content

Talk:Emperor-King (Austria-Hungary)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Requested move 6 August 2018

[edit]
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: reinstituting stable redirect from Emperor-King to King-Emperor, rather than moving this, since it is apparent that there is consensus to merge this article to Imperial and Royal; though the merge can't be mandated by this close, please feel free to proceed. If necessary, please also place a hatnote at King-Emperor pointing to Imperial and Royal, but please do not alter the redirect from Emperor-King further without a WP:RFD discussion. Dekimasuよ! 20:39, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Emperor-King (Austria-Hungary) → Emperor-King –  Colonestarrice (talk) 00:39, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is a contested technical request (permalink). — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 01:21, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@SnowFire: If we move Imperial and Royal back to Kaiserlich und königlich, we should also move Imperial-Royal to Kaiserlich-königlich, for consistency. GRvGloschau (talk) 19:29, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]


There is clear consensus for a merge and redirect, but what's the procedure now? Are we supposed to wait for an admin to put their rubber stamp on this or can we just do it? I'm going to wait another 24 hours and if nobody has objected by then I'll implement the result. As it stands, the article doesn't contain much that Imperial and Royal doesn't say already. It also still doesn't cite any sources. So I think there's mostly going to be the redirect and not a whole lot of merging.

There doesn't seem to be any strong desire to move Imperial and Royal back to kaiserlich und königlich. @SnowFire seems (weakly?) in favor, @Srnec is opposed, @KIENGIR seems neutral. Me, I'd say I don't care as long as consistency is maintained. GRvGloschau (talk) 18:20, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think you should wait until the case is closed by a wiki-official, this is the procedure.(KIENGIR (talk) 19:19, 10 August 2018 (UTC))[reply]
@GRvGloschau: An uninvolved editor will close the discussion on or after August 13th and determine the consensus. Do not perform closing actions ahead of established procedure or there may be complaints. You can beginning merging by adding material to the other article, but do not remove material from this article yet. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 19:33, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@KIENGIR and Frayae: Got it, thank you! GRvGloschau (talk) 20:09, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Names and explosions

[edit]

@KIENGIR::

> "the whole was not called "Austrian Empire", only the Austrian part"

No. I know the Austrian Empire was officially renamed the Austro-Hungarian empire after the Compromise, but "Austrian Empire" survived as a colloquial name for the whole. What you call "the Austrian part" was called, for most of its existence, "die im Reichsrathe vertretenen Königreiche und Länder" officially, "Cisleithanien" or "Cisleithania" inofficially. It was eventually given the official designation of "Österreich", but this did not happen until a few months before the ultimate collapse and is, at best, a footnote.

> the "explosion to multiple peaces" came later so the correspondent sentence was correct"

The explosion was well in progress when the emperor sort-of resigned from his position as the Austrian emperor (but not from his position as the holder of the Crown of Saint Stephen) (and even with regards to the Austrian thing, his declaration was deliberately worded to avoid being an actual abdication). In fact, it was the walkout of the Czech deputies from the Reichsrath and the (accurate) rumors that Hungary was hours away from quitting the Compromise that was the proximate cause for his semi-resignation. The sentence, claiming that the two halves became democracies, as though nothing happened to them save a superficial change in executive structure, is thoroughly gaga and indefensible. The monarchies never "became fully independent from each other", they ceased to exist before they had any chance to do that.

GRvGloschau (talk) 19:31, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@GRvGloschau:,
1. But yes, inaccurate colloquial or unofficial designations does not count, the term "Austrian Empire" is invalid by any means to designate Austria-Hungary on the whole.
2. I agree on that part that in a moment they ceased, and also in Hungary the so-called Aster revolution may be critized regarding the scope of "democracy", so in a way I agree that a good rephrasing would be needed on that sentence.(KIENGIR (talk) 19:15, 8 August 2018 (UTC))[reply]
@KIENGIR:
1. I'm fine with not using "Austrian Empire" as the name for the whole. I just don't want it used as a synonym for "Cisleithania", which is definitely even wronger.
2. Personally, I don't see why an article on the pre-collapse structure of government needs to contain a weirdly selective side note on post-collapse developments, but if you can come up with a rephrasing that does not imply things that never happened and that does not reek of Whig history... why not. GRvGloschau (talk) 19:25, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Emperor-King_(Austria-Hungary)&oldid=1136698923"