This is an archive of past discussions about Austria-Hungary. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
"Administrative divisions and the counties of Hungary" & "Municipal rights of the biggest cities in Hungary"
I removed this section from the article and User:KIENGIR has restored it. KIENGIR is a knowledgeable editor and that may be the right call. My justification for removing it was that: (1) the article already has a heading at the top claiming that it is too long; (2) the text in question is copied directly from the Encyclopedia Britannica 1911 - it is even still in the present tense!; (3) the material in question is a detailed list of all the Hungarian-Croatian counties. There is no similar list of Cisleithanian laender (even though these were significantly more salient divisions), so there is a good case for this being excessive detail; (4) A full list of the Hungarian-Croatian counties in their individual circles is provided in List of administrative divisions of the Kingdom of Hungary (which could be linked to at the start of section 4.3.2 Kingdom of Hungary (Transleithania)).
I am also a bit unclear why KIENGIR has removed the nice File:Austria-Hungary map.svg. Furius (talk) 00:33, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
Hi,
thanks for your precise contributions so far! Well, the map you added is already present at a lowe section, you may add a map solely highlighted to Austria as you did with Hungary. Regarding the administrative divisions, I'll try to solve your concerns somehow, however I have no objection to add Austrian counterpart. Cheers.(KIENGIR (talk) 00:48, 27 September 2020 (UTC))
Fair point about the map. I've tried to incorporate your revised version into the preceding section - I think that I've done that without the loss of any information. Apologies for not responding here before doing that - it only occured to me afterwards that I might be jumping the gun. I'm not really keen for a list of the Cisleithanian Laender because it would increase the length of the article further... Furius (talk) 17:59, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
World War I
The "World War I" section is a bit odd, as a very detailed narrative account in an article that does not otherwise contain narrative history. I wonder whether it should be spun off as a separate article History of Austria-Hungary during World War I (cf. History of Germany during World War I or Ottoman Empire during World War I) and replaced with a shorter account here as part of a general 'History' section, which would also cover 1867-1914. I'm not exactly sure how the latter part would be done; much of the material for the latter is probably already present in the "Politics" section... Furius (talk) 00:38, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
IP comment
I think it is more correct to include the Lombard-Venetian kingdom in the map, we can speak of the Austro-Hungarian empire with the Lombard-Venetian kingdom included. We speak of the Austrian Empire after 1866, instead when the empire was deprived of the Lombard-Venetian kingdom in the year 1866. Also because the populations of Lombardy-Veneto participated in the conflicts of 1866, under the imperial army, especially many sailors, of the gulf of Venice
which has historical seafaring traditions and were medalized by the emperor for the enterprise of Lissa. Sometimes we forget about this thing, I invite those who want to do it to visit Verona, where there are many testimonies of the Austrian "period". To be correct, until 1866 only part of Lombard-Venetian kingdom was Austrian, Lombardy was ceded to the kingdom of Italy in 1959. Those who visit Verona can find many testimonies of the Austrian military genius who built and shaped Verona into a military stronghold.
The Venetians have never known military conscription for a thousand years, then Napoleon arrived to enlist them forcibly .... to go to Russia....
Splitting Content
Hello!
I noticed that there is a maintenance template on the page saying that it was too long, so I am going to splinter sections in different articals.
A recent edit by @LuizLSNeto: duplicated almost all of the content of the article. I have removed the duplication -- I think. It's possible that some duplicated sections remain, and it's possible that I removed too much. Someone familiar with the material should review it to be sure my repair didn't cause any new problems. -- Mikeblas (talk) 15:18, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
SuperSkaterDude45,
I did not say such that it should be "shut down", however if more than four, may be shut down. Inaccuraacies: e.g. not just Transylvania became part of Romania, not just "Zakarpattia Oblast" became part of Ukraine, etc.(KIENGIR (talk) 10:16, 20 March 2021 (UTC))
If this is information that requires such nuanced description, then the case should be made that it might be better to just get rid of the whole parameter at Template:Infobox former country; since it achieves very little. In the meantime removing it simply because of an arbitrary and whimsical cut-off (why four? why not 5? 8? 3?) seems rather unhelpful - if there are too many, it might be better to keep the most important and have a "and others/etc" part which is a self-link to the section where this is described. The information can probably be given as regular prose in the article if that isn't already done so (with a summary in the lead if appropriate; ex. "The territory of Austria-Hungary is nowadays mostly part of Austria and Hungary, [... further as required]"). In any case, WP:BRD is what needs to be done. No more R, just D until we can agree on something. Does anyone want to take up my suggestion to remove this ill-conceived parameter directly at the template? RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 17:30, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
(I just react to your misleading edit log), please do not not turn upside down our rules. The user made a bold addition, which I reverted to status quo ante, then the user continued reverting, I entered in the talk page, which the user ignored (but in a misleading edit log he asked me to use to the talk :), in which he should have entered after the second revert), after I legitimately reset the status quo again, since always the ONUS is on the one who meade the bold edit, the one should reach consensus, not me. So please revert yourself and the next time pay more attention to the events. Thank You.(KIENGIR (talk) 18:31, 20 March 2021 (UTC))
meta:The Wrong Version. Anyway, I see the "today part of" bit present long time ago, ex. 2015. Apparently it was removed here, citing a now deleted doc page; with the same probably WP:LOCALCONSENSUS arbitrary cut-off. Clearly it was never discussed; so better have a discussion now and decide on a coherent way forward. As I said it probably is better to just nuke the parameter across all templates. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 18:57, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
Inciting the meta of The wrong version has nothing to with what I said, you did the mistake I draw your attention, and TompaDompa's edit log was correct, and since then the status quo is evidently a longstanding implicit consensus, even if there was no discussion (which may serve for a new consensus, in case, now), even if the then cited doc page is not anymore exist. What was added now is not identical with the former (indeed erronous), so has to be removed anyway.(KIENGIR (talk) 21:00, 20 March 2021 (UTC))
I see you made changes on the PRED/SUCC list. Fine, however if so, I have to draw your attention that instead what you put to Austria and Hungary, First Austrian Republic and Kingdom of Hungary (1920–1946) should be put, as they are recognized legal successors. So either modify it, or I'll do soon to keep it consistent.(KIENGIR (talk) 12:24, 24 March 2021 (UTC))
About the education law and it's details, consequences we should prelimary agree here what we include further, with appropriate phrasing.(KIENGIR (talk) 12:18, 24 March 2021 (UTC))
@KIENGIR: I'm not trying to be a jerk about it. But I can't fix the prose if I can't read the source. I may know what I think it is you mean, but I can't verify that it's the correct interpretation because I don't read Hungarian. We can't just put broken English in an article with the expectation that someone eventually will come along and fix it. I barely speak enough Spanish to qualify as a lost tourist. But I wouldn't expect to go to es.wiki and try to write prose. GMGtalk13:24, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
Serious topic about Religion in Austro-Hungarian Empire
This is not intended to be a joke statement, but I want to add a suggestion before I edit here.
That we should add the info about Islam coming to Austria, Hungary, and other countries that were formerly part of the empire before it disbanded due to the First World War.
Because Wikipedia is reliant on Web sources.
How about I suggest adding a reference to this article when it comes to religion in this Empire.
Like this one: [[1]] and [[2]]
Do you guys agree on this info that can be inserted into the article?74.67.178.97 (talk) 12:25, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
It’s unclear what exactly you want to add. You’ll need to spell that out. Certainly the Religion section says little generally at the moment. Which means just adding material on Muslims might be WP:UNDUE without more information about other religions. There is only a table with the religious breakdown of the population. With regard to the two sources you link (at least one of which doesn’t qualify as a reliable source that we can use - see WP:RS) I don’t see much that’s relevant to Austria-Hungary. And by the way, Wikipedia isn’t solely reliant on web sources at all. DeCausa (talk) 12:58, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
New Flag ?
Hello!
I think we should change the flag on the page. Although Austria Hungary did not have an official flag I think we should use a flag similar to
the one found on this 1918 postcard.
No, we shouldn't, that isn't real flag. Austria-Hungary as a dual monarchy had two official flags, which you removed. Don't do it. --Dragovit (talk) 00:30, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
Not a real flag? That's ridiculous. The civil ensign of Austria-Hungary was used repeatedly by the dual monarchy and by historians. The decision to abruptly go through multiple articles and eliminate its appearance without even bothering to discuss a drastic change with other editors is completely uncalled for.--White ShadowsLet’s Talk07:36, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
Maybe he expressed himself in an ambigous way, meaning "not a real flag" would not mean it did not exist, but the question is about the appropriate identification. The issue is complex.(KIENGIR (talk) 15:43, 25 December 2020 (UTC))
The sudden edit of multiple Wikipedia pages to replace the Civil Ensign flag to the Dual Monarchy flags seems less of an attempt to bring accuracy or consistency to the site, and more an attempt to remove references to the Civil Ensign for not being a "real flag". This is despite the fact the Civil Ensign is the most widely associated flag for Austria-Hungary, and was used by the empire and now by historians. Though perhaps on a page like this it is best to be the most accurate, including no references to the civil ensign anywhere on the article seems more an attempt at erasure than being accurate. I personally think the best solution is to include all three flags, with a footnote explaining that though the civil ensign is not "official" it was widely used and associated with the empire. Or at the very least, include a picture of the civil ensign elsewhere on the article with an explanation. Alexanderdt00 (talk) 07:18, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
I completely agree. There has been this weird silent edit war going on over the past 6 months or so where a very small number of editors are using the fact that articles on A-H aren't regularly edited to try and quietly eliminate all references to the civil ensign (which BTW, was an official flag, just not the "national flag" of A-H). I think we should be extremely careful about throwing out literally decades of precedent with respect to A-H articles, as well as the overwhelming consensus of historians and even contemporary observers who associated the civil ensign with the closest thing to a national flag for the Dual Monarchy. Why can't we have a compromise where we show both the civil ensign and the flags of Austria and Hungary all in the same article? At any rate, the civil ensign itself should be the featured flag on the infobox because that is what is most commonly associated with A-H, then and now. --White ShadowsLet’s Talk01:15, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
I agree the civil ensign of Austria-Hungary should remain the featured flag on the article for the reasons mentionned by Alexanderdt00 and White Shadows. A compromise that would include the three flags could certainly be found. After all, wasn't Austria-Hungary founded on a compromise? Until then, I believe attempts to replace the civil ensign should be seen as vandalism tendentious editing. Conrad Caribou (talk) 01:08, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
You're right. I was not aware vandalism had a specific meaning on Wikipedia. My apologies. I have edited my statement above and will be sure to read the material you've provided me in depth. Conrad Caribou (talk) 18:45, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
Austria-Hungary had no common coat of arms, it is the the coat of arms of the Habsburg dynasty. This coat of arm were not used in Hungarian govermnetal buildings, neither in legal courts or on buildings of the public administration. It is only a dynastic coat-of-arms. Please remove it from the info-box.--Elfogyhatatlans (talk) 19:17, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
Hi, could you please change the extention of the Railways Croatia-Slavonia and Hungary.jpg file to .png?
A higher quality scan of the same map had been found. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HC Strelok (talk • contribs) 23:03, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
RfC: National Flags vs Civil Ensign
The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
No clear consensus- there's a narrow numerical advantage to "oppose", but I can't say there's a clear consensus here, despite much well-reasoned discussion - David Gerard (talk) 16:41, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
Support:The Austro-Hungarian Empire was an "old" type of empire which pre-dated modern nation-states. Instead of having "an Austro-Hungarian flag" it had two. The black-yellow flag (which was connected to the ruling Habsburg dynasty and had been used by the pre-divide Austrian Empire) and the red-white-green Hungarian national flag. This is because these two flags were the national flags of the two "countries" (Austria and Hungary) which composed the "Dual Monarchy" under the Habsburgs.
When flags were originally added to the Austria-Hungary article in 2005, they included both the national flags as well as the civil and naval ensign (used for civilian and military ships at sea, respectively). When the currently used type of infobox was added in 2007, however, only the civil ensign remained. This has at times been captioned as simply "flag" in the infobox and the Commons-file of the ensign still retains the long-standing, but incorrect, title of Flag of Austria-Hungary. This was likely done as it felt "easier" to list only 1 "united" flag, since people are generally used to countries having "a (national) flag", which is a tradition born from modern nation-states. The prominence of the civil ensign as "flag of Austria-Hungary" on such a prominent site as Wikipedia for so many years (over a decade!), has however had the unfortunate "Wikipedia-effect" of Wikipedia influencing or "changing" reality. The "dual-flag" being "the flag of Austria-Hungary" has been so imprinted into people through regurgitation stemming from Wikipedia's use of the flag as "the flag of Austria-Hungary" that it has become a "fact" so ingrained that people cant imagine this "fact" to suddenly "change".
So when it discussed by a dozen users on this TALK page last year to rectify this long-standing "bad habit" by finally correcting this infobox by replacing the civil ensign (which was only used by trading ships and such at sea) with the aforementioned National FlagS, some users (mostly IP-users) were unnerved by this sudden "change" and has tried to revert to the "real flag" (theyve always seen it be "the flag of Austria-Hungary" since 2007 for crying out loud!). No doubt the fact that the previously "easy" "double-flag" (which neatly represented the whole empire) being replaced by two(!) flags played a part in this; being used to the modern concept of A national flag, suddenly having to "replace" the "fact" of the easily mentally-categorized, familiar old "flag of Austria-Hungary" with two unfamiliar flags (due to non-prominence on Wikipedia...) can be hard to swallow (what kind of country has two flags!?).
But the historical reality of this pre-modern empire needs to be respected, and old bad-habits or "easiness" of trying to conform the empire to a modern nation-state (by listing a maritime ensign used by civilian ships instead of the actual national flags) cannot be valid arguments in face of trying to list encyclopedic FACTS. Calls for an RfC have however been made by the aforementioned users who wants the civil ensign re-instated in the infobox, which is why it has now been created --Havsjö (talk) 09:02, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
Support: I'd prefer to have the two flags in the infobox. The situation is not so unique - a similar situation arises with Kingdom of England. Wikipedia does regularly include other symbols in infoboxes for empires that didn't really have them (e.g., Roman Empire, Ming China), but in those cases (1) the alternative symbols are clearly labelled as such and (2) there was no flag at all. (The name of the image should be changed immediately) Furius (talk) 09:15, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
Comment To frame this Rfc appropriately, there should be a third option of all three flags. Also, to be clear, using “information” as part of the heading of Havsjö‘s support post is a little misleading. It’s opinion. For example, where is the evidence of WP mirroring? Generally, without references to WP:RS to support assertions, I foresee that this Rfc will go nowhere fast. DeCausa (talk) 09:37, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
The Lands of the Crown of St. Stephen. Notice the flag of the Kingdom of Hungary.
The ensign used to represent "Austria-Hungary" depicting the coins of Cisleithania.
The ensign used to represent "Austria-Hungary" depicting the coins of the Lands of the Crown of St. Stephen.
I removed the "information" tag from my above comment. I also add that I have nothing "against" the civil ensign and dont "deny" its historical use to represent Austria-Hungary in the right context (which was for civilian ships). I only agree with the decision last year that to list an ensign used for civilian ships above actual national flags based on bad habits of trying to fit a square peg into a round hole is entirely incorrect--Havsjö (talk) 10:48, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
I would go with contemporary depictions, the old flag of the Austrian Empire was often used to represent Cisleithania while Hungary had its own flag, the current infobox flag actually represents the two dominant powers of the union quite well. Of course, I'm not against adding more flags but the question for the infobox remains "What is the best abstract symbol to represent it?" And according to contemporary depictions the ensign fulfilled this. --Donald Trung (talk) 10:21, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
Nope, the question does not remain, because meaning of the infobox is not to display the "best abstract symbols", but the symbolism of the state, which is definitely not the ensign used by civilian merchant ships. Austria-Hungary as a dual monarchy used two flags and it is not possible to attribute one "abstract flag" to represent it. Dragovit (talk) 14:57, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
After doing more research I found that indeed this flag did not have as much authority as might have been suggested by it. It may have been "a shorthand flag" but it did not seem to have any official status outside of being a civilian ensign. Likely it was used in contexts such as the above because using two (2) flags was seen as unorthodox or perhaps the civil ensign was used abroad and therefore helped spread the misusing of it as a national flag. --Donald Trung (talk) 10:07, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
Support: Because the maritime ensign has no official role and use other than civilian merchant ships, so its significance is lower than that of other flags or standards. Austria-Hungary was dual monarchy and therefore is represented by two flags that belonged to both parts. I don't understand why some editors still insert this unimportant banner of merchant ships into an article, but I think it's because of computer games where the ensign often appears. It has no logical explanation. The question of what is the "best abstract symbol to represent" Austria-Hungary is illogical and has no logical solution. Dragovit (talk) 15:04, 27 August 2021 (UTC)Edit in violation of a topic ban, which applies to all edits, could or bad. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 21:05, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
It's worth noting that Dragovit was indefinitely topic banned by the Wikipedia community from editing in the areas of flags, coats of arms, or other national symbols back in May for repeated edit-warring and ignoring community consensus.[3]. This topic ban was nearly made an absolute ban on the site, and yet as recently as today, Dragovit continues to ignore their topic ban by continuing to engage in meddling with national flags, coats of arms, and engaging in edit warring over these topics.[4][5][6][7][8]. This begs the question, why is Dragovit even commenting here on a subject matter they are banned from editing in? Well, it's becuase the original poster of this thread (who as it so happens also continues to comb through Wikipedia to remove all references to the Civil Ensign), quite literally invited Dragovit to participate,[9] in almost blatant violation of Wikipedia's canvassing policy. White ShadowsLet’s Talk03:02, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
@White Shadows: Since those are the users who were participating in the previous discussion on this exact topic last year, which reached the conscensus of replacing the unsuitable civil ensign with the national flags, I invited them to this RfC since they would probably be interested in the same discussion as it was being resurrected --Havsjö (talk) 16:30, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
I just went to the the previous consensus-reaching discussion that I remembered since I was part of it. And I went straight to it on Page 5, since I remembered it had been on that page after I remember referring to it when reverting flag-replacement edits which went against its consensus--Havsjö (talk) 18:52, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
I edited the wrong version of the talk page by mistake. However, if we can't even agree on whether or not this vote should count, then we're going to have to take this to a higher level of arbitration. White ShadowsLet’s Talk19:16, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
Support. There is no justification for the use of the civil ensign, and it could lead to confusion on behalf of our readers; as the standard is for a nations flag to be placed in that box, a cursory reader may misinterpret the ensign as the flag. However, on the topic of "how"; I wonder if it might look better to display the flags side by side and the coat of arms centered below? BilledMammal (talk) 09:01, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
Strong Oppose. I have been editing articles related to Austria-Hungary for well over a decade. This recent movement to consign the civil ensign to the dust bin and comb through every article related to the Dual Monarchy and replace it with a set of flags of a small handful of editor's own choosing is the exact opposite of how Wikipedia should operate. The overwhelming consensus among historians for the past century has been to use the civil ensign when referring to Austria-Hungary as a political entity. We would be doing our readers and the entire community a monumental disservice by throwing out literally decades of precedent and opening this pandora's box, simply because a small handful of editors want to remove all references of the civil ensign from countless Wikipedia articles. Words can't really express how much of a mistake that would be. Are we going to remove other "unofficial" but widely and nearly universally accepted banner depictions for other personal union states, like the Kalmar Union? White ShadowsLet’s Talk02:50, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
I don't feel that the Kalmar Union is the most equivalent example. In biographies, where no image is known to exist, we commonly use artistic interpretations; for instance, in Homer. The use of banner in the Kalmer Union would be per the same principle; no flag is known to exist, but in its absense the banner is a reasonable standin. However, in the case of the Dual Monarchy, national flags are known to exist, and so despite the deviation from the norm that their plurality requires there is no reason we should not use them. BilledMammal (talk) 03:54, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
"The overwhelming consensus among historians for the past century has been to use the civil ensign when referring to Austria-Hungary as a political entity." Where can I read about this overwhelming, century-spanning consensus? I also recommend you take your brain-medicine, since you seem to have paranoid delusions that people are out to purge the civil ensign from history through this change. Information about the civil ensign and other Austro-Hungarian naval flags remain unmolested, for example, in the Flags of Austria-Hungary article --Havsjö (talk) 16:33, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
"I also recommend you take your brain-medicine, since you seem to have paranoid delusions" My recommendation to you is that you immediately drop the personal attacks and insults before we take this to ANI. This isn't the first timeyou've been snippy with editors. There's no need to attack another user simply because they disagree with you. White ShadowsLet’s Talk18:37, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
Apologies, but the assertion that a cabal of users are trying to purge Wikipedia from any mention of the Austro-Hungarian maritime ensign struck me of schizophrenic paranoia. Also still waiting for information regarding the century of overwhelming consensus by historians which has decided that the aforementioned ensign shall be used when referring to Austria-Hungary --Havsjö (talk) 18:45, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
Support + Oppose, display all three (Civil ensign, Austria, Hungary). Clearly there is a flag muddle here, I propose that all three flags be listed in the infobox and that way all possible bases on flags be covered.--Astral Leap (talk) 07:12, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
Display none or Civil ensign (with the "Civil ensign" caption) I went looking, but I can't find too many good sources (and Flags of Austria-Hungary is in a pitiful state, so no help there). A NZ govt website uses the civil ensign [17], Flags of the World (dubious article, but nevermind) gives some specific war ensigns [18], but as for a national flag, [19], gives the comment (from some vexillologist) that "Up to the end of Austria-Hungary there was no concept of the "national flag" as we know it today. The closest thing to the modern flag was the civil merchant ensign, used on the ships."; and then there's some unusable more recent circular stuff cited back to WP. Britannica [20] has something about the flag of Austria proper, but there's no mention of the combination; and scrolling through the titles and covers of a list of books about this from the Guardian [21], the only one that seems to have anything relevant is Rauchensteiner's Der Tod des Doppeladlers, which clearly associates with the coat of arms (of Austria), not the flag... Given this somewhat inconclusive sourcing, I'd not be opposed to simply having no flag at all; but if we must have one, then the one in more common usage (the civil ensign) is likely the one that should be retained. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:25, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
Keep in consideration that it is well confirmed that these 2 flags were the widely used national flags, which were the flags that were raised on solemn occasions, for celebrations, as decoration, etc, in the respective country. And that the flags flew side-by-side at Austro-Hungarian embassies or in front of the Emperor-King's palace.[1]
What you are not saying is that those were used as the flags of Austria, and Hungary, respectively, not the flags of "Austria-Hungary". What I was saying, per the sources, is that there was no actual national flag for AH as a whole, so we shouldn't create a fiction by putting the two constituents together. We can either A) put no flag at all, accepting that nothing is better than the wrong thing; or B) put the civil ensign (identified as such), as the next best thing, since this is also frequently used (this usage predates Wikipedia), thus accepting that a technically correct alternative is better than no flag at all. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 18:29, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
I think you fundamentally misunderstand what Austria-Hungary was, since Austria-Hungary was Austria and Hungary under a shared monarch. There is no "Austria-Hungary" outside "Austria" and "Hungary". "Austria" and "Hungary" together are Austria-Hungary, which is why it had 2 national flags (and 2 governments, 2 citizenships etc). The flags of Austria and Hungary become the flags of Austria-Hungary (and where used as such in shared areas, such as Austro-Hungarian embassies.) --Havsjö (talk) 18:35, 29 August 2021 (UTC):::::That seems an overly simplistic assessment of the actual situation:
Hungary received full internal autonomy, together with a responsible ministry, and, in return, agreed that the empire should still be a single great state for purposes of war and foreign affairs. Franz Joseph thus surrendered his domestic prerogatives in Hungary, including his protection of the non-Magyar peoples, in exchange for the maintenance of dynastic prestige abroad. The “common monarchy” consisted of the emperor and his court, the minister for foreign affairs, and the minister of war. There was no common prime minister (other than Franz Joseph himself) and no common cabinet. The common affairs were to be considered at the delegations, composed of representatives from the two parliaments. There was to be a customs union and a sharing of accounts, which was to be revised every 10 years. This decennial revision gave the Hungarians recurring opportunity to levy blackmail on the rest of the empire. Britannica, Austria-Hungary
So, this is a political entity which had one head of state, acted as one for military and foreign policy affairs... This is not, as you seem to insinuate, a mere personal union with a monarch ruling two separate entities (compare with the historical situation as regards Hanover and UK...). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 19:03, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
Yes, but then one can observe how at the shared areas, like foreign affairs (embassies etc)[1], used the 2 flags representative of the 2 countries which composed this united state/empire. (and then ofc civil and naval ensigns, but only on civil/naval ships at sea, just as how all other countries did (and still do) with regards to their national flag and any maritime ensigns they might have) --Havsjö (talk) 19:07, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
Support Country infoboxes should depict flags rather than civil ensigns. The two flags are clearly more representative of the political situation in the dual monarchy. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 16:41, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
Opposeas defined but support the inclusion of the so-called ‘civil ensign’ with the other flags or no flags at all. The ‘civil ensign’ seems to be more than a civil ensign and was used by the Empire when they had a need to provide a flag for the dual monarchy as a whole e.g. at consulates. There was an Rfc on this in 2019 (see here) and the exchange between @Srnec: and Havsjö is instructive. The point is that the concept of “a” national flag does not appear to be as settled for Austria-Hungary as modern eyes might expect. Saying rigidly that there was an Austrian flag and a Hungarian flag and no other flag represented the dual monarchy is anachronistic. DeCausa (talk) 19:48, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
The Civil Ensign was defined in all flag-related laws, and in flag-guides, as the Civil Ensign (so its not "so-called"). And the argument that "seems to used by the Empire when they had a need to provide a flag for the dual monarchy" should speak more in favour of the national flags, since they are the once used when a "flag of Austria-Hungary" was needed for shared-areas such as embassies and legations (while then ensigns, as you mentioned, only used at branch-consultes), diplomatic meetings, before the imperial palace, or in areas under KuK military control --Havsjö (talk) 05:01, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
@Havsjö: the way you framed the Rfc breaches WP:RFCNEUTRAL. Rather than calling the ‘civil ensign’ by it’s usual name you have called it the ‘maritime ensign which was used by civilian ships at sea’. That’s a POV description with the clear intention of steering editors without a background on the topic i.e. to indicate a narrow use of the flag. However, you have admitted in the above post that you are aware of its role at dual monarchy consulates. I believe that the closer of this Rfc should take this into account. DeCausa (talk) 07:31, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
Per Pincrete, I now don’t think having the Hungarian or Austrian flags makes any sense in an article that’s about neither. DeCausa (talk) 21:06, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
Oppose The civil ensign is the flag that best represents the K-und-K empire after 1867. I'm largely in agreement with White Shadows: to my mind, the most appropriate solution would be either to use that flag, then to add a {{Multiple image}} call underneath, or to use all 3 flags in the infobox. — OwenBlacker (he/him; Talk; please {{ping}} me in replies)20:04, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
Middle Common Coat of Arms of Austria-Hungary, designed in 1915
German Wikipedia uses the 1915 Middle Common Coat of Arms of Austria-Hungary in the Infobox itself, along with links to a dedicated "Flag" section in the article, which goes into more detail, showing both the black-yellow, and R-W-G flags. The first sentence of that section starts: "Austria-Hungary did not have a common state flag, ..." and goes on from there with a more detailed explanation of the subtleties.
Support. Austria-Hungary had two national flags and this is an indisputable fact. It is not convenient for people accustomed the country must have one flag, but it was just like that. The maritime ensign was purely a trade marchant navy flag and never functioned as a national flag. The "habit" of using a trade flag as a convenient graphic as a single symbol of this country is irrelevant in historical matters. Wikipedia is supposed to describe the facts, not to create them. Sumek101 (talk) 09:13, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
"Wikipedia is supposed to describe the facts": would be a good start if you get get yours right. Austria-Hungary had zero national flags (as demonstrated by the sources above and previous); Austria and Hungary each had their own, but none of these are the flags of Austria-Hungary (your proposal would be like using the separate flags of England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, in stead of the Union Jack, if the latter did not exist). The previous sources also demonstrate that the civil ensign was/is still widely used as a stand-in; and there is also evidence that this long predates the 21st century: At least one well known source, "Album of Standards, Flags and Streamers of the Russian Empire and Foreign Governments" 1890 edition with later corrections indicates at the table VIII number 4 that the "Dual flag" is the "National civil flag" and "Commercial ensign". (source: [26]) (catologue link [with scan, AH is on page 39] for earlier edition [without the later corrections mentioned] of cited book: [27]). The only instance of Wikipedia "creating facts" would be if we were the ones rewriting history, by not giving any context to our readers. As I said, the best option is probably to just have no flag whatsoever (with the second best being to use the civil ensign, identified as such, given it's longstanding usage: again, we're not supposed to innovate here), and I agree with Mathglot that having (brief) mention of this issue in the body of the article is certainly a better idea. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 11:50, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
You are wrong, look carefully at the source you cited: [28] p. 39 - nr.4: the signature says "коммерческих судов" which means merchant ships. And in nr. 2 "флаг Национальный" which means national flag, but shown on it "archduchy of Austria" flag or "war navy flag" (author mistake). This source in no way mentions the maritime ensign as a national flag. Additionally, the first source you mentioned [29] cannot be considered reliable, it is a contemporary study linking to... Wikipedia. Sumek101 (talk) 12:44, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
You haven't read the whole of my comment or of the source. It is referring to another edition which is not apparently available online. The source I'm linking to is written by a vexillologist, and they're not citing Wikipedia for this particular bit of information. In fact, the only links to WP seem to be for convenience, or regarding a comment on this:
"The civil ensign, as a symbol of "corporate identity", doubled as the consular flag, as decreed on 18 February 1869. It came into use on 1 August 1869. Legations, however, flew the black-and-yellow flag of Austria alongside the red-white-green flag of Hungary, while embassies flew the two national flags alongside the imperial standard." The source given is Rudolf Agstner, Austria(-Hungary) and Its Consulates in the United States of America since 1820 (LIT Verlag, 2012), p. 45. Given Rudolf Agstner (1951-2016) was an Austrian diplomat himself, I believe this information can be reasonably relied upon.
Now I know what circular referencing looks like, but this is clearly not that (and the source has already been cited here, if more selectively..., anyway). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 12:53, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
It's hard for me to treat this website as a serious source [30]. It presents some loose comments on the subject (looking like taken out comments from the discussion) and not a scientific study. Assuming that quoted there russian document [31] has changed in subsequent editions this is just an assumption. More probable is a wrong interpretation of the source. Referring to the rest of your previous comment: your proposal would be like using the separate flags of England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, in stead of the Union Jack - yes, if the Union Jack did not exist, the national flags would be this collection of flags, not the flag of the British merchant navy... Long-term and well-established presenting an incorrect thesis cannot be the basis for blocking the willingness to correct them ;) If the maritime ensign still had a function outside of merchant ships, okay, but raising it to the rank of a national flag, or at least a substitute for it, is wrong. Sumek101 (talk) 14:32, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
The website seems to be maintained by a bona fide vexillologist (who also has a more thorough page, here, with plenty of references provided). If you're not convinced, there's the IWM which doesn't seem to have qualms with the civil ensign-as-national flag concept (identifying it as such here); there's also Hulme's The Flags of the World (1894, so contemporary) which clearly decribes that "Austro-Hungarian flag" as the combination of the Austrian and Hungarian flags ([32], p. 101-102 for the description, figure 214 for the flag). That this is, de iure, the civil ensign and not a formal national flag that is being used in this function, is not reason for us to present a combination which is not widely used for this purpose. We have either the choice of showing the flag that most sources identify with this (per WP:VNT; although we're perfectly allowed to also identify that it is de iure the civil ensign), or following the lead of other language Wikis and simply showing no national flag (because there's no national flag; there are only the flags of Austria and Hungary, separately, and including them here as the flags of "Austria-Hungary" would be WP:SYNTH - your response to the hypothetical question about the Union Jack seems quite a textbook example of such synthesis). In either case, this also warrants a discussion in the body of the article, whether we leave out the flags entirely or just put-up the civil ensign as everyone else. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 19:38, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
Interesting how you prioritize random mentions, such as museum inventory tags or vague stuff like "Austro-Hungarian flag", above the actual defined laws which specified its areas of use ("for the merchant ships at sea and the ships of inland (riverine) navigation abroad"."), its "de-facto" use as flag to represent AH outside of merchant shipping being limited to consulates (the 3rd tier of diplomatic office). But the national flags of the empire not only being explicitly called as such, but also used together by all shared institutions, e.g. legations and embassies (the 2nd and 1st tier of diplomatic offices), the monarchy, the military, etc is apparently of less importance... --Havsjö (talk) 20:13, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
One of the arguments against the dual flag was that its popularity was only because Wikipedia used it (and thus circular sourcing). I've shown, hopefully, that this is simply not true: the dual flag was used to represent AH, more than a century ago; and still is, in many reputable sources outside of Wikipedia. As for "also used together by all shared institutions", that seems flat out wrong. The monarchy had it's own standards and coat of arms; the military had a distinct war ensign, as the navy had it's own jacks (also specified by laws, as you can see form the excellent and well referenced page by Heimer), which were distinct from the civil ensign. Interpretation of primary documents (laws, ...) is, indeed, of lesser importance - see WP:PRIMARY and WP:SECONDARY. All available evidence seems to indicate that, ignoring entirely whether this is de iure correct or not, the civil ensign has been consistently used as a national flag. You seem to be acting as though this fact is irrelevant; instead proposing that we present the synthesis of the two national flags, which are not only inconvenient to format, but also very infrequently used by the sources. As I said, my favoured position is simply having no flag in the infobox (issue too complex), but the fiction that the civil ensign is not appropriate despite being widely used exactly for that purpose is nothing more than, indeed, a ficition. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 20:57, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
"The monarchy had it's own standards and coat of arms; the military had a distinct war ensign, [etc]" I meant aside from "institute-specific" banners/standards. The flags used to represent the empire that these institutions belonged to: [austro-hungarian (national flags) monarchy/military (imperial/army banners)]. The ensign of the merchant fleet was not used as a flag in this way --Havsjö (talk) 06:24, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
Well then there's no point arguing further because there are plenty of sources which show that, in some official functions, as well as to the eyes of the wider world, the dual civil ensign was used exactly "to represent [Austria-Hungary]". We've both wasted too many words on this so let's not bludgeon this any further. Over and out, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 11:44, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
Per RandomCanadian, none or the civil ensign, preferably the latter (hence oppose). The infobox does not need to show a "national flag", whatever that is. Gordon's Flags of the World (1915) depicts the ensign of Austria-Hungary alongside those of Austria and Hungary. Each is called an "ensign", but only one is Austro-Hungarian. No black-and-gold flag that I can see. McCandless and Grosvenor's Flags of the World (1917) depicts the "ensign" (our war ensign) and the "merchant" flag (our civil ensign) alongside the imperial standard. No "national flags" in sight. Hulme's Flags of the World (1890) says explicitly that the "two flags blended into one" is the "Austro-Hungarian national flag". Both the "war ensign" and the "national flag" are depicted here. All three of these works were published while the monarchy was around and their authors had to answer the question we are asking: what flag is the Austro-Hungarian one? To an English-reading public, what are the Austro-Hungarian flags they must see? The one that is common to all is the civil ensign. This is not surprising. It would have been the most widely viewed flag of the monarchy in the wider world. The mistake that those who favour the status quo are making is discounting the importance of civil ensigns historically. Srnec (talk) 22:57, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
Comment: I would like to address the sources presented, and provide a one of my own. To lead, from the Library Atlas of Modern Geography, we can see the combined flag designated as "Austria, Merchant" while the imperial banner is designated as "Austro-Hungary Imperial". It should be noted that it also presents flags such as the German Red-White-Black tricolour as "Germany, Merchant", but this is reflective of the publication date of the book, 1892; per the wikipedia article we have on the German flag of the period, the tricolour was in use as the merchant and war ensign until at least 1892. In 1892, an ordinance was supposedly issued dealing with the official use of the flag, and I would assume that this made it the national flag, but the article doesn't clarify and the claim doesn't have a citation.
Of course, this doesn't establish that Austro-Hungary used two flags as their national flag, but it does add weight to the notion that they did not use the merchant ensign as their national flag.
To address the two sources provided by RandomCanadian above, we will find that they contradict each other. The Flags of the World, by F. Edward Hulme, states: The Austrian flag, as we have seen, is red-white-red, while the Hungarian is red-white-green, and a commission being appointed to consider how these two flags could be blended into one, introduced on March 6th, 1869, as the result of its deliberations, the Austro-Hungarian national flag that we have represented in Fig. 214.. However, this is contradicted by the other source, which makes two relevant states; 1: With the introduction of the dual ensign in 1869, I do not think it was used on diplomatic missions - as someone pointed out, this dual flag was reserved for use on sea (it was even not used on inland waterway, rivers, etc.) and it is highly likely that the tribar flag would have been continued to have been used (just as it was continued to be used in the Navy). I wouldn't be surprised if it was used so until the end of the Monarchy. and 2: Up to the end of Austria-Hungary there was no concept of the "national flag" as we know it today. The closest thing to the modern flag was the civil merchant ensign, used on the ships.. Further, both sources have issues with reliability; the first can be seen in the case of China, where it switches between referring to it as having a "banner" and a "flag", and the second with the fact that it references back to Wikipedia on at least one occasion.
To summarize, we have one 19th century source saying that it was not the national flag, one 19th century source with some reliability issues saying that it was the national flag, one 21st century source, with serious reliability sources, saying there was no national flag, and that the closest was the civil ensign (which can be interpreted in ways other than meaning it was used as a national flag; for instance, it would not be unreasonable to interpret it as that despite its lack of use as such, it is the closest in form, as unlike the alternatives it encompasses the nation).
We also have the excellent sources discovered by Srnec, but again they don't solve our problem; "Flags of the world" depicts the flags in a similar manner to the "Library Atlas", presenting none as the national flag of Austro-Hungary, and it also contradicts "The Flags of the World", stating The merchant flag of Austria- Hungary was introduced in 1869 by a commission appointed to blend the flags of the two countries. - note merchant, not national.
Overall, I am not certain what we should do here; we don't have reliable evidence for the use of the civil ensign, nor do we have reliable evidence for the use of the dual flags. As a first step, I hoped to pull up the details of the 1869 commission, to determine whether it decided on the creation of a national flag or just a civil ensign, but unfortunately I was able to find no references to it; a search in German or Hungarian may reveal more. In its absense, I am starting to wonder if we should use the style shown in the Kalmar Union and use the Imperial Banner as a standin for a flag, and then have a section of the article containing details of the various flags used until we can find a modern reliable source on the matter? BilledMammal (talk) 01:02, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
Oppose: The civil ensign was a common symbol used to represent the kingdom as a whole on the world stage. This is the Austria-Hungary article, and thus symbolism depicted should represent the full state. Feel free to put up the flags of Austria and Hungary on their respective pages, though. GodofThunderGodofWar (talk) 01:41, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
Support: due to the structure of the Dual Monarchy (points regarding this have already been stated above, so I see no need to add any more). Will support having the civil ensign as a third flag in the infobox, however, with the problems of the Austro-Hungarian flag/s being put in the main body of the article. Roniiustalk to me15:05, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
An additional comment: I think it would be good to consider how the general reader would interpret there being the civil ensign in the infobox - from my experience doing alternate history modding, many people could potentially misinterpret the civil ensign as being the national flag of Austria-Hungary, which is why I support adding a section about the flag into the article and, additionally, the use of the individual flags (and, to an extent, the use of no flag at all or the addition of all three of the flags) to drive home the point that there was no national flag. Roniiustalk to me15:15, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
Strong Oppose: The civil ensign is commonly used to represent Austria-Hungary when the country itself, due to its structure as a dual monarchy between Austria and Hungary, had no national flag. The civil ensign is further used to distinguish Austria-Hungary from the Austrian Empire.
That is both the definition of a civil ensign (which explains it to those who might not know what an "ensign" etc is) and also how it was defined in Austro-Hungarian law ("for the merchant ships at sea and the ships of inland navigation abroad".") --Havsjö (talk) 18:17, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
A neutral RfC question would have done away with the "support" and "oppose" and instead asked "Which flag(s) should be used in the infobox?", without favouring two out of many possible alternatives. And I disagree about the "definition of a civil ensign" because here it is clearly being used to imply inferiority as to the combination of the "national flags"... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 19:29, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
Agree. Havsjö, all that should be said about the flag in the Rfc question is what it’s called. You’ve overstepped by adding a description of how it was used - which is at best partial and is your POV. How it was used is part of what this debate is about. DeCausa (talk) 19:47, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
"How it was used" is not what the debate is about, its about weather the merchant ensign (known to be de-jure defined as and de-facto used as a merchant ensign) should be the flag used to represent in the empire in the infobox. I only included "support"/"oppose" to make it easy to for people to summaries their opinion one way or the other (as I have seen this to be the "standard" mode on other RfC's) --Havsjö (talk) 14:21, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
Oppose but keep the Austrian and Hungarian flags; everyone knows the civil ensign so it should be kept but add the other two for historical fact Crazynyancat (talk) 23:17, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
But we are discussing the historical facts (what flags was used in empire), not about symbol what "everyone knows" in modern days... Sumek101 (talk) 13:41, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
Typical example of brainwash-by-wikipedia-article. "Everyone knows" because it has become standard due to being treated as "flag of AH" on wikipedia for so long --Havsjö (talk) 14:11, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
*Oppose I think the Civil Ensign should be restored. The dual flag was used by the Hungarian pavilion at the Paris World Fair (1900): [33]77wonders (talk) 07:18, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
Pointless example. Here you have another postcard [34] of this event with the yellow imperial flag. Besides, I do not see a civil ensign in the real photo of Hungarian pavilion [35][36], but I see the yellow imperial flag. Sumek101 (talk) 13:26, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
We are discussing the historical facts (what flags was used in empire), not a modern symbol that will conveniently represent something Sumek101 (talk) 13:41, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
Yet another typical example of brainwash-by-wikipedia-article... No other argument than that it has become what people are "used to" --Havsjö (talk) 14:11, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
See my first message immediately below the RfC question. Had the casually-made decision made by some user in 2007 been to choose the national flags for the infobox instead of the civil ensign, I can guarantee you would consider the former "more representative for the period" today. I.e. you've been mentally manipulated by a wiki-article instead of considering the historical reality --Havsjö (talk) 15:44, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
The above comment is at best disingenuous, at worst disrespectful, especially when it claims other uses are so naive as to have been "mentally manipulated by a wiki-article". As for the factual claims, my comment dated 20:57, 30 August 2021 and the one by Srnec just a bit later, show that this usage far predates Wikipedia (and was even contemporary to Austria-Hungary itself), so its fair to say that Havsjo's argument lacks any foundation in reality whatsoever.RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 21:31, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
Havsjö, that is a ridiculous comment which is based on nothing except your own blinkered obsessive view of this issue. You have zero evidence of what you say and despite being challenged previously on this you have still not produced any evidence. What I can see from your posts is quite a narrow anachronistic view of what the “flag” should be and a complete inability to step back and consider the broader issue of what benefits the Wikipedia reader. If you can carry on in this vein this will move away from being a content issue to an issue about your behaviour. DeCausa (talk) 22:19, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
That’s not true. The last Rfc was closed in 2019 as “no consensus” for any outcome. There’s certainly been no talk page consensus since then. There’s been, as far as I can see, no WP:EDITCONSENSUS over the last year either. There’s just been a slow edit war between the two factions on the issue. It’s just not been stable. It’s quite possible that this will be closed as “no consensus” as well. In which case it will be entirely unclear what the “status quo” is that the article should be returned to, IMHO. DeCausa (talk) 07:55, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
In the spirit of avoiding conflict, I'm fine with keeping the article as is pending the outcome of the RfC: the last thing we need is edit-warring over which version was the status-quo. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 21:19, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
Oppose: or No flagThe civil ensign was a common symbol used to represent the kingdom as a whole on the world stage. This is the Austria-Hungary article, and thus symbolism depicted should represent the full state. Feel free to put up the flags of Austria and Hungary on their respective pages, though. or equally the 'national' flags could be used in any parts of the article dealing with the separate parts, but it makes no sense to present the symbol of the whole as simply being the use of symbols of the two parts.Pincrete (talk) 18:14, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
Comment::: - Perhaps I'm not knowledgeable enough about flags, but I have a question. Why is a merchant ensign not a "real" flag of the state? It is fairly clear that Austria-Hungary didn't have a single designated "official" flag, and that it seems the use of different flags was not fully consistent, even within official institutions. There were different flags for different entities within the Empire which were used to varying degrees to represent the Empire in different combinations in different contexts. But it does seem that the merchant ensign was used at least to some extent to represent the Empire as a whole, even in contexts outside of merchant vessels. Even if it was not the only flag used to represent the Empire, and it was not 100% "official" does that really mean that we can't interpret it as a flag of the empire? Or is there some sort of order of protocol of flags that I am not aware of that is important here? If not, I don't see why we can't use it as a flag "of the Empire", but make it clear that it was not used in all situations, and that there was no official single flag of the Empire. Link to the flag page and all of these complexities can be explained. Lots of flags in the past are not totally "official" but can still be understood as a fair representation. Peregrine981 (talk) 22:06, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
Oppose - as the Austrian empire & the Hungarian kingdom were merged into a personal union (under the same individual) in 1867. GoodDay (talk) 22:22, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
Comment: Frankly, a clear consensus on the flag has been demonstrated, as 14 votes have gone towards the civil ensign (or some variation), while at a most generous counting 8 votes have gone for the dual-flag option. 2606:2E00:8027:7001:0:0:0:9818 (talk) 22:38, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
WP:NOTAVOTE. While I'm not in disagreement that the outcome would be the same once strength of argument is accounted for, there's absolutely no rush to close this early, else people will complain that the discussion was not conclusive enough, and all of the above will go to waste when someone decides that we need another RfC... Better fix it once, and not have to change it unless there is substantial new information which comes to light (nvm that, given the subject, that's unlikely) RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:50, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
Support Austria-Hungary had no national flag, therefore no unique and representative flag of the empire exists. That the civil ensign is even proposed for use here is because it has been in Wikipedia for so many years that now everyone thinks it was the flag of the country. We should use the flags of the two entities the empire was divided into. It would also be nice to add a note explaining the status of the civilian ensign and why it isn't being used in the infobox. SuperΨDro18:17, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
Oppose : Austria-Hungary was a single polity before the Ausgleich, with a single flag of its own. The Empire being divided into two administrative entities didn't make it into any less of a single polity, which employing a double flag would run counter to. Therefore, I support the civil enseign. User:DracoLazarus
Comment:Transleithania did not have its own flag. According to the Nagodba (art. 62 and 63), in all joint Croatian and Hungarian affairs symbols of both Croatia and Hungary respectively had to be used. For instance, whenever the joint Hungarian-Croatian Parliament held a session, the Croatian flag and Hungarian flag were both hoisted on the parliament building in Budapest (sourced statement from the article Lands of the Crown of Saint Stephen). So, if we choose to display each national flag, we should also display the flag of Flag of Croatia-Slavonia alongside the flags of Austria and Hungary 77wonders (talk) 10:58, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
References
^ abRudolf Agstner, Austria(-Hungary) and Its Consulates in the United States of America since 1820 (LIT Verlag, 2012), p. 45.
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.
Status quo?
Given that the outcome of the RfC was ‘no consensus’, what is the status quo of the article to which it should be restored/maintained? DeCausa (talk) 17:08, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
There has been edit warring for a long while (the first obvious trace I can find in that last year is here then here (compare with the version just before); ...), hence why I suggested someone start an RfC, so any "status quo" is likely to be challenged. The most auspicious compromise seems like "no flags at all" - that way there's no edit warring over it being biased in favour of one side or the other. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 20:37, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
The status quo is the civil ensign. It has been the flag used on the Austria-Hungary article for years prior to the very recent edit war. The RfC was about replacing the civil ensign. Considering the RfC failed, I believe it is appropriate for the civil ensign to be restored. Conrad Caribou (talk) 08:40, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
That last thing I or I think anybody else wants is an RfC to decide what the status quo was. @Conrad Caribou: As I was saying, there's been dispute over the flag for quite a while. Please, will you just move along with everybody else and accept that no consensus = no flags? RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 11:10, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
At the risk of opening up a can of worms that would be best left closed, perhaps we can put the imperial banner in for the moment, until we can come to a consensus? It will allow us to depict something for the "flag", but not being a flag it should hopefully be acceptable to both "sides". In the interests of keeping the can of worms closed, I will withdraw this suggestion should anyone object to it. BilledMammal (talk) 11:15, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
Well, yas got 4-days to straighten out this mess. IMHO, the article should've been protected for 6-months, with 'no flag or symbol' in the infobox. GoodDay (talk) 17:27, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
Per my analysis on El C's talk page; the "long-standing" version (before 2019) was "civil ensign"; but ever since the edit-war and ensuing RfC back then; there has effectively been "no consensus" (as confirmed by the more recent RfC). So no flag at all seems the best way to reflect this lack of consensus; and has the added benefit of discouraging any edit-warring over it. Hence I'm making a proper request (which I hope El will carry out himself) to just remove the flag as the most accurate reflection of the lack of consensus of the recent RfC on the matter; and restore the explanatory note as here. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:24, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
"No flag option" in the current situation seems to be the only sensible consensus. However, in the infobox, , it would be useful to include a link to the article (Flags of Austria-Hungary) that would explain this situation to the reader Sumek101 (talk) 06:06, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
Just leaving a note that, as of right now, there is no link in the article to the Flags of Austria-Hungary page. If we opt to not show a flag here, there should at least be a link to that article somewhere here (in the infobox or otherwise). — Goszei (talk) 00:53, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
The flag here was used to represent "Cisleithania", the old Austrian Empire.
The Lands of the Crown of St. Stephen. Notice the flag of the Kingdom of Hungary.
The ensign used to represent "Austria-Hungary" depicting the coins of Cisleithania.
The ensign used to represent "Austria-Hungary" depicting the coins of the Lands of the Crown of St. Stephen..png)
_02.jpg)
_02.jpg)
_01.jpg)
.svg){kind=link}
![[22]](https://i.imgur.com/TFmpfdZ.jpg){kind=link}
![[23]](https://i.imgur.com/xH5JSOA.jpg){kind=link}
![[24]](https://i.imgur.com/NapivnL.jpg){kind=link}
![[25]](https://i.imgur.com/TLRmJnt.jpg){kind=link}
![[35]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Paris_Exposition_Hungarian_Pavilion,_Paris,_France,_1900_n2.jpg){kind=link}
![[36]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Brochure_details_the_1900_Paris_World_Exhibition_-_Hungarian_pavilion_inside.jpg){kind=link}
