Jump to content

Talk:Austro-Hungarian Navy

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

WPMILHIST Assessment

[edit]

A fine start. Could use an infobox, though, perhaps. At the very least, it might be pertinent to move the flag to the right side or to somehow otherwise better align the text. For prettiness. LordAmeth 17:43, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]


TEXT: "the cruisers Kaiserin und Konigen Maria Theresia ..." PROBLEM: "Kaiserin und Koenigin Maria Theresia" is spelt wrong, and the link does not lead anywhere.

Here's the Empress the ship was named for: http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Archduchess_Maria_Theresia_of_Austria_%281717-1780%29

The title is "Königin" but I'm not sure how the English Wikipedia handles Umlauts ... I suppose the "acceptable" spelling variant without an Umlaut -- "Koenigin" -- should be used. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.217.61.18 (talk) 15:37, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The English Wikipedia handels Umlauts just fine. I fixed the spelling so the link is now fuctional for Kaiserin und Königin Maria Theresia. For future reference if you use the latin section it comes out w/ the correct format. Sir Fenix (talk) 06:32, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The picture of the Albatross is not an aircraft from k.u.k. Seefliegerkorps but from k.u.k. Luftfahrtruppen. http://de.wiki.x.io/wiki/Godwin_Brumowski

Cheers

Hans —Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.169.9.14 (talk) 10:21, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

I changed the picture of the Naval Ensign shown with the header of the article today. As one can also see in the section on naval flags I added today, the naval forces of the Habsburgs used a red-white-red flag with one coat of arms from 1786. The other design with two coats of arms was only introduced three years before the end of the Empire - what is more, this flag design was hardly used during that time. I therefore believe the article ought to use the one Ensign the Austro-Hungarian Navy used for most of its existence and was known by in public. Flagfriend (talk) 14:51, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In fiction

[edit]

Maybe it should be added a reference to The Sound of Music, where the main male protagonist, played by Christopher Plummer, was an Austrian naval officer.--195.57.146.182 (talk) 10:18, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned references in Austro-Hungarian Navy

[edit]

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Austro-Hungarian Navy's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "Conway":

Reference named "Con-342":

Reference named "Sieche-21":

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 02:35, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion for renaming the article

[edit]

The name of the Austro-Hungarian navy was Imperial and Royal Navy and in my opinion the article should be renamed accordingly. What do you think? --Gwafton (talk) 18:08, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You are absolutely right that it was the Imperial and Royal (War) Navy of Austria-Hungary. In order to avoid confusion with all the other royal and imperial navies floating about, we are supposed to have the country name in the article one way or the other. Usually this would mean something like Austro-Hungarian Imperial and Royal Navy, which is a bit awkward to use consistently. In fact, it is hardly used in publications on the subject. Besides, historically correct it should be Imperial Austrian and Royal Hungarian Navy which is used even more rarely. The overwhelming majority of publications uses Austro-Hungarian Navy, and that's why I would stick with the title as it is. ÄDA - DÄP VA (talk) 04:49, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It is not necessary to have the name of the country included in the title; compare with Regia Marina and Volksmarine. If someone seeks for an article with name Royal Italian Navy, the right article pops up through a redirect link. I don't see any risk of confusion as there were no other Imperial and Royal countries than Austria-Hungary. --Gwafton (talk) 21:37, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Aircraft photo

[edit]

The photograph shows an Albatros D.III (Oef) flown by Hauptmann Godwin Bromowski of Flik 41J c. June 1918. He was not a naval aviator and the Staffel was not a naval unit. (The photo is off Wikipedia's entry on Brumowski.) See color plate on p. 249 of the late Dr. Martin O'Connor's definitive study, "Air Aces of the Austro-Hungarian Empire, 1914-1918" from Champlin Museum Press, Arizona, 1986.

68.98.116.217 (talk) 22:44, 29 December 2014 (UTC)Barrett Tillman68.98.116.217 (talk) 22:44, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Corrections

[edit]

The box at the top right-hand side needs better definitions. The ships in it appear to be WW1 so it should say that. Also A-H had at least 16 submarines, several of which were purchased from the Germans. 86.133.115.217 (talk) 12:37, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Article Title

[edit]

Hi there @Colonestarrice:! Any reason you renamed the article Austro-Hungarian Navy? Most historical sources I've seen refer to the Navy in the form "Austro-Hungarian Navy", and almost all articles we have on Wikipedia that link to the Navy's page refers to it as the "Austro-Hungarian Navy". Usually for something as big as a name change, a WP:Concensus should be reached.--White Shadows Let’s Talk 02:52, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I renamed the article mainly because of uniformity reasons, to call one article "Austro-Hungarian Navy", the other "Military of Austria-Hungary" and next one "Imperial and Royal Aviation Troops", although they are all part of the same country, is very confusing and incomprehensible. Colonestarrice (talk) 03:27, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Please re-read what you just wrote so you can realize how incredibly rude, abrasive, and insulting that came off as. "you should try to understand...the English language itself" That was completely uncalled for and very much not in good faith. You renamed the article for "uniformity reasons" after you went out and unilaterally renamed every other Austro-Hungarian related article out there. Once again, you do not have consensus among any of the regular editors of this article to unilaterally change the name like that. If you wanted to change the name and rewrite the lead and infobox to conform to what you want to see, you should have brought it to the talk page first. Under no circumstances could anyone have been confused about the article title "Austro-Hungarian Navy". It's an extremely commonly used term to describe the naval forces of the Dual Monarchy from 1867-1918. The terminology is far more used than "Navy of Austria-Hungary".--White Shadows Let’s Talk 04:41, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It's worth pointing out that for controversial page moves, it's best practice to file a request at WP:RM. Additionally, "uniformity" is generally the least important reason to move a page. If you want to rename the article, you need to demonstrate that your preferred title is actually more commonly used than any alternative. Parsecboy (talk) 09:12, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
G'day all, just wanted to say that I have a bit of an interest in the k.u.k. Kriegsmarine via its ships that ended up in Yugoslav hands, and I am certain that the common name in English sources is "Austro-Hungarian Navy". Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:15, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Likewise when I saw this earlier today I thought nope it's not been discussed. Glad to see it's been reverted Lyndaship (talk) 10:19, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Since I’ve got folks here, I’ve been busy slowly but surely expanding the history of the navy, and I know that at some point it may be worth discussing splitting the article in two, (for the Austrian Empire and for the history of the navy after the formation of the Austro-Hungarian Empire). What is everyone’s thoughts about that? Personally, I’d like to keep it all within one article if that’s physically possible. There was no change that occurred within the navy after the Austro-Hungarian Compromise. Indeed, they didn’t even change the naval ensign nor any component of the navy’s leadership or organization. Even so, by the time I’m finished expanding the article it may be long enough to warrant at least discussing the thought of splitting it.—White Shadows Let’s Talk 16:29, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It'd be nice to keep it all together if possible. If size becomes an issue, we might be able to spin off some of the material into sub-articles to keep this one manageable. Parsecboy (talk) 15:06, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with this. We’ll see how long the article ends up being and whether or not we need to spin it off at a later date. I’m hoping we can keep everything in one place though.—White Shadows Let’s Talk 16:38, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
For me as an American, I have only seen the name: "Austro-Hungarian Navy" when referred to it, but would "Austrian-Hungarian Navy" sound better as the title? I don't know if that was the change to the title that started this whole thread, as I can't see any edits. MusicaDeViolín (talk) 18:09, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 03:37, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Talk:Austro-Hungarian_Navy&oldid=1205516409"