Talk:Franz Joseph I of Austria

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

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) 03:38, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Fake officeholder infobox heading[edit]

@Colonestarrice: Do you keep reverting because I removed your carefully crafted fake officeholder infobox heading? Jay D. Easy (talk) 05:53, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Italian question[edit]

Under the Foreign policy section there is currently a subsection with regards to the "German question" but a section with regards to the equally important "Italian question" is lacking. Nonetheless, the Italian question was a very important part of the early part of Franz Josef's reign. It culminated in the Second War of Italian Independence against Piemont-Sardinia and the Second French Empire, where Franz Josef personally commanded the Austrian army at Solferino and after the loss of that battle he was forced to cede Lombardy to Piemont. After that battle he never commanded in the field again. Seven years later as a consequence of losing the Austro-Prussian War, and regardless of the Austrians winning at Custozza against the Prussian allied new Intalian Kingdom, he was obliged to cede the Veneto to the new Italian Kingdom. Methinks thus a new section should be introduced in the article with regards to this topic. -- fdewaele, 3 May 2020, 23:26.

Requested move 7 June 2020[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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: no consensus, see also WP:TRAINWRECK. (closed by non-admin page mover) Mdaniels5757 (talk) 17:11, 17 June 2020 (UTC)



The recent move of "Elizabeth I of England" to "Elizabeth I" prompts this reevaluation of what I'll call "WP:NCROY-style." My view is that if a subject is primary topic, we should give the name as it is given in published reference works. Merriam-Webster spelling is standard in America while the British turn to Oxford Dictionaries. See Francis Joseph I[1][2], Nicholas II[3][4], Charles XIV John[5], Wilhelm I[6], Wilhelm II[7][8]. Allan Rice (talk) 14:05, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Survey[edit]

  • OpposeI didn't vote on Elizabeth, but was rather dubious about that although it was effectively unambiguous in English. These rulers of non-Anglophone lands certainly need the extra clarity. Johnbod (talk) 15:05, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Question- Why does he need to be called Franz Joseph I? There weren't any others. Smeat75 (talk) 15:13, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

@Smeat75: The reason why is because the ordinal is in official use. See No. 4 in WP:SOVEREIGN. Interstellarity (talk) 15:32, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
Merriam-Webster says "Francis Joseph I," while Oxford and Britannica say "Franz Joseph." Columbia says "Francis Joseph or Franz Joseph." Allan Rice (talk) 00:08, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
He used the number himself. On his coins he was Franz Joseph I v g g Kaiser v Oesterreich or Franc Ios I d g Austriae Imperator. Opera hat (talk) 10:20, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment. I'm not necessarily opposed to any of these moves, but this list seems kind of abritrary. I would prefer each article be evaluated on its own or at least on a country-by-country basis. See also WP:TRAINWRECK. Calidum 15:33, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose Nicholas II could easily apply to Pope Nicholas II. Dimadick (talk) 18:12, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
The last Russian emperor is the primary topic over the eleventh-century pope. Opera hat (talk) 10:20, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
There are other names of Nicholas II, but not this primary article about the last Emperor of Russia. --ZmeytheDragon16 (talk) 11:25, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Support William I really should be referred to as Wilhelm I
  • Support Franz Joseph I per my previous RM; oppose the rest. Srnec (talk) 22:11, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
  • I agree that the list is arbitrary (five people from four countries and three centuries). I support Franz Joseph I, as it is clearly the primary meaning, precise, and concise. Surtsicna (talk) 09:20, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Support because it will help readers. Rjensen (talk) 09:41, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose these should be looked at individually rather than a bulk exercise. There's a lot to consider, "Kaiser Wilhelm II" is an extremely common term for example (as shown in the Further reading part of the article) and possibly more recognisable than just Wilhelm II, in English sources is Charles John, William or Francis Joseph more common, or id the native language versions Karl Johan, Wilhelm, Franz Joseph (or Josef). - dwc lr (talk) 13:07, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose only titles were used in later British monarchs. For example, Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom, but instead of full title, then it is shorten to Elizabeth II. --ZmeytheDragon16 (talk) 02:39, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
  • This title Charles XIV John of Sweden, perhaps with "of Sweden" example, it is required for Swedish monarchs, instead without "of Sweden", it might be ambiguous royal title. --ZmeytheDragon16 (talk) 05:07, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
It's not ambiguous: no other country has had fourteen kings called Charles. Opera hat (talk) 10:06, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
There are sixteen kings named Charles of Sweden for example, Charles X Gustav of Sweden, which is using byline "of Sweden". --ZmeytheDragon16 (talk) 11:11, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Support. As these are all the primary topic for their names and ordinals, it seems unnecessary to have a redirect from a shorter title to a longer one. See also the changes I proposed to WP:SOVEREIGN two years ago. Opera hat (talk) 10:06, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
  • I think, may I suggest this primary title William II, German Emperor in English, unlike his grandfather William I. --ZmeytheDragon16 (talk) 11:03, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose We should keep the 'country' in the monarchial bio article titles. GoodDay (talk) 23:42, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I object to change without some clear benefit and none of the reasons given constitute a clear benefit. OTOH, if we were going the other way, I would argue that adding the country does provide some clear benefits, in that it helps to clarify that the title refers to the monarch of a specific country (or some other name that needs further qualification) and it provides more consistency in articles named which really require this context. Including the country is one less question that the reader has to wonder about. (Original version posted at Talk:Carl XVI Gustaf of Sweden) Fabrickator (talk) 07:57, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
    • By that logic, we could put a descriptor after everyone's name. Why limit it to monarchs? "Other encyclopedias are among the sources that may be helpful in deciding what titles are in an encyclopedic register," according to WP:TITLE. No published encyclopedia uses this "of [country]" format. Allan Rice (talk) 07:06, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment These should probably be discussed separately.
  • Undecided, but even if William I keeps his full title, it should probably be Wilhelm I for consistency.
  • Oppose, especially for Nicholas II which really is ambiguous per above potential confusion with the Pope. But even for the others, the addition of the country aids understanding in my opinion. Charles XIV John also might look like someone with a very eccentric middle name to a casual reader rather than a ruler. SnowFire (talk) 20:22, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose since William I is still primarily called “William” in English. If anything, we should move [[[Wilhelm II]] to “William II”, since that’s what he was called in English in his own time, and his British family called him William and some sources today still do. Also, “Charles XIV John” without the “of Sweden” looks like it should be one of Elon Musk’s kids or something. HippoBloom (talk) 00:59, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
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.

Requested move 10 September 2020[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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Not moved. Result is clear, but... There is a strange lack of overlap between participants here and at the simultaneous RM at Talk:William IV. The results of these two RMs are quite inconsistent. Srnec (talk) 12:14, 23 September 2020 (UTC)



Franz Joseph I of AustriaFranz Joseph I – The title is more concise. Interstellarity (talk) 18:50, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

  • Oppose - We should go back to the Name # of country, per consistency among all monarch article titles. GoodDay (talk) 13:35, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose - I recall that this foolish movement began with the articles about British royals, more specifically, with Victoria and the reigning monarch Elizabeth II. It was a mistake then and it's still a mistake today. It should be the reigning name followed by the country. --Lecen (talk) 17:09, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose - As per comments above. Nothing is gained by reducing recognizability. And only three months after prior RM got rejected? Walrasiad (talk) 17:32, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose per GoodDay. Deb (talk) 15:13, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose I agree with Lecen. Dimadick (talk) 16:39, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose per GoodDay and Lecen. --Governor Sheng (talk) 23:33, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Support per Wikipedia:CONCISE.
  • Support. This format appears to be peculiar to Wikipedia. Perhaps the purpose is disambiguation. But if there is no other "Franz Joseph I," what's the point? 3K008P9 (talk) 01:32, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose per WP:PRECISE. --122.2.10.69 (talk) 00:24, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

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.

Misattributed quote[edit]

I removed this passage from the article on Franz Joseph I of Austria: Franz Joseph's German identity was made explicitly clear during a meeting in August 1908 between himself and Edward VII when the latter tried to persuade him to abandon Austria-Hungary's alliance with Germany for co-operation with Britain; Franz Joseph replied that he was a "loyal ally" and said "I am a German prince."

The reason for this I can justify with the German Wikiquote:

   Fälschlich zugeschrieben:
   "Sir, ich bin ein deutscher Fürst." - angeblich am 12. August 1908 in Ischl zu Eduard VII. von England, als dieser ihn von seinem Bündnis mit dem Deutschen Reich abbringen wollte, z. B. in: Walter Wiltschegg: Österreich, der "zweite deutsche Staat"?: der nationale Gedanke in der Ersten Republik, Stocker, 1992, S. 41.
   Das Zitat wurde in dieser Schreibweise schon am 16. Juli 1907 im Reichsrat verwendet mit einem sehr vagen Hinweis auf den Ursprung. Q: Stenographische Protokolle - Abgeordnetenhaus - Sitzungsprotokolle. Haus der Abgeordneten - 14. Sitzung der XVIII. Session am 16. Juli 1907, S. 1337 (alex.onb.ac.at)
   In der Schreibweise „Sire, ich bin ein deutscher Fürst“ mit direktem Hinweis auf Franz Joseph („ein noch lebender österreichischer Kaiser“), aber ohne Hinweis auf ein Ereignis, kommt das Zitat in Zusammenhang mit Engagements der Kaiserfamilie in nicht-deutschen Teilen der Monarchie in einem Artikel des „Deutschen Nordmährerblattes“ vor, der konfisziert wurde und deshalb in einer parlamentarischen Anfrage an den Justizminister wiedergegeben wird. Q: Stenographische Protokolle - Abgeordnetenhaus - Sitzungsprotokolle, Haus der Abgeordneten, 331. Sitzung der XVII. Session am 12. Mai 1905, S. 29465 (alex.onb.ac.at)

Translation:

   Falsely attributed:
   "Sir, I am a German prince." - allegedly on 12th of August 1908 in Ischl to Edward VII of England when the latter tried to dissuade him from his alliance with the German Empire, e.g. in: Walter Wiltschegg: Österreich, der "zweite deutsche Staat"?: der nationale Gedanke in der Ersten Republik, Stocker, 1992, p. 41.
   A very vague reference to its origin can be traced back to the use of an identical quote in the Reichsrat on 16th of July 1907. Source: Stenographische Protokolle - Abgeordnetenhaus - Sitzungsprotokolle. Haus der Abgeordneten - 14. Sitzung der XVIII. Session am 16. Juli 1907, S. 1337 (alex.onb.ac.at)
  In the spelling "Sire, I am a German prince" with direct reference to Franz Joseph ("a still living Austrian emperor"), but without a reference to its context, the quotation is connected with the the imperial family's engagements in non-German parts of the monarchy in an article from the "Deutsches Nordmährerblatt" which was confiscated and consequently reproduced in a parliamentary inquiry to the Minister of Justice at the time.  Source: Stenographische Protokolle - Abgeordnetenhaus - Sitzungsprotokolle, Haus der Abgeordneten, 331. Sitzung der XVII. Session am 12. Mai 1905, S. 29465 (alex.onb.ac.at)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brat Forelli (talkcontribs) 14:04, 15 March 2021 (UTC)