Talk:Imperial and Royal

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Former countries, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of defunct states and territories (and their subdivisions). If you would like to participate, please join the project.Former countriesWikipedia:WikiProject Former countriesTemplate:WikiProject Former countriesformer country articles
	This article is supported by the Austria-Hungary task force.

Austria

	Austria portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Austria, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles about Austria on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please join the project.AustriaWikipedia:WikiProject AustriaTemplate:WikiProject AustriaAustria articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Misc. changes

"The Habsburg monarch ruled Austria and the Holy Roman Empire as Emperor" - the Holy Roman Empire ended in 1806, when the last emperor resigned. The term "k.u.k." came into being not before 1867, so I deleted that half-sentence --222.1.132.209 12:01, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Kakania

Right now, the article reads, "Arising from the term 'k.u.k.' we find the name 'Kakania', sometimes used to describe the Empire as a state of mind, bureaucratic and with a very stratified formal society (e.g. in work of Robert Musil)."

Is it worth mentioning that the name Kakania was used as a pun by Musil? "Kaka" is German for "caca," a child's term for human excrement. So, by referring to this empire as the land of caca (kakania), Musil was making a statement about society. Poldy Bloom 19:15, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge

It is true that "Imperial-Royal" is different from "Imperial and Royal". However, the terms are so closely related that it is simpler to have a single article that discusses both and the difference between them in one place. The information in the Imperial-Royal article is currently merely a repetition of a subset of the information in the Imperial and Royal article. In my opinion it is not likely to develop independently into a meaningfully distinct article. jnestorius^(talk) 22:52, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose merge. The reason there are 2 articles (as on German Wikipedia) is that, whilst they have two words in common, they had very different, legal and politically sensitive meanings. It should be no surprise that some of the wording in the two articles is similar as both need to clarify the difference between them. Merging them will cause utter confusion and perpetuate the misunderstanding that they are one and the same thing, something I suspect our fellow Austrians and Hungarians would strongly disagree with! --Bermicourt (talk) 22:57, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It will only cause "utter confusion" if people stop reading after the title, rather than reading the opening sentence or two of the merged article. The terms are only clearly distinguished for 1867 to 1918; before then, they are interchangeable. In 2014, all references are historical, so "Imperial-Royal" may refer to either, depending on which date is under discussion, and an article about the earlier period will create confusion by linking to a the post-1867 Imperial-Royal. jnestorius^(talk) 15:08, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That is not correct according to German Wikipedia, so I suggest we check the sources before deciding on a merge. According to their articles: until 1867 "Imperial-Royal" (k.k.) was used for the whole empire. After 1867 it only applied to the Austrian half. "Imperial and Royal" (k.u.k.) was introduced in 1867 for the "combined" empire. They were legally and institutionally different. I see there are some offline (German) sources mentioned in this article. Let's verify what these (and others) say.--Bermicourt (talk) 09:22, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support merge per nom--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 12:22, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]