Talk:Koper

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Contents

[edit] (untitled section)

> Similar to nearby Trieste, there is a fair number of native-speaking Germans in the region.

is that information confirmed?

Answer from Radio Erevan: The information is correct, however native-speaking Germans in the region can be spotted only in the summer, dressed as a typical tourists. --romanm (talk) 00:12, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Slovenin: No, the information is not correct. There were 30 in 1991 according to Austrian research data (Stefan Karner, Die deutschspachige Volksgruppe in Slowenien, Verlag Hermagoras/Mohorjeva, Klagenfurt - Ljubljana - Wien 1998, p. 175). Thus this is the maximum figure though there are probably less.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was Move. A debate on another article's name has no bearing on this article's name. —Wknight94 (talk) 19:14, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Requested move

Koper - Capodistria → Koper – The official name is Koper or Capodistria, not both simultaneously. See Luxembourg (city) and Helsinki for similar cases. -  AjaxSmack  22:38, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Survey

Add "* Support" or "* Oppose" followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~

  • Support as nominator. -  AjaxSmack  22:38, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Supportper nom. Comment: anything, but the double name. List different names in the introduction of the article. RedZebra 07:36, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Support --Dijxtra 12:05, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. I'm not a big fan of double names and the rationale for a double name in this case is very limited. edolen1 15:08, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Support, for the same reasons as for Bozen-Bolzano, Soča - Isonzo River etc. etc. Markussep 17:49, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Support, please no double names just for the sake of "political correctness" - Duja 09:26, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Support, ack previous speakers. MRB 11:02, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Olessi 20:41, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion

Add any additional comments

[edit] Move tag

I've removed the move tag. It's useless to open a new discussion. There are some general rules, and there is another similar discussion abput South Tyrol- Alto Adige. There is no need to open a parallel discussion on the same topic. It's enough to see the develop of the South Tyrol discussion, it will generate a new standard. Furthemore, a specific dicussion about Koper-Capodistria, could be affected by nationalistic ideas. If somebody it is interested in the problem, he can join the discussion in the Alto Adige/South Tyrol articles. --Giovanni Giove 15:39, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Don't remove the tag while the survey is in progress as this is seen as being disruptive. RedZebra 16:15, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Merge tag & move tag

I propose again to move the discussion to [1]. It is useless to adopt different standards for different articles. The discussion about South Tyrol can became a discussion about the standard for all multilingual zones.--Giovanni Giove 21:59, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the situation is similar, we can apply the outcome of that discussion here as well. No need for a merge, though. Double names are rejected by most of the participants of the South Tyrol discussion. Criteria for the name to be chosen are: common name in English (Google test or reliable sources), official name(s), name in the majority language. Most of these criteria would point to "Koper" here I suppose. Markussep 11:27, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
You should suppose that, before to rename Koper, I've read the article about Bolzano/Bozen. I've adopted the same standard, I've seen in that article. It seems that the discussion is not yet closed. Until Bozen/Bolzano has a double name, Koper/Capodistria must have a double name. This is my only criteria. The Bolzano discussion is prevalent on the present one: there are more people involved and is more neutral. It seems that in the present discussion nationalistic feelings can affect the vote.

See the next point. --Giovanni Giove 12:05, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed solution

I propose to stop any discussion, and to adopt the standard of South Tyrol or Bolzano/Bozen, when a solution will be reached there.--Giovanni Giove 12:05, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

  1. That discussion is not binding as/is, albeit it certainly has its merits and repercusion to these article.
  2. That discussion is held so that the status quo of long-standing names is retained until is concluded. May I remind you who moved unilaterally this page 10 days ago?
  3. ...notwithstanding that it leans toward single-name convention... Duja 11:57, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../k/o/p/Talk%7EKoper_4ac8.html"