Talk:Koper

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.