Talk:Koper

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

(untitled section)[edit]

> 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Requested move[edit]

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)[reply]

Please note that the correct italian name of Koper is Capo d'Istria instead; Capodistria is how it is spoken. user ^Kihten^ 17 dec 2008 11:01 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.96.138.15 (talk) 10:01, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Survey[edit]

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

  • Support as nominator. -  AjaxSmack  22:38, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Supportper nom. Comment: anything, but the double name. List different names in the introduction of the article. RedZebra 07:36, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support --Dijxtra 12:05, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Support, for the same reasons as for Bozen-Bolzano, Soča - Isonzo River etc. etc. Markussep 17:49, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, please no double names just for the sake of "political correctness" - Duja 09:26, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, ack previous speakers. MRB 11:02, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Olessi 20:41, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion[edit]

Add any additional comments

Move tag[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Merge tag & move tag[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Proposed solution[edit]

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)[reply]

  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)[reply]
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.

Removed census statistics[edit]

Per this talk I have removed the following text from the article as pov and not properly referenced: "During the period of the Austrian Empire, Koper was, along with Trieste, part of the Austrian Littoral crown land. Before World War I, the city had a population of 87% Italians and 5% Slovenes. In 1921 there was 51% Italians, 33% Slovenes, 15% Croats and in 1936 49% Italians, 35% Slovenes and 15% Croats.[1]" --Eleassar my talk 18:37, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

German wikipedia has numbers from the 1900 Austrian census: 7205 Italians, 391 Slovenians, 167 Croatians and 67 Germans. Since the total is a bit under 8000, I suppose this is for the town proper. It would be nice to have the actual census data for more years, but I couldn't find them on the internet. Markussep Talk 20:23, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ http://www.irredentismo.it/Pagine%20web/veneziagiulia.htm

Names[edit]

It seems that there is a transition taking place in the naming of the place in the English language, for example Britannica now names it Koper but the 1911 edition names it Capodistria. But a Google shows that this transition is not complete in English Language sources, as some sources still call it Capodistria.

I have put in a footnote to mention that the town is named 3 ways in English language sources: Koper, Capodistria and Koper-Capodistria. This will help with internet searches and it informs people who arrive here looking for more information on Capodistria that it is still a valid alternative name in English.--PBS (talk) 09:53, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Koper[edit]

Koper
City
City of Koper
Mesto Koper - Città di Capodistria

"Koper-Capodistria" is a non-existent settlement. No such place exists. Its either Koper or Capodistria. I hereby propose the infobox solution implemented for bilingual municipalities and towns in the rest of Istria to be implemented in Slovene Istria as well, and a suitable standard agreed-upon. The current situation where readers are given the impression that the town's name ("Koper-Capodistria") is composed of two words, such as Efringen-Kirchen or Mazerat-Aurouze is not in the interest of encyclopedic accuracy. I invite all Users interested in this discussion to please read, or at least skim-through, the consensus on the rest of Istrian bilingual municipalities so as to avoid repetition. The situation in Slovene bilingual municipalities is virtually identical to the one discussed there. I recently added the flag and coat of arms, and would like to finish the infobox fix :). Here enclosed is an example of what has been agreed upon, regards --DIREKTOR (TALK) 15:15, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So... :-D Can I modify Sgonico and Monrupino infoboxes? ;-) --Retaggio (talk) 16:21, 28 July 2009 (UTC) (and Uccle, Bern, Canton of Fribourg and Meran?) PS - just kidding... [reply]

Well certainly, its a "free encyclopedia" isn't it? :-D In fact, I'll do it myself if there are no objections? Of course, I'm looking to apply the agreement fully... --DIREKTOR (TALK) 17:07, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously, are there any objections? --DIREKTOR (TALK) 08:24, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You know , I think Koper / Capodistria in first line of infobox is the easiest solution... but (seriously) I think that you must also leave a message at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Slovenia : there are also three municipalities hungarian/slovene. Besides, I think we must use the {{Municipality_of_Slovenia}}. Bye. --Retaggio (talk) 09:12, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've left a message at Wikipedia:Slovene Wikipedians' notice board#Translation requests. --Eleassar my talk 10:14, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think the format "Koper (Italian: Capodistria, Croatian: Kopar)" would be appropriate. The bilingual name is a Slovenia(n)-internal convention and needn't be reflected in the name of the English WP article. "Koper-Capodistria" is definitely misleading (and English doesn't express synonymy with hyphens or dashes anyhow); it looks like Šmarje-Sap, for example. In any case, it would be better to have one article for the municipality and one for the town, instead of the current joint article covering both. Doremo (talk) 15:43, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Koper. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 11:41, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Koper. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:50, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Koper. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:21, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Koper. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:31, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Population?[edit]

The opening para and the infobox give the population figure as c. 25K, the 'Demographics' section as 47K. What's behind this difference, does anyone know? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:09, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The information in the Demographics section applied to the Municipality of Koper rather than the settlement, and it was nearly twenty years out of date. I have removed it. Doremo (talk) 11:19, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Koper&oldid=1202178319"