Talk:Izola

Latin Europe
Hello ! There is a vote going on at Latin Europe that might interest you. Please everyone, do come and give your opinion and votes. Thank you. The Ogre (talk) 21:20, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Official name of the town
The official name of the town is both in Slovene and Italian, and according both to the national minority protection legislation and the local government charters, both these official names enjoy equal status. On the website of the municipality, the name of the town is rendered in both forms, as both are official, and all public agencies and offices are required to use both names in all circumstances. For example, the Slovenian Post always uses the bilingual name of the town, even in documents written exclusively in Slovene, as one can see here. According to law, private enterprises are also required to use the official name of the town, which is bilingual; most of them do, although there is no sanction for not complying with this law. The legal situation in Slovenia is quite close to the South Tyrolean one, so I'd suggest we should follow the naming pattern used for pages like Bolzano or Merano; that is, with both names used in the template. Viator slovenicus (talk) 10:06, 22 May 2009 (UTC)


 * See the discussion on Istrian toponyms that for some reason Italian users started on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Croatia. May I ask what you find unacceptable in the infobox heading that was agreed-upon there? --  DIREKTOR  ( TALK ) 11:11, 22 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I completely agree with Viator Slovenicus. --Emanuele Mastrangelo (talk) 14:52, 22 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I didn't say I find the solution you agreed upon in the case of Croatian Istria "unacceptible". I just don't see why is it better than the simple one used here. I'm not an expert on the issue, but from what I understand, the situation is less clear in the Croatian case, due both to more flexible legal settings and some disputes over the geographical extent of the official bilinguism. Besides, the Croatian Istria is much larger, and I can understand that it might be difficult to find a model to follow in all cases... In Slovenia, however, things are pretty clear. I cannot understand why we should adopt a complex solution, elaborated for an other context, while we can just follow the practice sanctioned by Slovenian law, which is also widespread on the Slovenian Coast, without causing any conflictuality whatsoever. Really: why? What is wrong with the current one? Viator slovenicus (talk) 15:28, 22 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree. This is the easiest solution. See also Sgonico, Monrupino, or Hodoš. --Retaggio (talk) 20:17, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Izola. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071028181830/http://www.ciemen.org/mercator/pdf/but46.PDF to http://www.ciemen.org/mercator/pdf/but46.PDF
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071028181830/http://www.ciemen.org/mercator/pdf/but46.PDF to http://www.ciemen.org/mercator/pdf/but46.PDF

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 12:33, 18 November 2017 (UTC)