Talk:Stadion Z'dežele

Flags, years

 * 1) For the flagicons see FLAG: "Flag and other icons are commonly misused as decoration. Adding a country's flag next to its name does not provide additional encyclopedic information, and is often simply distracting (example). Wikipedia generally strongly eschews the use of images for decorative purposes, preferring those that provide additional essential information or needed illustration."
 * 2) For the years see CONTEXT (number 2): "In general, do not create links to the following. Plain English words, including common units of measurement. Low added-value items are linked without reason—such as, 1995, 1980s, and 20th century." and YEAR:  "Date elements that do not contain both a day number and a month should not generally be linked; for example, solitary months, solitary days of the week, solitary years, decades, centuries, and month and year combinations. Such links should not be used unless following the link would genuinely help the reader understand the topic more fully."

Despite a lengthy discussion at my talk page and apparently no consensus, User:XJamRastafire still keeps inappropriately adding flagicons and linking years. I'd like to get some external input on this issue. --Eleassar my talk 15:41, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

3rd Opinion provided by Dusti
Can one of the two editors involved in the disupte please inform me of the current situation (besides what I read at 3rd Opinion?  D u s t i SPEAK!! 15:47, 8 July 2008 (UTC)


 * This is simply not true. I just care for consisteny, keeping things like some other articles like featured article City of Manchester Stadium. If the mentioned article is wrong, then Eleassar should also correct it if he corrects these and some contributions of others in good faith. --xJaM (talk) 15:52, 8 July 2008 (UTC)


 * For instance, here two internal links are disputed: 1999-2008. Currently it is not known exactly when the building of the stadium had begun, and therefore years are not low added-value items per CONTEXT. Here in Fenway Park the exact date is known, but I guess the meanings is the same. The artilce about Fenway Park further on links years of increasing capacity of the stadium. Is this consistent with the guidelines? --xJaM (talk) 16:18, 8 July 2008 (UTC)


 * As I said, City of Manchester was promoted to a FA that and appeared at the Main Page when it did not have flagicons. That are the revisions that count. I also said your "other stuff exist" is not a valid argument as there are plenty of articles that do not have flagicons, like Camp Nou, Wembley Stadium, Olimpiysky National Sports Complex, San Siro, Croke Park, Twickenham Stadium, Atatürk Olympic Stadium and others.


 * Links to the years are low added-value items because the respective articles do not "genuinely help the reader understand the topic more fully". No, the Fenway Park is not consistent with the guidelines. As for correcting other articles, I'd do it but then you'd accuse me of being disruptive for massively changing articles without consensus. I won't fall for that trick. Some resolution should be reached first. --Eleassar my talk 06:59, 9 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I will make this simple as its a simple answer. The only items that should be place in the article are those who are verifiable and notable.  D u s t i SPEAK!! 22:11, 8 July 2008 (UTC)


 * So, Eleassar you admit that a consensus must be reached first. But why then you change, for instance, this article three times, in spite of my notices to your user page, of which I have to revert? And some other articles that I've also contributed. I won't accuse you in no way if you also change mentioned (or even all such articles) - but others might. That's the difference and that's why I argue. You also further on imagine all the good and bad arguments for this manner. And also I think that for such a beautiful and important object for Slovenian football as the Arena Petrol is in last few years, this discussion and actions just throw bad light on it. I can wait as long as it takes, but I can't watch that we distort articles in this way. Yes, Dusti, the building period for this stadium is well know, only the days are not (yet), and such. --xJaM (talk) 15:46, 9 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Arguing with you is such a waste of time - but I can't watch that we distort articles in this way. I urge you again to read the guidelines already mentioned and follow them. As for the years of construction, I ask you to provide a reliable source for them. --Eleassar my talk 17:58, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Number of seats
The official site of NK Celje mentions both 13,400 and 13,600 seats. Is there any additional source to verify which number is correct? --Eleassar my talk 12:37, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The correcty seating capacity as of August 2010 should be 13,006 seats. Dont know why their website says 13,400 and even 13,600. If you take a calculator you will also get 12,950 seats just using the number of seats for separate stands (again according to their club website:) and even 13,055 seats so its a little bit confused;). Ratipok (talk) 13:54, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Arena Z’dežele. 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/20120216083614/http://www.zpo.si/vsebina.asp?id=59 to http://www.zpo.si/vsebina.asp?id=59

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) 14:40, 4 July 2017 (UTC)