# Talk:Ljudski vrt

Ljudski vrt Stadium → Ljudski vrt (move) – I believe that there is no need for the article to be entitled as "Ljudski vrt Stadium" and that Ljudski vrt would be enough to distinguish the article (ex: Anfield not Anfield Stadium etc..). Also, Ljudski vrt cant be confused with anything else on Wikipedia and there is already a redirection page for the same stadium (thats why, I cant move the page myself). Anyway, I feel "Ljudski vrt" would be more appropriate for the future especially when the stadium runs for FA or GA. Thank you. Ratipok (talk) 22:39, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
I've moved the article to 'People's Garden Stadium' per analogy with other Slovenia-related entities that have been translated in full (for a discussion in depth, see User talk:Doremo#Oplotnica). Such a translation has been actually used in reliable foreign sources (Guardian, Sunday Times etc.).[1] Moreover, as the area was originally a park and we have translated names of parks, such as Tivoli City Park and others, I don't see a reason why this convention should not be followed here. In any case, the article should be at 'People's Garden Stadium' or at 'Ljudski vrt' (despite the conventional English capitalisation, names of stadiums have generally been left in their original form across Wikipedia), preferably the former - partly translated names like 'Ljubljanski grad Castle', 'Ljudski vrt Stadium' are provisional solutions that should be avoided. --Eleassar my talk 13:26, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
This arcticle can not and must not be named "People's garden". The name Ljudski vrt has already become a trade mark and this name is associated with this stadium. Also, UEFA officially uses Ljudski vrt for this stadium.Ratipok (talk) 17:25, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

I think that an article about a stadium should only mention the previous history of the site and not go into details. The former park and the history of the site in general should be described in another article. The same for the history of football in Maribor (e.g. the history of NK Branik is all too detailed). --Eleassar my talk 08:46, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

I was the one who has written the majority of the new article and honestly, I dont see a problem with it. All the details are fine and needed if this article is to become a FA or GA in the future. To be honest, the article isnt even completed yet. How is the history of NK Branik too detailed? The only time Branik is mentioned is when its within the context of the stadium renovantions in the 50s and 60s. Check out some of the FA stadium articles.. Ratipok (talk) 11:30, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
Well, honestly, if you don't see a problem, you should step back and have another look. "The literal translation of the Slovene word Branik is a Bastion in English. The initiators of the idea wanted to establish an association football club which would become the flagship of the new sport organization, with other sports departments to follow afterwards.[13] Couple of months later, on 29 January 1949, NK Branik was established[13] and in 1951 they became part of the new sport organization, MŠD Branik (Mariborsko Športno Društvo Branik)." Can you please explain what has the meaning of the name 'Branik', the reason for its establishments etc. have to do with construction of this stadium? --Eleassar my talk 11:52, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
Two lines, big deal. The continuation goes on how Branik sports organization was responsible for the renovation of the Ljudski vrt area. Prior to that SSK Maribor was mentioned and how their members were killed and deported, which is the main reason why a statue in Ljudski vrt is dedicated to them (which reminds me that I still have to take a picture of that statue and include it in the article). When this article is nominated (before that the article will first be reviewed) for GA or FA I am sure someone more competent (native English speakers with a high level of English grammar) will decide what is needed or not. Btw, how many FA, GA or FL have you created? Because I have done/created several of them and I am doing things the way I was told when those articles were peer reviewed and then successfuly passed their nominations. Ratipok (talk) 16:49, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
Can you please focus on the article instead of me? Because your writing verges on ad hominem. Thanks. I've tried to point out that the history of NK Branik should be written more concisely. Can you manage to shorten it or should I do it? --Eleassar my talk 22:27, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
I wont shorten it and neither will you (if you will, then I will just make another edit and return the article to its previous state). Though your opinion is appreciated I must point out that you are the first and until now the only one who has a problem with the content of this article. For no reason, because when this article is completed it will undergo a process called a Peer review followed by a Featured article or Good article nomination. If during this processes someone more competent will feel that it needs to be changed or even shortened than we (the editors of this article) will simply do that. I see no problem with that.Ratipok (talk) 19:37, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
I appreciate the article overall but think this section should be trimmed. Do you disagree about this or do you feel this has to be done through some elaborate procedure? --Eleassar my talk 20:30, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
All I am saying is that I see no point in shortening the article at this point as its not even completed yet. All corrections (if needed) could be done after this article goes through a Peer review. Where is the fire?Ratipok (talk) 10:23, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, this article is open for anyone to edit. All necessary corrections can be done right now. Why would I or anyone else have to wait until you proclaim this article complete? Particularly because it has to be in the best possible shape before it is nominated. --Eleassar my talk 23:18, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
Again, you are the only one who has a problem with the article and thinks it needs "necessary corrections". The history section of this article is in the same state for months and until now, no one saw a problem with it. That it needs to be changed is, as far as I am concerned, only your personal opinion. So, why would I or anyone else have to change this article just to follow your opinion?Ratipok (talk) 11:22, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
I'll ask for the WP:30 to see whether this is a problem or not. --Eleassar my talk 11:24, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
You do that and if they find a problem, let them correct it. Here is an example of a FA that first describes the history of the area where the stadium is located; York Park.Ratipok (talk) 11:47, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment. I agree. In addition, if it will be stated in the article that the stadium was built for NK Branik, this has to be appropriately referenced. --Eleassar my talk 16:06, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
You wont find that source because the stadium and the whole Ljudski vrt area were not built for Branik. Branik just came along at some point in history. Ljudski vrt sports complex was planned prior to WWII as the main sports facility of the city, before Branik football club was even established.Ratipok (talk) 16:19, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
Ok, then what exactly makes Branik worth mention in this article? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 22:54, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
I think that is explained in the article itself (I have already changed part of its history section). After WWII Branik was , as the sole tennant at the time, responsible for the renovation of the whole Ljudski vrt complex, which was devestated after the war. They were also the ones who played there since the opening of the new stadium in 1952 until their dissolvement in 1960.Ratipok (talk) 17:47, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

According to NK Maribor, there was a football playground at the site since 1952, whereas the stadium was built in 1961.[2] The article currently does not reflect that. --Eleassar my talk 08:24, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

You are wrong. The stadium was opened in 1952 and during the 1950s Branik already played there. A major reconstruction started in 1960 and in it finished in 1962 with the completion of the main stand. All this is mentioned in the article and referenced with reliable sources. In the future, please stop with the updating on your own and making a mess (now I have to look everything back just to see what have you done). Before you decide to act at least contact one of the major authors of this article (in this case me).. Ratipok (talk) 11:39, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
I disagree. NZS also states [3] "Nogometni stadion Ljudski vrt  ... Zgrajen leta 1962... Sedanje igrišče je bilo zgrajeno leta 1952..." or [4] or [5]. The Slovene Wikipedia (not a source to be used in the article) also states "Prvo igrišče na tej lokaciji je bilo zgrajeno leta 1952, čeprav je bil sam stadion zgrajen šele leta 1962." A pitch does not make a stadium by itself. In the future, please use nonaffiliated sources and also read WP:OWN#Examples of ownership behavior before posting such comments. --Eleassar my talk 11:48, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
Everything in the article is sourced and I wonder what have you been reading and if you checked everything. My sources (for the period prior to 1962) are from MŠD Branik sport organization which is responsible for the Ljudski vrt area since the 1950s and are managing the area today still (Branik is managing Ljudski vrt and NK Maribor is only a tennant). In their sources they claim that the football pitch was erected in the early 1950s and by 1952 (even official NK Maribor sources claim the same) the pitch was surrounded by an athletic track and banking all around (on the western side the banking included concrete terraces). By 1958 the concrete terraces, in length of 248 meters, were constructed throughout the banking around the pitch. This is a full four years before 1962 and what you claim the stadium was constructed. Are you trying to tell me that a footbal pitch surrounded by concrete terraces on all sides doesnt constitute for a stadium? In 1962 the stadium "in its present form" was built (though this form lasted until 2008 and the reconstruction). At that (1960-1962) time only the main stand was constructed. Does one stand makes a stadium? Also you put some sources that says the stadium was built in 1962, however, Maribor played their first match at Ljudski vrt in 1961. Are you claiming that NK Branik who played at Ljudski vrt between 1952 and 1960 actually didnt had a stadium? PS: I didnt bother with posting sources here as they are in the article so feel free and check them out.  Ratipok (talk) 17:06, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
I don't want to go into a lengthy discussion about what is stadium and what not here, because it would be original research and I also don't have time. This talk page is not intended for such discussion. I just want you to provide an independent, non-related secondary source for the claim that the stadium was built in 1952. Official sources that you have cited are not independent of the subject. --Eleassar my talk 22:22, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
Though you provided several different links its clear that they came from a single source (similarities between the articles are too apparent). Check out this link from MŠD Branik (again I must point out that Branik is an organiziation responisible for Ljudski vrt since the 1950s): [6] If you read the article closely you will see "V letu 1952 je bil dograjen nasip za gledalce na novem nogometnem stadionu. Na zahodnem delu nasipa so bile zgrajene betonske stopnice s sedeži. Slovesna otvoritev novega nogometnega stadiona v športnem parku Branik je bila 12. julija 1952." (English: In the year 1952 banking was erected to accommodate spectators on a new football stadium. On the western side of the banking concrete terreces with seats were constructed. The official inaguration of the new stadium of the Branik sports centre was on 12 July 1952." What more do you need?!? All this is referenced in the article.Ratipok (talk) 19:53, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
I only asked you to provide a non-related source, i.e. not from the organisation managing the stadium. That's how things are done here. We don't want to use as source things people write about themselves and their business, because these are mostly biased. Can you therefore provide an independent source? --Eleassar my talk 21:08, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
Official website of the Slovenian PrvaLiga, which is governed and maintained by the Football Association of Slovenia: [7] (it clearly states that Ljudski vrt was built in 1952). StadiumGuide states the same [8] (in English). Link from the Athletic Club Poljane from Maribor, which states about an athletic competition that took place on 13 July 1952 at Ljudski vrt stadium [9].Ratipok (talk) 10:20, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
NZS doesn't seem very reliable. In the article cited above by me, it states 1962; in the article cited by you, it states 1952. Stadiumguide.com is a self-published work (primarily a one-man work)[10] and therefore does not qualify as reliable per WP:USERG. Any other source? I don't want to chaff you, but if you want to have this FA, we have to use the best available sources. --Eleassar my talk 08:28, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
It seems you have some different agenda and will simply reject any source I provide as being non-reliable (though you provided only one source on your own - copied and spread to different lnks). Another source: from Večer, third largest daily newspaper in Slovenia, by circulation, and the largest in Maribor: [11]; "...FD Maribor tekmoval pod imenom Branik, 12. julija 1952 pa so v Ljudskem vrtu slovesno odprli nov stadion. V sezoni 1953/54 je Branik nastopal v 2. zvezni ligi,..." - in English; "...FD Maribor competed under the name Branik, and on 12 July 1952 they solemnly opened a new stadium at Ljudski vrt. In the season 1952/54 Branik competed in the second division,...Ratipok (talk) 11:43, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
This link from Večer is good enough for me, so I suggest you use it instead of the current source. Please, assume good faith. --Eleassar my talk 11:55, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

User Eleassar has once again made an unilateral move of the article's name from "Ljudski vrt" to "People's Garden Stadium" this time citing "established English usage; see e.g. https://www.google.com/search?q=%22people%27s+garden%22+stadium&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8#q=%22people%27s+garden+stadium%22+maribor" as the main argument. 
This argument is not valid. Yes the direct translation of "Ljudski vrt" is "People's Garden" however Ljudski vrt is a name of the venue and has established itself by this name internationally. There are plenty of sport venue examples on Wikipedia where similar named articles wouldn't be moved (i.e. translated); Camp Nou (direct English translation "new field"), Parc des Princes ("Park of the Princes" or "Princes' Park"), Olympiastadion ("Olympic Stadium"), Stadio Olimpico ("Olympic Stadium"), San Mamés ("Saint Mames"), Estádio do Dragão ("Dragon Stadium"), Stade de France ("Stadium of France" or "French Stadium") etc..
Furthermore, the English Wikipedia follow's the rule of WP:COMMONNAME for article titles and Ljudski vrt is too often cited by the majority of English language sources (i.e. media outlets and organizations) for this venue; UEFA [12], Reuters [13], ESPN [14], The Independent [15], BBC [16], The Guardian [17], Daily Mirror [18], The Herald [19], Yahoo! News [20], Associated Press [21] etc. Ratipok (talk) 23:25, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Ok, it probably is, however what I spot is that the name of the stadium is usually given as 'Stadion Ljudski vrt' (or 'Ljudski Vrt Stadium'), not as '[the] Ljudski vrt'.[22][23][24][25][26] If we're going to use the most prevalent name, then at least be exact about which one is this. --Eleassar my talk 08:56, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
My proposal would be to move the article to 'Ljudski Vrt Stadium', because it includes the name that it is most frequently referred to, and also considers the conventions of the English language (capitalised proper names and word order). That way, both aspects (frequency of usage and linguistic appropriateness) would be taken into account. What do you say? --Eleassar my talk 16:22, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
Even with the above sources its clear that there is no prevalent name; "Ljudski vrt" (e.g. at Ljudski vrt, the Ljudski vrt, Ljudski vrt stadium etc.), "Stadion Ljudski vrt", "Ljudski vrt Stadium" etc. UEFA uses differnet variates within their articles as well. Furthermore, we need to take into consideration that "Stadion Ljudski vrt" is almost exclusively used only in their match report/statistics, which are usually covered by Slovenian correspondents (hence the Slovenian usage). This usage is the likely explanation why this name appears in other sources. I don't see the reason why the article would be moved from the current name to the "Ljudski Vrt Stadium". As you know (considering you have been a part of the discussion) the article was named "Ljudski vrt Stadium" before 2012, but the article's name was then moved to the current "Ljudski vrt", after a requested move. If there was not a problem of the name during the requested move then why is it now? Also, the "Ljudski vrt" has indirectly been the subject of several Wikipedia:Peer review's and [successful] candidacies for Good articles or Featured lists of articles surrounding the NK Maribor general topic and the Wikipedia community has never objected to the current usage for the article's name. Why go back to something identical? There is no need to add "Stadium" in front of after the "Ljudski vrt" to augment the article's name either. Its pretty clear what the article is about and there are plenty of Wikipedia articles with similar usage of their article's name (Anfield, San Siro, Old Trafford etc.). In addition, there are no other articles within Wikipedia (e.g. of places) that would require the inclusion of the prefix "Stadium" within the article's name to differentiate two separate articles. Regards, Ratipok (talk) 18:17, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
With all respect, I seriously doubt that 'Ljudski vrt' may be compared to 'Anfield' or 'Old Trafford'; these are famous exceptions and "Ljudski vrt" is certainly less established in English sources. The majority of articles do seem to use stadium after the name; just have a look at [27] or [28]. The official Slovene name seems to be "stadion Ljudski vrt"[29][30], and even the Slovene Wikipedia has the article at sl:Stadion Ljudski vrt. Besides this, regarding the need for disambiguation, this is more precise and clear than just "Ljudski vrt", which is actually a metonymy and originally referred to a park in Maribor, which could some day have its own article. In addition, the phrase "Ljudski vrt" may also refer to an elementary school and a sports hall in Maribor and parks in Gorizia and Ptuj. I don't think this has been discussed in any depth in the past. --Eleassar my talk 22:53, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
With all respect, I must again emphasize the fact that the name used for this article was once 'Ljudski vrt Stadium' and it was moved to its present form only after a requested move, in which you have been a part of the discussion and back then you have not raised any questions or objections similar to those you have today. No objections were raised by the Wikipedia Community either, not in the requested move nor in a number of Wikipedia:Peer review's and successful candidacies for Good articles or Featured lists of articles surrounding the NK Maribor general topic. Furthermore, apart from potential self-esteem problems I don't understand why this stadium couldn't be compared to 'Anfield' or 'Old Trafford', which were only a couple of the named examples. The 'stadion Ljudski vrt' case you presented is surely not the official name (considering the grammatical error). Here is also only 'Ljudski vrt' used on the same sources; [31], [32], [33]. What exactly proves what name is used on Slovenian Wikipedia? There are half a dozen other language articles which uses simply 'Ljudski vrt' (de:Ljudski vrt, ru:Людски врт etc.). So what? As we have established there is no prevalent name in English sources while in Slovenian sources we both know that the prevalent term is simply 'Ljudski vrt' and not 'Stadion Ljudski vrt'. And if you are interested in creating articles about two parks and one elementary school, which you likely didn't even knew existed before this conversation, feel free and proceed with the project. If you need help I can provide it. You can easily create 'Ljudski vrt Park (Nova Gorica)' or 'Ljudski vrt Park (Ptuj)' articles or 'Ljudski vrt Elementary School'. You can also create 'Ljudski vrt Hall' for all I care, although with the latter consider the name 'Lukna' for the venue (of which I have some good pics on my computer) [34] [35] [36] [37], as you might find it more appropriate while processing the information about it (although I suspect you would try to directly translate it and use 'The Hole' instead). After that you can create a Ljudski vrt (disambiguation) page and start it with 'Ljudski vrt is the home stadium of Maribor and Slovenia. Ljudski vrt may also refer to: and continue with your parks, schools and what not..' Also, I would like to use this opportunity and urge you not to simply change or translate WikiProject Slovenia article names on your own and without consensus, as you have been doing for years. I am not the only one who objects such moves. Regards, Ratipok (talk) 02:24, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
Let's just agree that we disagree here. Although it was an interesting reading and you did make me laugh; thank you. I've opened a requested move section to get the opinion of other interested editors. Best, --Eleassar my talk 06:52, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Attendance numbers in "All-time football attendance records at Ljudski vrt" in "Records" section should not use RTV Slovenija or Siol reports, why exactly are those reports more reliable than reports from soccerway.com or the Football Association of Slovenia? Why reverting ? Have you realise that those numbers are just "lucky guessing" from a jorunalist? There were NEVER 11,000 spectators against serbia in 2011, and never 12,000+ against slovakia in 2008, and other attendances are bullshit too (san marino 2009 - never 6,500 like RTV is claiming, much more than half of the stadium was empty)...look at 2010 FIFA World Cup qualification – UEFA Group 3, UEFA Euro 2016 qualifying Group E, 2014 FIFA World Cup qualification – UEFA Group E, and UEFA Euro 2012 qualifying Group C, those numbers are the most reliable and should be used  86.58.36.235 (talk) 11:44, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Hello. You are advocating some sources while claiming a number of current ones are not reliable and are merely journalists guesses? You are changing some reports from RTV Slovenija and Siol which contain a specific and detailed numbers about attendance. Do you even look before you decide to edit? This Siol [91] report has the number 12,376 in it and you prefer a guess of 12,000? If those are not guesses than I don't know what they are. How is 12,000 more reliable than 12,376? The RTV source doesn't say anything about 12,000+ spectators on a 2008 match vs Slovakia (the report and the article uses the number 10,000 - Football Association of Slovenia (nzs.si) has 11,000). The 2011 Serbia match was definitely in the range of 11,000 however [92]. I am not saying RTV Slovenija or Siol sources are unreliable. Neither am I saying this about sources from NZS.si while I am reserved about sources from soccerway which are from matches prior to the establishment of the website. What I am saying is that the sources are to be looked throughout and the best available ones used. So if a source from RTV Slovenija uses a specific/detailed number and the source from Slovenian FA or Soccerway uses a broad/guess number that the source from RTV should be used, and vice versa (that is why I left the Soccerway source for the most recent match against Ukraine, because that one contains a specific/detailed number). Neither of the sources are perfect and 100% in all cases. Some of the numbers are plain guesses in every source used. PS: "match reports" used in the list of matches were there primarily for match reports and not sources to confirm the attendance numbers. Obviously its hard to find such articles for matches in the 1990s so naturally nzs.si simple match reports are used for those. There is also nothing wrong using whatever source when the numbers are the same (multiple sources are always welcomed). Regards, Ratipok (talk) 01:13, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
Maybe FIFA reports could also be used, for example Slovenia-San Marino, it says 4,400 here aswell 86.58.36.235 (talk) 14:33, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
So which one then? FIFA has 4,400 (as does Soccerway, them likely using Fifa.com number). Slovenian FA has 5,000 and RTV has 6,500. All guess numbers.. And Slovenia vs Poland in 2009? Soccerway/Fifa has as specific number of 'only' 10,226. However, apart from the small security sector, to divide the fans, the match was practically sold out (RTV source 12,000 and Slovenian FA 11,200) which can be seen on the youtube video: [93]. Ratipok (talk) 21:36, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
Or simply delete "attendance" column in the table and list only date, national teams, result, competition and report 86.58.36.235 (talk) 22:33, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
All attendance numbers from 2008 onwards now have sources for them. Most of them are specific/detailed numbers which is good. I see no point in sourcing the attendances from the matches during 1990s because they are all from listed match reports from the Slovenian FA and there is no way in validating them anyway (lack of other sources). Regards, Ratipok (talk) 21:39, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Capacity should be changed from 12,994 to 12,702 (Source), the matches maribor-sevilla (2014) and slovenia-ukraine (2015) were completly sold out and the official attendance according to soccerway was 12,700 and 12,702 for those matches, so it cant have more than 12,702 seats (the original capacity from 2008 was 12,435 seats, in 2010 they added one or two rows of seats on the east stand to make it around 12,700). 12,994 is used only on nk maribor website and nowhere else, surely the Športni objekti Maribor (Maribor Sports Facilities) is the most reliable source as they are operator of the stadium, they should know how many seats they have 86.58.36.235 (talk) 18:45, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Actually, NK Maribor is using 12,702 too, so I dont know where 12,994 comes from (Source2) 86.58.36.235 (talk) 19:07, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
Previously there was a capacity of "12,994" on the official website (same link), for quite a long time actually. Don't know when they changed the number. And a match can be sold out with only 10,000 spectators, if for security reasons only 10,000 tickets are in sale. Regards, Ratipok (talk) 01:23, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
Yes i checked the wayback machine archived page, they changed from 12994 to 12702 somewhere in late 2014/early 2015, I think the stadium could have lost several seats in 2012 when they installed proper seats on north/south stands instead of small standing pads 86.58.36.235 (talk) 18:33, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Ljudski vrt/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: PCN02WPS (talk · contribs) 16:26, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Hi there, I'll review this nomination in the coming days. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 16:26, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

The article is very well written. Thanks for your patience, comments are below and the nomination is  on hold. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 20:19, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for the review, I did fix (almost) everything and included changes and comments below. Snowflake91 (talk) 22:43, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
The last two comments have been addressed, so I'm happy to give this a pass! Well done. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 14:41, 2 May 2022 (UTC)


### Lead and infobox
"A notable feature of the stadium..." → The word "notable" should probably be replaced here per MOS:EDITORIAL
Comment: Replaced "notable" with "prominent" to make it less NPOV.
"the stadium is also occasionally used by the Slovenia national football team" → does the women's national team use the stadium as well, or just the men?
Comment: Men's only, replaced with "Slovenian men's national football team".


### History
"acquire a football field in the area for the next ten years. In the same year, I. SSK Maribor also acquired a football field in the same area" → Not the worst thing in the world, but the phrase "acquire[d] a football field" gets a bit repetitive here
Comment: Replaced "acquired" with "obtained" in the second sentence.
"...due to the food poisoning affair." → as this currently reads, "the food poisoning affair" doesn't have any context and sort of comes out of left field (though I am intrigued), so I'd recommend giving just a touch of explanation of what this means.
Comment: Expanded and explained the reasons for disbandment.
"without a club that would play on a professional level" → If I'm reading this correctly, I think "without a professional club" would be a more concise way to say this, also avoids the issue with tenses
Comment: Fixed.
"as much as 20,000 spectators" → reads more naturally as "as many as 20,000 spectators"
Comment: Fixed.
"During the 1967–68 season" → link 1967–68 Yugoslav First League
Comment: Done.
"with the ground's conversion" → this reads better to me as "as part of the ground's conversion"
Comment: Done.
A few issues with this sentence: "A year later, Maribor became the first and to date the only Slovenian club to qualify for the elite UEFA Champions League."
Commas are needed around "to date"
While the UCL is relatively well-recognized as the "elite" league of its kind, the inclusion of the word "elite" could bring some WP:NPOV issues
Inclusion of the phrase "to date" means the sentence needs some sort of indicator as to when the timeframe of that statement is based around, such as something like {{As of}}
Comment: Removed "elite", added commas and "{{as of|{{CURRENTYEAR}}|lc=y}}" template.
"In 2000, an irrigation system was installed to irrigate the pitch" → a touch redundant
Comment: Done, removed redundant "to irrigate the pitch".
"due to incorrect calculations of project costs, which rose to €8 million" → the €8 million figure is good to include but is not as informative without a mention of what the initial cost was going to be, or by how much the cost increased
Comment: The source says that the fee raised to €3million more than intially planned, so I've added this --> "which rose to €8 million, which was €3 million more than initially planned"; however, it might be weird now with two "which" words so close, if you have any idea how to rephrase it better it would be great.
Could we simplify it to just say "...which rose from €5 million to €8 million."? Or perhaps "...which ended up at €8 million, compared to the original estimate of €5 million."? PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 02:43, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
Done, "which rose from €5 million to €8 million" sounds fine. Snowflake91 (talk) 09:36, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
The second and third paragraphs of the section "West Stand renovation" are written partially or entirely in the present tense; this should be switched to past tense since the renovations have already taken place
Comment: This part I dont understand, which sentence exactly should be in the past tense? I've now only changed "Other changes include new underground..." to "Other changes included new underground...", because other sentences cannot be switched to past tense as this would mean that the stadium doesn't exist anymore, or? For example:
"The new capacity of the West Stand is 3,265 seats" – cannot be "was 3,265 seats" since they're still there.
"The arched roof has retained its original appearance" – should the word "has" be removed?
"...have also been completed, which now include a media press centre and dressing rooms and warehouses for the football academy" – cannot switch "include" to "included" there.
"...and the total capacity of the stadium has been reduced to 11,671" – should be "was reduced to 11,671" there?
You have some very valid points there. The two remaining instances I spotted were (1) "...and the total capacity of the stadium was reduced to 11,671." and (2) "...under the North and South stands were completed..." PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 02:43, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
Done both. Snowflake91 (talk) 09:36, 2 May 2022 (UTC)


### Other uses
This is nitpicky, but it appears that the name of the musical itself was Zorba, and the musical was based off of a book called Zorba the Greek.
Comment: Probably, even though the image uploaded in 2008 says "Zorba the Greek", and Slovenian media called the performance "Grk Zorba", its a minor thing anyway.
"the tenth anniversary of the beatification" → would it be correct to say "his beatification"? If so, that change should be made.
Comment: Done.


### Records
Proleter and Yugoslav First League can be delinked as they are linked earlier in the article's body
Comment: De-linked Yugoslav League, but kept Proleter as the team is not linked in the body of the article, only in the lead section.


### Transport
Distances such as "150 m" and "1.5 km (1 mile)" should use {{Convert}}
Comment: Done.
Last sentence of the section needs to be cited
Comment: Done and re-arranged wording a little bit, however, unlike everything else in the article, I cannot really find a reliable source for something so specific like distance from the stadium to the airport, so it is now cited to Google Maps distance and directions calculator. According to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources, Google Maps are not listed as unreliable, even thought its not the best source, it can be used if there are absolutely no other sources for that.