Talk:FC Groningen

Requested move

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 Moved, also based on the format at the official website and Google generally. —Centrx→talk • 00:06, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

F. C. Groningen → FC Groningen – No space between FC Matt86hk talk 00:27, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Survey

• Weak Oppose: See discussion. —Wknight94 (talk) 03:09, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

Similar to a Turkish soccer move request, there doesn't appear to be much standard here and the category for this club has periods. Is there some convention to be applied here? —Wknight94 (talk) 03:09, 11 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.

Fair use rationale for Image:FC Groningen.png

Image:FC Groningen.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 06:20, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Founded?

The article states that FC Gronigen was founded in 1971. Then it states that they have played in their old stadium for 72 years. It seems to me that these statements are inconsistent. Could someone explain what I am missing?

Blair196 (talk) 19:55, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

According to this Dutch Wikipedia article FC Groningen played its first match at its old stadium in 1935 as GVAV. There remains a slight discrepancy since according to this article FC Groningen played its last match there in 2005, which makes it 70 years rather than 72. It seems that the Oosterpark Stadion was inaugurated in 1933, which explains the missing 2 years. Perhaps some predecessor of GVAV kicked a ball around there for a couple of years, which might, arguably, justify the claim of 72 years.

--Steveinnl (talk) 12:55, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

It was 70 years, not 72. GVAV moved to the Oosterpark from the Stadspark in 1935 and played its last game in the Oosterpark Stadium (as FC Groningen) in 2005. I have corrected the article. The Oosterpark sports venue was inaugurated in 1933 indeed, hence the confusion, but there was no precedessor of GVAV playing there before 1935.

Cruon (talk) 19:17, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Confusion

I'm not quite sure what's meant by 'The design of the shirt has differed until 1991'. Back-translating into Dutch, I think it means that it continued to change until 1991, and I've edited it to reflect that. Someone please correct me if I'm wrong.

--Steveinnl (talk) 16:50, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Famous players

Added the most famous players. TammoKorhorn (talk) 09:24, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Editing section on post-2005 history?

I have updated the history section up til 2005. The section describing 2005 to present was already in place, but I suggest shortening it, as in its current form it seems a little too long. Mentionings of scores of individual matches probably can be cut, except when it considers key-matches in the club's history like the 2015 cup final. The same goes for individual signings. Would anyone disagree?

Cruon (talk) 12:06, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:FC Groningen/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: ArsenalGhanaPartey (talk · contribs) 16:49, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Hello, I'll be picking this one up. Hopefully this becomes a good article! ArsenalGhanaPartey (talk) 16:49, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   Language and Grammar looks good.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

   Good enough.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   It is a proffesional football club, and has plenty of data on it. This is a pass.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   Nominator is neutural to the subject, and no signs of bias are being shown in the article.

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   Images look good

7. Overall: Article looks great, so I will be passing it! ArsenalGhanaPartey (talk) 14:42, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

   Pass/Fail: