Talk:2019 FIFA Women's World Cup/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

References

Have redone references in the article. The event is still several years away and FIFA's site doesn't have any information about it at this time. Anyone have any more information or ways to improve this? Thanks! Solardrum (talk) 05:43, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on 2019 FIFA Women's World Cup. 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) 07:26, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Colombia

Colombia is not qualified yet.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.198.10.142 (talk) 22:27, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

2020 Summer Olympics qualification for UEFA

The article stated that The tournament is expected to be used by UEFA to qualify three teams for the 2020 Summer Olympic women's football tournament in Japan.^[1] But this appears to be speculative, and is not supported by the reference used. Matilda Maniac (talk) 00:43, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Is this true now? Matilda Maniac (talk) 13:10, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Yes. -Koppapa (talk) 05:35, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

References

^ "OC for FIFA Competitions approves procedures for the Final Draw of the 2018 FIFA World Cup". FIFA.com. 14 September 2017.

Additional table requested

In addition to (or instead of?) the Ranking of third-placed teams table it would be nice to have a table that has all teams that are neither A (guaranteed to advance to the knockout round in some capacity) nor E (guaranteed to not advance in any capacity). That way, we can see the jostling for the remaining knockout round openings. (And the next time around, we can start this table earlier in the process.) 74.76.180.38 (talk) 01:02, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Or maybe a table that has all 24 teams, sorted by the tie breaking rules as if they were all in one group, and being sure to label each team with its group and its A or E (or other letter?) status. This would be a superset of my first suggestion. 74.76.180.38 (talk) 01:05, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

I can't see any reason for these tables.--Anaxagoras13 (talk) 14:52, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, that that wasn't clear. The reason is that the teams competing for the third-place slots include some teams that are currently in fourth place (but not flagged as E) – as well as some teams that are currently in first or second place but aren't yet tagged as A. The hope is that a table that has more than just the 6 currently-third-place teams will give a better picture of the competition for those third-place slots. 74.76.180.38 (talk) 19:33, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Much simpler could be to simply add all 4th-placed teams to the current 3rd-placed teams table; though that leaves open the question on how to call the new table. The pertinence of such information is also a concern, after all WP:NOTSTATSBOOK is a thing - statistics which are included should be on point and not excessive; and after the end of the group stage the information which you suggest has little pertinence to a relative outsider like me and seems more like content which is of interest only to dedicated fans. 107.190.33.254 (talk) 19:12, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

"China PR"

We are already using "South Korea" instead of "Korea Republic", so why are we not using "China" instead of "China PR"? "China Republic" is commonly known as "Taiwan" and does not compete in this tournament. 2A02:908:1013:C540:BC87:F023:4A82:D08E (talk) 09:14, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

The usage is as on the FIFA website, [1]. Unless there is a better WP:RS for this (is there??), don't see why we would not go with the official website. Note that any change would also need to be copied to sub-articles for consistency. 107.190.33.254 (talk) 02:51, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Word Women

Do we need 3 times the word women in the lead? The first two times it refers to the competition (which makes some sense), but the third time (women's national teams) the word women is redundant. The use of the word women in the competition names twice before in the same sentence makes it unlikely that any reader would think men's teams would compete here (so there is no confusion. The Men's world cup articles use the word "men's national teams", but there it is necessary, as the tournament names do not use the term men's or women's. I prefer to remove the third women's in the first sentence, but was reverted. Any thoughts of others? L.tak (talk) 21:00, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

I agree that the usage is somewhat redundant, but I don't know if there is any improvement in removing the 3rd mention (first two are not an issue, me thinks). For clarity it could stay, even if it's obvious. 107.190.33.254 (talk) 03:22, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Well, I think in general the tendency to name the gender only when women are concerned is problematic and indicates that in football, the "standard" is the men's. However that is something for society to solve. We can not do it, as the names for these world cups happen to have women's in their name, so I agree there. The only thing we can do without being wrong is not to indicate the gender when it is not necessary (and that's exactly what we do in the men's contests: we name men's once for clarity, and are then done with it). As you indicate as well it is somewhat redundant I don't see what clarity can be gained from using the word a third time... L.tak (talk) 13:37, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Regarding the table in #Qualifying teams for Summer Olympics

I think that it is redundant and does not any relevant information: which teams qualified is already known from the previous table (whose current title is "UEFA teams qualified for 2019 FIFA Women's World Cup"; that could also change to something more appropriate); the date on which they qualified has little value; and the previous appearances in Olympics have strictly nothing to do with the article subject (which is the Women's World Cup). Therefore, I have boldly removed it and would like to see if anybody has any argument for keeping it in. 107.190.33.254 (talk) 23:22, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Rolfö

So is she suspended for the semifinal or for Latvia? The latter seems at odds with “yellow card suspensions are not carried forward to any other future international matches” -- Y not? 13:13, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

As I read article 10 of regulations, she should be suspended in the semifinals. Single yellow cards are cancelled after QFs. But two yellow cards leads to a suspension also after the QF.--Anaxagoras13 (talk) 13:30, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Correct. Since she received her second booking of the tournament in the quarter-final match, she is suspended for the semi-final match. — Jkudlick ⚓ t ⚓ c ⚓ s 07:47, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Red card missing from table

Australian player Kennedy red card is missing from the Discipline table. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.230.35.228 (talk) 20:02, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Kennedy serves her suspension after the World Cup, that's why she is not listed in the table.-Anaxagoras13 (talk) 20:10, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Bad Sportsmanship by the USWNT

I wonder if the article should include text (backed up by citation) concerning bad sportmanship by the USWNT? FunksBrother (talk) 18:23, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

I would think probably not, but it depends on the nature of the source. In any major competition, there are inevitably odd incidents here and there of some team being acused of bad sportsmanship, and they usually get at least a bit of coverage in a few different news outlets. It's often possible to cherrypick sources and try to make a controversy when none actually exists. Unless there's a good amount of in-depth coverage of poor sportsmanship -- which I haven't personally seen -- then I'd avoid it. Lowercaserho (talk) 19:03, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

I agree, especially on the day after their win. There have been no issues of poor sportsmanship raised or reported immediately following matches, just a certain amount of fussing, some of it petty, about acts of celebration. A team like the USWNT is always going to be a target for these things, especially in this political climate. Given that, and the lack of attention to some of the aggressive actions taken against American players, notably Alex Morgan, as well as the actual poor sportsmanship of the Cameroonian players, anything about US poor sportsmanship would be highly subjective, and questionable at best. ----Dr.Margi ✉ 19:16, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Sourcing for the assists table

Does anyone have a good source for the table of assists? It's currently sourced to "FIFA" which is so vague as to be useless. I had a look for one, but couldn't find anything. The best I found were this and this, but there are big problems with both. The first is by FIFA, which makes it reliable, but it's also incomplete. The list only includes goal-scorers, with assists being listed as a tie-breaker, which means that anyone who didn't score isn't on the list. This includes Sherida Spitse, who is top of our list. The second is from FBref, which is a part of Sports Reference, and might be considered reliable, except that it conflicts with FIFA's figures (for instance, FBref credits Megan Rapinoe with 2 assists, whereas FIFA credit her with 3).

What's worse is that neither list entirely agrees with our list, and they disagree in different ways. For instance, Sam Mewis has 4 assists on our list, 4 assists on FBref, but only 3 assists according to FIFA; Lindsey Horan has 2 on our lists, 2 according to FIFA, but only 1 if you go by FBref.

Hopefully, someone can find a good source for this, and we can check our list against it, but if nobody has such a source, does anyone have any feelings on what to do with the list as a whole? I'm thinking that if we don't have a source, then we're probably going to be best served by getting rid of the whole list, on the grounds of original research, but I'd listen to any ideas for good ways to avoid that. Lowercaserho (talk) 00:14, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Well that'S the problem with assists. Basically any website has an own system how to credit those. Here is a German. You either have to pick one (which would be FIFA, if they had one) or probably delete the section. Even having a news article mention the best assists from fifa.com would be a good start. I'd also cut it down to the top 10. -Koppapa (talk) 04:54, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

While FIFA do not compile a full list on their website, they do keep track of assists in their match report PDFs, all of which are found in the references section (for example here, here and here). However, the technical report (to be released in late September) should include a comprehensive list. S.A. Julio (talk) 18:10, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure how I feel about having a list that's sourced to 52 different pages. On the one hand, WP:CALC is a thing and we're only doing basic arithmetic. On the other hand, it's quite opaque what's actually being added, verifiability is possible but awkward, and there's a big risk of errors slipping in, like the one with Mewis. Are you 100% confident that our figures are accurate, and that no mistakes have crept in at any point? I know I'm not. If you are, then I guess I'll call that good enough, but if not then I still think we want to be taking a look at this. Lowercaserho (talk) 14:57, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

@Lowercaserho: The tally of Mewis was correct until this edit, and has now been restored. I wouldn't say the risk of errors slipping in is any greater than the rest of an encyclopedia that anyone can edit. I'm confident the tallies are correct, I carefully compiled the list ahead of the semi-finals and double-checked the final four results. S.A. Julio (talk) 15:29, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Fair enough. Your word and your confidence is enough for me to be satisfied. Lowercaserho (talk) 15:35, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

[1] "OC for FIFA Competitions approves procedures for the Final Draw of the 2018 FIFA World Cup". FIFA.com. 14 September 2017.

[1]