Talk:2023 FIFA Women's World Cup/Archive 1

Archive 1

Fair use rationale for File:Australia–New Zealand 2023 FIFA Women's World Cup bid logo.svg

File:Australia–New Zealand 2023 FIFA Women's World Cup bid logo.svg 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 this Wikipedia article 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 non-free use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure 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 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 lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

-- Marchjuly (talk) 07:34, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

'Beyond Greatness' with the Logo

So there is some back and forth happening here, so thought I would bring it to the talk page @SuperBatman12:@Hariboneagle927:. I have to say that I am with SuperBatman12 here in the use of the slogan, sure it wasn't in the 2018 FIFA World Cup but it was for the 2014 FIFA World Cup, 2010 FIFA World Cup, 2006 FIFA World Cup. Even when you look at past Women's World Cups, it was in the infobox for the 2019 FIFA Women's World Cup and as SuperBatman12 has pointed out, those Euro articles as well. I think it is more a case of some World Cups don't have an official slogan rather than it's not permitted in the infobox itself and since the slogan is an official part of this World Cup and the logo, it makes sense to have it in the article infobox.— NZFC^(talk)(cont) 20:25, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Okay I might have overlooked the other editions but my stance remains the same "caption" is not meant to portray any information aside from a description of the image which is usually the logo. Probably we could suggest for a dedicated motto/slogan field for Template:Infobox international football competition similar to the Olympic pages. Hariboneagle927 (talk) 10:54, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Notes

To put it briefly, there is no reasoning as to why 'Notes' shouldn't be it's own category here. I read WP:OSE and I think that's a baseless argument that doesn't not apply. The stance I have is not entirely based purely on articles such as or similar to (FIFA World Cup 2022) but rather I refer to them as to why it's structured that way. The current format of having notes directly below the pots is very unnecessarily for no benefit, and dilutes the purpose of having notes/references if the notes are already stated directly below. If we were to include additional notes in the future, should they also go into the same place the notes are currently? I think it's more beneficial to have a section primarily so we can included additional notes and compile it into one place. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.197.42.114 (talk) 00:43, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

If {{efn}} is used to its fullest potential, multiple groups of notes can be created and placed in appropriate locations. Notes within a table are best placed at the bottom of that table, and general notes in the prose are best placed at the end of the article. 19:49, 21 October 2022 (UTC) — Jkudlick ⚓ (talk) 19:49, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

Constraint

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

If anyone has seen the draw for the group stage, they might have noticed in group E that there is the potential of a Vietnam v Thailand fixture on 27 July 2023 which does not follow the standard rule that two teams from the same federation can't be drawn against each other, barring UEFA. Not sure how it ended that way apart from the obvious fact that the balls were drawn that way in addition to the constraints already taken into account. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 09:15, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

The constraint for the slot was applied to the highest ranked team in that playoff which is Portugal - UEFA... So "Play-off Group A" cant be drawn to a group with 2 UEFA teams. A potential Vietnam v. Thailand fixture is permissible. Hariboneagle927 (talk) 09:43, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for this explanation. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 09:47, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Difference between Vietnam and Ireland

I'd like to know what's the difference between "This is Vietnam's first ever FIFA women's competition, having only taken part in various FIFA men's tournaments" and "the Republic of Ireland marked their first-ever debut at any senior women's tournament". Isn't it basically the same thing? Gianluca91 (talk) 22:39, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

Ireland have appeared in the FIFA U-17 Women's World Cup. Hariboneagle927 (talk) 08:19, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

Visit Saudi controversy

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

FIFA has recently announced that it is about to sign a deal with Saudi Tourist Authority, but by far, FIFA has not announced if "Visit Saudi" is going to be named as one of the sponsors or not. There are rages from Australian and New Zealand officials, as well as famous female footballers like Alex Morgan, calling FIFA to not sign it. We will have to wait if FIFA wants to allow it to happen. HiddenFace101 (talk) 19:09, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

New Venue Map

1200km
820miles

10

9

8

7

5

4

3

2

1

  

• Australia
• 1
  Adelaide
• 2
  Brisbane
• 3
  Melbourne
• 4
  Perth
• 5
  Sydney

• New Zealand
• 7
  Auckland
• 8
  Dunedin
• 9
  Hamilton
• 10
  Wellington

Following upon the new {{OSM Location map}} format currently present in the men's 2022 and 2026 tournament, I have drafted this version intended to replace the current {{Location map+}} being used. This would allow the venues section more compact and simplified whilst still retaining the same information used in the current format.

Geographically, the map is centered in between the two host countries. They're also color-coded based upon the host countries branding during the tournament, with such example can be found on FIFA's hospitality website. Feedback and thoughts are most welcome. Kiwifury (talk) 06:57, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

@Kiwifury: I have two comments/suggestions:

1. There should be a greater contrast between the colors used for Australia and New Zealand (while still conforming to MOS:COLOR, of course). I'm at work right now, and because the room is kept fairly dark I have my monitors' brightness turned down and a "nightlight" mode turned on. This reduces the amount of blue light being produced and causes the colors to appear nearly identical. Perhaps a darker hue such has "dark gray" (#333322) for New Zealand?
2. Is there a way to break out the "5" and "6" from Sydney, e.g. one to the east and one to the south, with a line pointing to the city? The way they overlap makes them pretty much illegible. If that is not possible, I don't think it's that big a deal.

Other than that, you did a great job once again! — Jkudlick ⚓ (talk) 17:33, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

@Jkudlick: Thanks for the feedback, haven't really had the time to rework some of the changes. I've adjusted the colors of the labels to it has more contrast and is more recognizable whilst keeping on brand with the tournament. Regarding the two Sydney icons, I'm not too sure on how to work around it. I do agree the overlap on the map is illegible. Given the mark parameters used refer to the host cities rather than the stadia itself, a solution could be to combine both labels into one? Kiwifury (talk) 13:10, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

@Kiwifury: I think this looks very good. The only thing I would change is the NZ legend numbers being white instead of black, otherwise it looks great. — Jkudlick ⚓ (talk) 16:13, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

European big 5 media blackout threat

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

They are thought to be Britain, France, Germany, Italy and Spain but this was not confirmed by FIFA. (Fran Bosh (talk) 18:16, 4 May 2023 (UTC))

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Tazuni

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Tazuni is the name of the new mascot of the 2023 FIFA Women's World Cup. She is a female penguin. But there is another Tazuni, a famous lesbian penguin from the Central Park Zoo. There seems to be a lot of overlap. Was this issue addressed in some way? I imagine there could be copyright problems for FIFA. 212.171.17.134 (talk) 11:35, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

Names cannot be protected by copyright as copyright is reserved for creative works (e.g. books and pictures), nor can personal names be protected under US trademark law. Given that the tournament is in New Zealand and Australia, the issue with the penguin in the United States having the same name is pretty much moot. Besides, it would be up to the Central Park Zoo to file suit, and they don't have the resources to spend on something so trivial. — Jkudlick ⚓ (talk) 13:41, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Football (soccer) in the lede

Some users seem to think that the use of football (soccer) is merely a disambiguation of "football" and are replacing it with "association football". I do not know if the original addition of "(soccer)" was intentionally fulfilling ENGVAR requirements, but as I see it, this is the main purpose: that in Australia and New Zealand (which could be considered strong national ties for the subject) the sport is called both football and soccer about the same, perhaps even more soccer, and so both should be included. And including "soccer" means adding "association" would be redundant. Happy to have discussion on whether national ties count for hosts of international tournaments, which has been proposed for FIFA World Cups before. Kingsif (talk) 20:24, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Football in Australia) provides some solid information on local usage in Australia. It is a guideline for usage in Australian articles, and says to describe the sport as soccer (note the disambiguation) to avoid confusion with several other sports known by at least some of their fans there as football. (If you want some light reading, and have several days of spare time, the Talk page of that article will show that the creation of that seemingly simple guideline generated just a little bit of heat.) This article, of course, isn't really an Australian article. It's a global one. I'm not sure where that takes us. The situation is simpler in New Zealand. Football seems to be the common word there to describe the round ball game. HiLo48 (talk) 00:50, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

@Kingsif: Given both "football" and "soccer" are used in the English-speaking host countries, and this is an international tournament, it would make the most sense to use the full, unambiguous name of the sport. Since there are no strong ties to a single English-speaking nation, MOS:TIES is not decisive here. MOS:COMMONALITY suggests to use universally accepted terms rather than those less widely distributed, and "association football" is the formal name of the sport which cannot be confused with other codes. The phrase "football (soccer)" is also an awkward wording, we would not write "elevator (lift)" as a compromise on articles lacking strong national ties. The same wording was formerly used as the article title of the sport, which wasn't actually a disambiguation but an awful compromise to use both terms. S.A. Julio (talk) 01:20, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

As long as it's not "women's association football" again (which produced the powerful fragment: Women's World Cup, the women's association football tournament contested by women's national teams, as if readers struggled to understand the concept of women). If users agree that TIES does not apply for Australian ENGVAR, there should be no need to include "soccer". I expect it will come up again when the tournament is underway, and as this is a consensus of only a few users, I imagine it will be discussed again. Kingsif (talk) 01:30, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Inclusion of Auckland Shooting

This shooting has nothing to do with the World Cup, and should not be mentioned in the article, imo. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 05:26, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for starting discussion. Why do think it has nothing to do with the World Cup? Like, I would try to explain why I (and presumably the three users that added it before me) believe it does, but that would just be repeating the text in the article. Oh, and the new reports that there is more security at Eden Park. Sure the shooter did not, apparently, have disrupting the World Cup as a motive, but his actions have still done that. I'm gonna have to be offline for most of the day, but I encourage other editors to contribute (and I assume there will be active users at projects above that would be happy to). Kingsif (talk) 06:17, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

I agree with Sportsfan 1234, and rather than thanking them for starting this discussion, YOU should have started it as requested, instead of edit warring. The shooting is having negligible impact on the World Cup. Keep this article about the sport, not extraneous events. HiLo48 (talk) 07:58, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Three users added the information before I simply moved it and made one revert of an unexplained removal; you removed it twice before I ever touched it. I say this to point out that the ONUS to discuss was clearly on the two users wanting to remove it in the face of multiple users independently adding it. Kingsif (talk) 01:36, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Every single news article is linking the two events, and it did actually have a direct impact on the World Cup, because a minute of silence was held before the first match. However, I do agree that there should not be undue weight given unless there is an actually lasting impact. A sentence or two mentioning the shooting should be enough. (By the way, it really does not matter at all who starts the discussion, as long as it is started. You or I could have done it too.) ―Jochem van Hees (talk) 10:11, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, mention it in the opening ceremony section (it already is). I think it does not need its own section. -Koppapa (talk) 14:32, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

@Koppapa: With the fan zone being closed, at least one team unable to go to training, heightened security at the opening match, the moments of silence at matches, and whatever else is mentioned, it seems to be out of scope to be contained in the opening ceremony section. It could be that these details are mentioned at various different relevant places, or all contained in one section about the effect the shooting had on the World Cup. (And, @Jochem van Hees:, if I dare get my crystal ball out, the lasting impact will probably be that this World Cup is remembered as the one that kicked off with a shooting...) Kingsif (talk) 01:36, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

No it won't. HiLo48 (talk) 09:41, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

template incorrect?

Shouldn't New Zealand be listed in second place, above the Philippines, based on goal difference? Dkreisst (talk) 08:02, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

Group stage tie-breaking procedure is wrong

If Republic of Ireland are eliminated then the group stage tie-break criteria must be wrong. Goal difference between all the teams cannot be the second criterion gingerdaveski (talk) 16:33, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Ireland are already out. Having lost two matches, the maximum they can achieve is three points. Canada already have 4, and Nigeria play Australia tomorrow. If Nigeria win, they will have 4 points. If it is a draw, Australia will have 4 points. Moons of Io (talk) 16:49, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Discipline

I have removed the untidy and cluttered notes and numbers added to the standing box for Group B. Each Group has their own page with a Discipline box at the bottom for Fair play points and notes. Which are there to help easy understanding of Group stage tiebreakers.

It is unhelpful if editors cherry pick one match and is inconsistent with present editing guides after the 2022 FIFA World Cup. Pauseypaul (talk) 14:03, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Those "untidy" notes are useful for understanding at a glance why one team is placed higher than another if they have the same number of points, goals against, and goals scored. There is no reason to remove that information until it is no longer relevant; in the case of Group B, it was necessary to indicate on the table why Canada was placed ahead of Nigeria. These tables are transcluded in multiple articles, and the whole point of Wikipedia is to make it easier to share information; requiring someone to search amongst multiple articles to find this out is the antithesis of that. — Jkudlick ⚓ (talk) 18:17, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Wait, I thought Paul just moved the information below the table, that's what he made it sound like?
I didn't myself say anything about his strange reference to cherry-picking matches based on his response to my comment in the section above, but this indicates he doesn't understand the purpose so I would hope he didn't just remove information he doesn't understand. Yes, if he didn't keep the information accessible that's not okay - especially if he did so just so one guy can scrape information a bit more easily - making Wikipedia content worse for a non-Wikipedia reason, not understanding that's what you're doing, and having an attitude about it is all not okay. Kingsif (talk) 01:48, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

The information was actually removed from the Group B table in the template, but was later restored. It's not our problem that someone can't be bothered to type the data themselves for an off-Wikipedia purpose rather than scrape it. — Jkudlick ⚓ (talk) 15:39, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

• 𝐂𝐚𝐧 𝐈 𝐣𝐮𝐬𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐧𝐤 𝐲𝐨𝐮 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐬𝐮𝐜𝐡 𝐚 𝐜𝐥𝐞𝐚𝐫 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐩𝐨𝐥𝐢𝐭𝐞 𝐞𝐱𝐩𝐥𝐚𝐧𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧, unlike kingsif. Who amuses themselves by repeatedly miss-gendering me nine times in their comment below. Repeatedly jumping into talk-pages I have politely engaged in and attempting to disparage and belittle me which is sad and rather unbecoming of a professional Wikipedian with 50k+ edits under this name. Pauseypaul (talk) 00:44, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

  I don't know who you are, and I don't know why all of your comments in response to me are incredibly hostile, but cut it out. Kingsif (talk) 02:03, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

  • Pot Kettle . You jumped into both talk pages that 𝐈 𝐰𝐚𝐬 𝐩𝐨𝐥𝐢𝐭𝐞𝐥𝐲 𝐞𝐧𝐠𝐚𝐠𝐞𝐝 𝐢𝐧. Your replies were I feel poorly worded in reply to myself and the original poster. I have a right to reply and did so. You then attempted to disparage and belittle me.

  As a professional Wikipedian with 50k+ edits under this name, I feel your interactions here were questionably worded leaning toward bullying.

  You have now expanded this with another dubious warning which I again feel is not in the spirit of Wikipedia and shouts 𝐛𝐮𝐥𝐥𝐲.

  Please note that I will be making enquiries about this habit of yours of 𝐛𝐮𝐥𝐥𝐲𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐩𝐚𝐭𝐫𝐨𝐧𝐢𝐬𝐢𝐧𝐠 me with uncalled for warnings.

  Unlike Jkudlick who 𝐈 𝐣𝐮𝐬𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐧𝐤𝐞𝐝 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐢𝐫 𝐜𝐥𝐞𝐚𝐫 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐩𝐨𝐥𝐢𝐭𝐞 𝐞𝐱𝐩𝐥𝐚𝐧𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧. Pauseypaul (talk) 04:32, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

• Pinging recently active admins @Amakuru and Victuallers: - just to look at my and Pauseypaul’s contributions in the above section and then this one; I have been accused of bullying and a string of other offences for nothing worse than agreeing that content removal without a reason is bad. Now, Pauseypaul has threatened me. That is a personal attack too far from a user who began their interactions with me by inexplicably ranting just because I told someone else not to expect non-WP reason edits again. Kingsif (talk) 13:18, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

@Pauseypaul: - looks to me as if both of you are taking a position on this. (and no I have not read everything) Is it possible that you can recognise that you both have the same interest? Is it possible that you are both assuming that someone is trying to gain some small advantage over you? But actually the point is small or even non-existant? Could you find a positive point to make about each other? I could easly think of complimentary things to say to either of you. But if I did then would the other think that they had been discounted? Can you a) fix it b) step back and edit one of the other 180,000 footballing articles instead? c) the sub-title here is "discipline" and I don't think thats the best solution at this point. Be nice Victuallers (talk) 14:12, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

I would suggest reading everything before making this comment; to wit, I have not taken a position on anything or even given a reply to Pauseypaul except to ask them to stop casting aspersions. This section is titled discipline because it began about article content on yellow/red cards (match discipline). Kingsif (talk) 15:53, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

• Once again incorrect, you started this in [𝐚] 𝐚𝐟𝐭𝐞𝐫 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐍𝐢𝐠𝐞𝐫𝐢𝐚 𝐂𝐚𝐧𝐚𝐝𝐚 𝐃𝐫𝐚𝐰 the comment directly above this. I think you need to reread your tone. You invited a well respected Wikipedian to take a looky… they politely have. Gosh what’s next? A this is not a forum notice? Pauseypaul (talk) 16:17, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks from a reader.

To all those working so hard to make this WWC23 page/entry the asset it is, a HUGE thank you. 2407:7000:9B74:AF80:9C9:8F78:A0C3:F729 (talk) 19:14, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

Year in infobox

@Albert101032: I’d like to know why the year was removed from the dates in the infobox? — AFC Vixen 🦊 00:16, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

Knock Out Stage

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

If the schedule of the knock out stage stands correct, no 2 teams from the same group can ever meet each other in the final. Can someone clarify if that is the intent from FIFA? And if so, what they reason it with. 109.189.79.65 (talk) 10:19, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Correct, because 1/2 the teams play group stage all the way through to the semi-finals in one country, and 1/2 in the other country. Teams from the same group can meet in the semi-finals. Matilda Maniac (talk) 10:44, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

This tournament, like many others, uses a knockout bracket system. The above user's explanation isn't quite accurate, and I hope you find the information about the bracket at the linked article. Please try not to ask questions about the subject itself at this talkpage, though. Kingsif (talk) 00:04, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

England are not already advancing to knockout round

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I can't figure out how to edit this, but I'm certain this is an error (and it wasn't there last night). No, if Denmark and China both win, England can be eliminated on goal difference. Orfeocookie (talk) 00:19, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Right. It was fixed in {{2023 FIFA Women's World Cup group tables}} shortly before your edit.[1] PrimeHunter (talk) 00:34, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Discipline, part 2

(The previous section on this topic got off topic, so I am restarting here.)

• Support Because of its role in tie breaking, I propose that we have a column to indicate fair play points so far, in each Group Standings table in this article. —Quantling (talk | contribs) 13:20, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
• Comment for information. Wikipedia articles previously have not included a column for fair play points in the standard tables. Where the current standing is decided on fair play/discipline - or any other tie-break that isn't clear from the match results - there has often been a note explaining this. Given that the notes have previously only been included when the situation has come down to it, there has not been information on all the factors that could affect future standings if future matches end certain ways. Since fair play points aren't a 'result', one assumes this is why they are not included in results tables. The idea that they should be included for speculative reasons is also not a great one, IMO. Kingsif (talk) 00:12, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

  I think fair play points are as much a result as goal differential, goals for, and goals against, all of which do appear in the table. In fact, fair play points are more a result than goals against because the latter is seemingly useless; goals against isn't used for a tie breaker and does not affect the standings in any way. —Quantling (talk | contribs) 16:46, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

• Neutral I don't think it's worth adding but, besides it being inconsistent with all the other tournament articles (and since consistency shouldn't be a barrier to improvement), also don't think it matters enough to actively disagree. Kingsif (talk) 00:12, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

@Quantling: What exactly is the question being asked? What are you asking us to support or oppose? Nothing in the original discussion talked about whether to include fair play points in group tables, so I don't know what is being restarted. — Jkudlick ⚓ (talk) 01:01, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

If this should have not been connected to the previous discussion then I apologize for my error. I am proposing that we have a column to indicate fair play points so far, in each Group Standings table in this article. In this discussion section I am soliciting your feedback on that proposal. Thank you —Quantling (talk | contribs) 16:26, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

"Up the Matildas!"

Some user went into the article and left a message calling for Australia to be moved up to first place. I cannot figure out how to fix this on my own, several hours after the match finished Adostaler (talk) 21:59, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Add Fair Play points to tables.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Why aren't Fair Play points listed in the tables? I checked American, English, Australian and Irish websites, none of them list Fair Play Standings. If China and Denmark win their last games 1-0 England, Denmark and China will have 6 points with 2 Goals For and 1 against. It will come down to Fair Play. Can someone please add these points as it's frustrating that not even Fifa lists this important column in the official tables. In men's World Cups FIFA coefficient is used, but this is not the case now. So the absence of Fair Play Points hasn't been an issue in Men's World Cups. 213.112.211.64 (talk) 13:13, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

They won't matter 99% of the time anyway. Also the men's tables didn't had the coefficient either. Someone will add it, when it actually matters. -Koppapa (talk) 04:49, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

[a] after the Nigeria Canada Draw

Hi

Is there anyway of ensuring only numbers in the points column for teams. I am using the wikipedia pages for my work fantasy league and google sheets can't transform the data. It would really help me out and make the content more accessible.

Tom Tombuckley1984 (talk) 09:06, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

The clutter has been removed Pauseypaul (talk) 14:10, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Hi, Tom, this has been removed, but because a recent editing guide recommends so (see below); I feel the need to point out that it's not so (in the nicest way) one guy can scrape information a bit more easily. It's nice that the edits have been helpful to everyone here, but these sorts of requests will typically get you nowhere. Kingsif (talk) 21:57, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

𝐈 𝐟𝐞𝐞𝐥 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐧𝐞𝐞𝐝 𝐭𝐨 𝐩𝐨𝐢𝐧𝐭 𝐨𝐮𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 I did indeed remove it for the reason stated below which I am sure the poster is able to read. If "Tom" or any user wishes to scrape information from Wikipedia for their fantasy league that's fine with me & I'm sure "they" are not alone in doing so.

....𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐬𝐞 𝐬𝐨𝐫𝐭𝐬 𝐨𝐟 𝐫𝐞𝐪𝐮𝐞𝐬𝐭𝐬 𝐰𝐢𝐥𝐥 𝐭𝐲𝐩𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐲 𝐠𝐞𝐭 𝐲𝐨𝐮 𝐧𝐨𝐰𝐡𝐞𝐫𝐞 well I find by being polite on wiki goes a long way and as I also found the clutter irritating was Happy to do a simple spot of Summer cleaning. Pauseypaul (talk) 22:21, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

I don't know why you're taking an attitude, nowhere did I say or even suggest it was wrong - it just rarely happens that "change formatting for non-WP reason" is accepted and Tom shouldn't expect it happen again based on it being done now. Kingsif (talk) 01:12, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

Can I just say thank you for cleaning up that table and maintaining it. I'm really grateful for your response and open practice. The Fantasy League has run pretty smoothly importing data from wikipedia and it has literally save a few hours of transcription work. I don't know what what so enraging about the original request but I am glad positivity and kindness won the day. Tombuckley1984 (talk) 10:23, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

Misrepresentations in table template still needs to be fixed

Every world cup this is a problem, and every world cup we're promised it will be fixed, but it never is. Can we *finally* fix this so we're not chronically lying to our audience?

Currently, the table under the Group H header says that Germany and Colombia "advance to knockout stage", but the table under the Bracket header acknowledges that that hasn't been decided yet. Can we *please* correct the template so that we don't claim a team will advance until it's been determined that it will advance?

Yes, I understand that football fans ignore this as a known falsehood, and that many sources make this false claim knowing that their audience will know not to believe them -- that is, that it's not intentional deception -- but it's still bad practice. Not everyone who comes here is a football fan, and not everyone will understand where WP is telling the truth, and where WP is telling a falsehood because our sources expect you to be able to discount the falsehoods. — kwami (talk) 22:03, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

And indeed Colombia and Morocco advance, so our statement that Germany would advance was false. But now that the knockout stage is over, I expect we will ignore the problem until the men's cup, at which point we'll have the same problem of spreading falsehoods. — kwami (talk) 19:35, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

The original post was about this table:

Pos	Team	Pld	W	D	L	GF	GA	GD	Pts	Qualification
1	Colombia	2	2	0	0	4	1	+3	6	Advance to knockout stage
2	Germany	2	1	0	1	7	2	+5	3
3	Morocco	2	1	0	1	1	6	−5	3
4	South Korea	2	0	0	2	0	3	−3	0

Updated to match(es) played on 30 July 2023. Source: FIFA
Rules for classification: Group stage tiebreakers

The intented meaning is that the two best teams will advance from the group, and the top-2 teams on 30 July 2023 (before the group completion) were Colombia and Germany. The table layout can give the false impression that we claim Colombia and Germany have already advanced. It's a standard layout for football groups in Wikipedia and used for many different tournaments so Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football may be a better place to discuss it. If a team has actually secured advancement before the group completes then we indicate it with (A) after the team (Example with Sweden in Group G). PrimeHunter (talk) 22:43, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Okay, I'll bring it up again. — kwami (talk) 00:13, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

Top two teams in group stage shouldn't be marked "Advance to knockout round" until this is final

As of July 26, round robin play is still underway in the group stage, so it seems confusing to show the top two teams in each group table in green with the comment "Advance to knockout stage." For example, the table for Group E reflects the results of only two games, but someone looking at this table today will think the United States and Netherlands are advancing to the knockout stage.

It's good that the teams in each table are ordered based on the results of games played to date, but I don't think two teams within a given group should be marked in green with "Advance to knockout stage" until we know for certain who the two advancing teams are. (Usually that happens at the end of the round robin, but it could happen with a game still unplayed. It never happens with only two games played, as is currently the case for Groups D and E, for example.) Unfortunately I can't figure out how to adjust the table coding to fix this, so could someone else please adjust it? RCTodd (talk) 15:50, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

The usage of (A) or (E) will tell people who advances and who does not, see the table in group C where a further two matches have been played which were to determine the outcome on who finishes in the top two. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 17:35, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

That's true, but then you do have to know already that's how Wikipedia indicates it. If someone who is not familiar with these kinds of tables and doesn't follow the WC closely just skips to a certain group to see how it's going, they would see "Advance to knockout stage" for two teams, and might assume that it's definitive. I think this would be a very small group of people, but that is what the article's saying right now, and never underestimate how lazy people are with reading other parts of the article. ―Jochem van Hees (talk) 23:27, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

The way it is now is useful because it shows which positions would allow a team to progress to the next stage thomasmazzotta 09:03, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

I just added A and E tags to Group A, which has finished, and it was reverted. Apparently the way to figure out whether teams have actually advanced is a two parter:

1. If all teams have played 3 matches each then advancement and elimination is indicated by the green zone only.
2. If not all teams have played 3 matches each then advancement and elimination are indicated by "(A)" and "(E)" only.

I don't think we should make the reader work this hard. Let's pick one system for indicating confirmed advances and eliminations, and stick with it. —Quantling (talk | contribs) 13:40, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

I visited this page and was annoyed precisely by this issue - a number of teams are marked as advancing when that has not been determined, which is ridiculous. PLEASE mark (A) and (E) for those teams where things have been confirmed to make that clear. This is a pet peeve with many of these tables, and exactly the rules for advancing can be complicated so it would be nice to make clear who is still battling and who has it locked up. I didn't want to add them because I don't want my edits reverted, but the current false claims are very misleading. Verinote (talk) 14:45, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

"Work this hard" ??? Don't take the readers for stupid people : it is clearly seen when the group are final and they aren't. When a group is finished no (A), no (E) : it has always be that and that will be always that ! 2A01:CB14:1190:F700:118F:BB21:55A7:A203 (talk) 22:27, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

As is seen in the vast majority of edits throughout Wikipedia, our aim is to make the articles the best they can be, not to adhere to "it has always be that and that will be always that !" Making the articles clear and direct is a benefit to all readers; even smart people like yourself. Please, let's find a consensus. —Quantling (talk | contribs) 13:15, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Even though you find "(A)" and "(E)" to be redundant when all teams have played 3 matches each, I don't believe I have seen you indicate why you think this redundancy is bad. Do you think it will mislead readers in some way? Do you think it clutters up the tables excessively? Etc. There are people who are confused by the "look to the green if all teams have played exactly 3 matches each, otherwise look for the (A) and (E) markings", so that's what is motivating me to want to see "(A)" and "(E)" even when all teams have played exactly 3 matches. —Quantling (talk | contribs) 13:18, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Actually, it has NOT always been like that. I remember many previous tournaments where the green colouring was only used when a team had qualified, and until that time, letters or other colours were used to mark eliminated teams or teams that could still qualify. I agree with @Quantling that the current mixed system is unclear. I should be able to interpret a table easily and quickly, that's the whole point of presenting information in table format. 142.181.220.155 (talk) 16:04, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

I remember when there was a thick dark green line in the table (and also sometimes a blue line for tournaments where third placed teams could progress) to indicate the positions of advancement/possible advancement. Then when a team secured advancement, they were shaded green, and when they were eliminated, they were shaded pink. Then after the group stage finished, the tables were "finished off" by highlighting in green only the teams which advanced to the knock-out stage and leaving the others unhighlighted while removing the green (and blue) lines. It wasn't always the clearest and could still be a little confusing in instances of multiple levels of advancement, but I preferred it to the current version where it actually clearly states that teams have secured advancement before the tournament has even started, let alone while the group stage is in progress - which is massively misleading for those who don't spend hours looking at ongoing tournaments (i.e., most people). 2403:5808:6782:0:6DD2:EA8F:72B0:45FC (talk) 02:08, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

This is a crazy system - you are marking folks as advancing who may not! And I've definitely seen it done much more clearly on wikipedia, that's why I came here. What's bad about marking who is actually advancing vs who is not yet confirmed to advance - no one is explaining why this is bad beyond some ranting. Verinote (talk) 04:52, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

Melbourne Rectangular Stadium image

Didn't feel like being WP:BOLD to make this change, but if anyone is keen to change the image in the venues section of the article, here's three images from the Jamaica versus Brazil group game to choose from that are now available on commons:

• 
• 
• 

Storm machine (talk) 22:30, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

Any particular reason for changing the images? I am not oppose to changing it but generally there is a reason associated with changing the image. Of the three, are you asking for a particular image? Jurisdicta (talk) 15:39, 6 August 2023 (UTC)