Talk:2015 FIFA Women's World Cup

Wrong image for the Frank Clair Stadium

The wrong image was used for the Frank Clair Stadium, the image was just a rendering of a proposal which is extremely unlikely right now. I corrected it by adding a real photo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FreezingWorld (talk • contribs) 17:16, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Copyrighted material

The text removed was exactly what copy from here clearly! --Aleenf1 14:21, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

New Section for Broadcasters?

I was pondering about the addition of a new section for broadcasters. Your thoughts? PunchoCooksRamen (talk) 02:38, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Sure, put it in, if you have sourced info. -Koppapa (talk) 10:13, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

FIFA rankings

Do we want to freeze the FIFA rankings in the qualified teams table as they were on 6 December 2014 (the date of the group draw), or as they will be on 6 June 2015 (the date of the opening match)? I have no strong feelings one way or the other, but I feel we should have a consensus. -- Jkudlick ^tc_s 20:46, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

I didn't go back to check, but I think most articles, especially FIFA competitions, use the last ranking before the tournament starts. Even though it's not a big issue for me, I would vote for that (but would be fine with either). Equineducklings (talk) 21:11, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

If previous precedent has been to freeze the rankings at the start of the tournament, I can find no valid reason to change that. I'll check other a few other tournaments to verify, but I believe you may be correct. -- Jkudlick ^tc_s 21:34, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Insecure Torontonians

Have Torontonians really gotten to the point with their insecurities that a Canadian article cannot go without mentioning that city. The fact that this article needs to mention and explain why Toronto isn't a host city is pretty sad. There are many cities in Canada that aren't hosting. Should all of them be mentioned as well ? 173.35.95.112 (talk) 04:43, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

I'll be frank—your edits were rather disruptive, and I'm dismayed that a Canadian felt it was necessary to disrupt an important and highly-visible article about a major international sporting event taking place in Canada. The fact that Toronto is not hosting any matches this summer is significant because that is the only site that hosted matches in the 2014 FIFA U-20 Women's World Cup that is not hosting any matches in the WWC; that other cities may or may not have considered hosting matches is of less significance and is not vital. If Toronto had not hosted any matches this past summer, the city would likely not receive a mention in the article.

Edit: I just noticed that the article does mention Halifax, which withdrew itself from consideration. If you can find quality sources that list other cities which were considered for hosting matches, please feel free to constructively edit the article with the appropriate references. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 12:07, 15 December 2014 (UTC); 12:12, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Since you're making accusations, I'm not from Toronto and I'm not feeling insecure. As I explained, the source mentions Toronto. BMO Field in Toronto is the Canadian Men's National Team's official field. It's the only large, natural grass pitch in Canada. It's clearly an omission to good locations. Other cities may have natural grass pitches but none of them have been chosen for the Canadian Men's National Team. None of them are large enough. I said that both Burnaby and Victoria BC used artificially expanded stadiums for the recent Men's Under-20 championship and none of them were mentioned. This isn't about pushing a specific city but doing what the references support. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:37, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

And what does the mens national team have to do with this tournament or article ? 173.35.95.112 (talk) 21:35, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Even given that the men's national team has nothing to do with this tournament or article is valid, the fact remains that your initial argument is moot based upon the facts I provided above. As I said, please feel free to engage in constructive editing with proper references, but stop being disruptive over one particular segment you may disagree with. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 21:48, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Your argument is poor at best. So because Toronto was one of the host cities of the women U-20 (a completely different tournament) it deserves mentioning and a full explanation ? 173.35.95.112 (talk) 01:43, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

The U20 tournament is run as a test event for the Women's World Cup. Thus, the exclusion of Toronto games are significant for this reason. The biggest reason they aren't hosting games is I believe PASO doesn't allow major events in the time span around a PanAm Games. It has nothing to do with Torontoians being insecure, more that typically, the national soccer stadium is used for the World Cup (Men's and Women's). However, despite BMO Field being the defacto home stadium, doesn't Commonwealth Stadium in Edmonton still have a sign up proclaiming it as the official home for Canada's soccer teams? Shootmaster 44 (talk) 03:21, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Merely stating that my argument is "poor at best" still doesn't lend any weight to your personal opinion that Toronto should not be mentioned. You have yet to address the fact that Halifax was mentioned as withdrawing their bid. If you can find credible references that other cities submitted bids to host matches and were not selected, please feel free to constructively edit the article and mention them; cities that do not submit bids to host matches are not significant for the purpose of this article or for any other tournament article, while those that do and are not selected may receive mention if properly referenced (e.g. Halifax). I applaud you for bringing this to discussion as per WP:BRD; your opinion has been heard, but without a truly valid reason to remove any mention of Toronto from the article, it will remain. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 11:43, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

In which reference was Halifx mentioned? It too should be mentioned if it was mentioned. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:38, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

@Walter Görlitz: The second sentence in the Venues section: "Halifax was also considered, but removed itself from contention in March 2012." with a reference to this article. That has been there for quite some time. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 14:46, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

I see it now that I read the whole paragraph. It's in a separate ref. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:49, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

It's the national field.

It's also the only large field with natural grass. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:40, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

My argument is also that it's discussed in the article that's used in the reference. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:40, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

The Canadian Soccer Association provided Canadian cities with the opportunity to be a part of the FIFA Women's World Cup Canada 2015. Toronto was invited, but declined. They did, however, decide to take part in the FIFA U-20 Women's World Cup Canada 2014. This is not the first time a city has been used for one competition, but not the other. In 2010, Bielefeld was a host city for the FIFA U-20 Women's World Cup Germany 2010 (including the match for third place), but it was not a host city for the FIFA Women's World Cup Germany 2011. 207.35.180.85 (talk) 20:22, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Based on conversation at a pub in the U.S. during the opening Canada--China match. [1] Why not Toronto? is a compelling question because of Toronto's prominence among Canadian cities. Tonight I will tell others what I read here.

Another compelling question or two is [2] does Canada have any qualifying (size?) stadium where a grass field is in place? if so what happened to them in the invitation and selection process?

--P64 (talk) 19:06, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Anyway, it is going well in Canada, good hosts. -- AstroU (talk) 05:24, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Just a guess here, but if the field in Toronto is natural grass, was it excluded out of desire to have all games played on similar surfaces? Given the controversy about the use of artificial turf in general, to have some games on real grass could be perceived as an unfair advantage for those teams involved. Or teams might complain about having to switch between real and fake grass. This way, all games are played under similar field conditions. Wschart (talk), — Preceding undated comment added 18:12, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

No. They refused to offer to host any matches because of their PanAm Games bid and hosting. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:49, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Updated information

1. Great Britain will definitely not be fielding football teams at Rio 2016 (see here), I guess this affects the qualification thing with the World Cup and Olympics (I didn't exactly know how, so didn't add it).

2. This event will user Hawk-Eye for the first time (see here), I think this should be added somewhere. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:19, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

 Done. Thanks. Kante4 (talk) 15:42, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

This is the first womens world cup with a Fantasy League and Commemoration coins

http://www.si.com/planet-futbol/2015/03/13/womens-world-cup-fantasy-game-panini-stickers

https://ca.sports.yahoo.com/news/royal-canadian-mint-commemorating-fifa-womens-world-cup-204051647--nba.html

This can be added in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.39.156.181 (talk) 17:27, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

No, not notable. Kante4 (talk) 17:45, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Trivial. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:37, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

host/s

I don't want to create a tempest in a teapot, but since the tournament is taking place in Canada, shouldn't the spelling and grammar be Canadian (rather than British, in the few cases where there might be differences)? If so, does Canada use "host" or "hosts" in the place where it was changed to BE?Kdammers (talk) 21:15, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

It could be, but it was established using international/British English and dmy date format and has been for over a year. I tagged it as such on 2014-07-17T04:02:57‎ after a similar change to yours. The original change to hosts was made on 2014-04-25T06:42:19. The 2011 Women's WC calls them both host and hosts. 2010 and 2014 Men's only uses hosts. What do other editors think? Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:40, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

I would say they "host" the world cup and are the "hosts". But i'm not good in that matter so i leave it to other to decide. Kante4 (talk) 09:22, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Table column 'Consecutive Streak'

Maybe it is just me but this heading just does not sound right... the word Consecutive already implies a streak. Would suggest change to 'Consecutive Appearances' or 'Consecutive Finals Appearances'. 139.218.112.161 (talk) 23:37, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Advance to knockout stage

It's a bit misleading that it seems the teams advancing to knockout stage have already been determined although most teams haven't even played yet. --Explosivo (talk) 16:31, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

That's the new module, when they are through a letter (Q) will be added next to them. Kante4 (talk) 16:35, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

What is the (T) meant to mean in the real world - "Qualified, but not yet to the particular phase indicated"? THERE IS ONLY ONE PHASE TO QUALIFY FOR, it apparently means "Won't be fourth" (as if that has some significance) but in reality it is stupidly misleading - either the US (or others) are definitely in the round of 16 or definitely eliminated or there is nothing to say. Currently readers would be perfectly justified in thinking that it is saying that the US team are definitely in the round of 16 - which is untrue. This is the result of the utterly idiotic decision to apply a "league" template (ie for a whole 30-40 game season) to tournaments or qualifiers (ie for a 3 game thing like this or a 6-10 game run in qualification) when the information people want out of the two is completely different. Any enforced technical system like this new one (and it is a change from every previous WC or WWC) that can easily lead to wrong inferences being made by an average reader should be removed.180.200.180.155 (talk) 04:47, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Agree completely with this. The modules may be appropriate for leagues, but they are confusing for fast-moving, short-term group based competitions such as this one. For example, now that group A is finished, there are no letters anywhere on the group, while Group C still has them because it still has games to play. I previously raised this issue on other discussion pages (eg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2015_UEFA_European_Under-17_Championship_qualification) and even suggested an alternative (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Module_talk:Sports_table#Confusion_due_to_use_of_colour), but nobody seemed to agree it was necessary. It's my opinion that this new table system is supported by a small number of more active Wikipedia contributors, and that a larger number of less active people (including myself) don't like it but don't really know the proper processes for getting it changed. Craig1989 (talk) 01:51, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Infobox and Goal scorer update request

Hello I appreciate if the following can be updated:

• Top Goalscorer - Include Aya Miyama from Japan (1 goal scored in the match against Switzerland)
• Infobox -update number of matches to 8, number of goals to 33 and attendance (include the 25,942 for each match of group C)

Thank you, 94.210.161.20 (talk) 07:43, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

94.210.161.20 (talk) 07:43, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

WikEd

The only changes I make are to the maintenance templates at the top of the page. Why do you want to remove spaces from templates anyhow. It makes selecting difficult and several bots will come in and restore them later. See https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:WikEd Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:28, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

As for edit warring over it, I applied the change. You reverted it. I applied it again, in essence, a revert, you reverted. That's when the edit war started. It does take two to tango, but I stepped out of the edit warring cycle while you did not. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:35, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Why should we have space for some of the parameters in the module and not some? To have | win_3F=0 |draw_3F=1 ... makes no sense at all, there should at least be some consistency. About the editwar you were introducing the spaces and after being reverted you still kept on and that is when the edit war started. Dont think you are so innocent (and your history of edit war say something). Qed237 (talk) 14:40, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

I really don't get the "spacing" done by Walter. It's not needed and just "blows" up the article by a few kbs. I do not see any other editor doing that, tbh. Kante4 (talk) 15:23, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

First, the spacing applies to more than just parameters. It applies to headings, paragraphs and other subjects. Kante4's argument is the reverse of other stuff exists. I can apply the formatting to parameters manually if required. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:31, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, again, i don't get it why every header has to be spaced. Really makes no sense to me and not common in my eyes. Kante4 (talk) 15:39, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

It's not common because many editors don't do it. However, go to your talk page or sandbox. Create a new section or "add topic". Put in a string without spaces on either side. Save. Then edit the section. Let me know what the default for Wikipedia is in your edit space. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:37, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Not many? Rather none. Still don't get it and feel like it's not needed/makes no sense. But to each his own it seems... Kante4 (talk) 14:52, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Your absolute statement is a lie. I have encountered many and bots do it. Also, you didn't try whay I suggested so you're clearly not interested in seeing the facts around this. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:33, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

I know how it looks when making a new section on a talk page, but that does not change my opinion. A lie because i just "know" you who does that? Ok... good to see where this convo is going but not surprising sadly... Whatever! Kante4 (talk) 15:52, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Controversy

"Not drawing the groups for the seeded teams has drawn some criticism."

What is at stake, in practice? Did the committee ensure that Canada and U.S. will meet only late in the KO stage if at all? or will meet early in the KO stage if they win their groups? or something like that concerning France and Germany? or that the four highest-ranking teams will not meet until the semifinals, if they all win their groups? Etc.

--P64 (talk) 18:54, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Or, the way the bracket is drawn, two of the group winners will face second-place teams in their round of 16 game; the other four will play wild-card teams, so that's probably the issue. —C.Fred (talk) 19:03, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

I think you mean that the abstract structure had been previously determined, identifying by letter such as "F" the two group winners that would face second-place teams in the first knockout match. And identifying by letter such as {A, B, C, F} --if i scan correctly-- the four group runners-up that would face each other rather than face group winners. Can anyone verify the matter?

According to our bracket as it now reads (where I don't know which aspects were fixed when), assignment of the six seeded teams established the following quarterfinal matches if all seeds would advance. Reading from top to bottom, Matches 45 to 48:

1. some runner-up vs USA
2. Germany vs France
3. Brazil vs Japan
4. some runner-up vs Canada

Were there any complaints from North America :–) P64 (talk) 21:13, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Prior to 2007 our Women's World Cup articles do not identify seeds or otherwise explain how groups were constructed; we simply identify the entries by federation and report group results.

For 2007 we do say "FIFA automatically seeded the host and defending champions, slotting China and Germany into Group D and Group A, respectively." This year host Canada and defender Japan were slotted in groups A and C, to meet in the semifinal, if each were successful to that point, without facing a higher-ranking team (#1 #2 #3, unless one of those failed to win its group). Groups D and A meant that China and Germany were slotted to meet in the final, if at all (if they won their groups; they did win their groups but China did not advance to the final).

For 2011 we say "Germany, Japan, United States, Brazil – were seeded based on their FIFA Women's World Rankings and previous achievements." but that is tagged '[clarification needed]'. To me this implies no credit to the host country, but Germany was both host and defender, which I suggest we should clarify if a source is available. (Just now I fixed the 4-year old {clarify} tag so that the point is displayed on mouse-over. The 4-year old reason is different.) --P64 (talk) 23:19, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Lineup Updates needed

The lineups and stats for almost all the second round matches are missing. I went on commons but could find no files for the second round lineups. In effort to keep the articles relevant the lineups and stats should be inserted as soon as possible thanks. Inter&anthro (talk) 03:09, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Will be made today. I was not at home and could not do them but will do today if they arent made already. Kante4 (talk) 09:35, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Thank you very much Kante4. If there is anything I can do to get help get them done please let me know. Inter&anthro (talk) 10:47, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Only if you know how to make them. But i am home in a hour or so and will make them. ;-) Kante4 (talk) 11:10, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

@Inter&anthro:  Done. Kante4 (talk) 13:32, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Thailand not Netherlands is impossible

Hi, some combinations of advancing third teams are impossible now. Since Netherlands has four points and Thailand only three, every combination in which B3 advances but not A3 is now impossible. FakirNL (talk) - 05:49, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Good catch. You are right. -Koppapa (talk) 07:32, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

By the same token now ABCE and ABCF are no longer possible since if B (Thailand) advances D (Sweden) would also have to. 69.91.112.70 (talk) 02:09, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 June 2015

Group A and C 3rd are confirmed through to the next round therefore ADEF is not possible 85.164.131.123 (talk) 23:08, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Not done Third-placed team from group C has not yet qualified, see below. Qed237 (talk) 23:13, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Swiss not guaranteed to advance yet

I see Switzerland is now marked as advanced to the knockout stage (this is already fixed by the time I finished writing this, but keeping here for reference until later). This isn't yet true - if Nigeria beats the US in group D, England beats or draws with Colombia in group F, and Costa Rica beats Brazil and there is a winner in the South Korea/Spain match in group E, there will be 3rd-placed teams on 4 points in each of those groups plus group A. Unlikely scenario, but possible. 69.91.112.70 (talk) 23:10, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes, you are very right. Just a confused user trying to add them, but they are not qualified. We are fixing it. Qed237 (talk) 23:12, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 June 2015

Thailand being eliminated from the Knock-out round due to Goal Differential. 69.66.103.36 (talk) 02:55, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Not done: It would take a blowout or two in Group F, but Thailand could still advance. —C.Fred (talk) 02:59, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

map

Qualifying map shows chad, libya and sudan etc as no fifa members. either map is wrong or the legend is wrong. -Koppapa (talk) 14:39, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Do you know that they have national women's teams in those nations? Please provide a link. The reason I ask is that http://www.fifa.com/fifa-world-ranking/ranking-table/women/index.html does not list those nations. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:46, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Sure, they are likely unranked and haven't played in years or never. Still their associations are FIFA members. -Koppapa (talk) 15:28, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Maybe instead of listing them as non-FIFA members maybe list it as nations without a women's team. JoshMartini007 (talk) 16:14, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes. I changed the legend. -Koppapa (talk) 07:05, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Why is Namibia in black, they should be in yellow...they hosted and took part in 2014 African Women's Championship, the World Cup qualifying tournament.... Chris0282 (talk) 00:31, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Then that's a mistake. -Koppapa (talk) 15:53, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

DPRK Absence

There's a statement in the opening sentence that all former finalists qualified. But this is not true. DPRK are banned and as a result did not qualify. The ban may be worth a section itself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.11.142.5 (talk) 02:46, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Not worth a section. They play no role this world cup. A sentence is enough. -Koppapa (talk)

So then will that initial incorrect sentence be corrected? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.193.245.138 (talk) 21:45, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Context seems to be the issue here...what does a 'finalist' mean?
1) Played in the tournament 'Finals' as a whole, even if knocked out in the group stage....or....
2) Played in the 'Final', the championship match of the tournament....
North Korea of course have played in the 'Finals', but not the 'Final'....Chris0282 (talk) 01:00, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Correct. Finalist clearly means played in the final game. To think it means that these are every single team that has ever played in the World Cup is pretty insane.Correctron (talk) 03:58, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 June 2015

Germany and France have guaranteed their places as two of the top three non-England UEFA teams, and have thereby qualified for the 2016 Summer Olympics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmhredsox (talk • contribs) 13:41, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

@Jmhredsox: Yes they have and that is why they have been added to the Football at the 2016 Summer Olympics article. But what changes do you want to be made to this article and do you have a source for it? Qed237 (talk) 14:25, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

@Qed237: The Qualification for the 2016 Summer Olympics section of this page could be updated with a sentence indicating that France and Germany have qualified. I don't have a source other than the information already on this page. Jmhredsox (talk) 18:44, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

We should not add text without source but it is basic math, so I will take a look at it soon if I can find a source, and perhaps add it anyway. Qed237 (talk) 19:02, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

@Jmhredsox: I have added a row with support from FIFA. I think it is enough for now. Qed237 (talk) 19:43, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Enclave in Canada?

On the map there is a yellow dot in the middle of Canada? Is there an enclave in Canada that failed to qualify for the competition? — Preceding unsigned comment added by David.castell (talk • contribs) 21:26, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

if you're referring to the qualification map, the yellow do is placed on the host nation.--2nyte (talk) 23:37, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Speaking of the qualification map, why is North Korea not shared red? The prose refers to them as banned. —C.Fred (talk) 23:56, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Goal of the Tournament

Please add the winner Goal of the Tournament. Thank you. 200.119.95.134 (talk) 20:06, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 2015 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150906102243/http://www.rio2016.com/sites/default/files/users/rio2016_files/fifa-football-en_0.pdf to http://www.rio2016.com/sites/default/files/users/rio2016_files/fifa-football-en_0.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• 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) 22:55, 30 March 2017 (UTC)