Talk:1999 FIFA Women's World Cup

message: This FIFA link states that attendance was only 660,000, not the 1.9 million mentioned in the article
https://www.fifa.com/womensworldcup/news/y=2007/m=3/news=fifa-women-world-cup-usa-1999-502003.html  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.144.2.82 (talk) 12:02, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  crowd numbers 

message: I've restored and merged the section regarding Olympic qualifying, as the details on how teams qualified for an important event such as the Olympics should be prominent. This uses a similar style to 2019 FIFA Women's World Cup#Qualified UEFA teams for Summer Olympics, which explains the format of UEFA qualifying via the Women's World Cup. Many other articles also use this qualification table format, which provides a useful qualification overview, such as 2018 Copa América Femenina#Qualification for international tournaments, 2019 FIFA Women's World Cup qualification (UEFA)#Qualified teams, 2018 FIFA World Cup qualification (AFC)#Qualified teams, and UEFA Euro 2016 qualifying#Qualified teams. The qualifying tiebreakers are also worth mentioning, similar to explanations on other tournament articles such as 2019 FIFA Women's World Cup#Tiebreakers, 2018 FIFA World Cup#Tiebreakers and Football at the 2016 Summer Olympics – Men's tournament#Group stage. I would disagree with NOTSTATS being mentioned here, the table is included to show how the losers are specifically ranked to determine the participants. Similarly, group standings in tournaments could also be explained only in prose, though the common table format remains important in the visual representation of the ranking. Cheers, S.A. Julio (talk) 21:02, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Given the purpose of this article is for the 1999 World Cup, I would not like to see so much space devoted to a separate tournament. The tables and tiebreakers could easily fit in the 2000 Olympics entry (which has a very short Qualification section) but look out of place here. It's useful information, but serves to diminish the main focus of this entry and was previously mentioned in the prose without overwhelming the reader. As such, I'm going to revert back to the status quo. SounderBruce 03:26, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  It's not as though this is taking an extraordinary amount of space in the article, it's a quick overview at the bottom of the page. Just as the section 1999 FIFA Women's World Cup#Qualification gives a brief overview of the qualifying while a bigger picture is located at 1999 FIFA Women's World Cup qualification, the section Football at the 2000 Summer Olympics – Women's tournament#Qualification is also meant to give a brief overview. However, unlike the 2008 tournament, which can have a corresponding qualification article split by confederation, an article such as "Football at the 2000 Summer Olympics – Women's qualification" would make no sense, as its scope would be identical to the "1999 FIFA Women's World Cup" article. So, logically this article is where further details should be given regarding the qualification system which FIFA enacted. The Olympics are a major tournament, and readers would expect to have a decent explanation on how the World Cup acted as qualifying and which teams advanced, just as was done at 2019 FIFA Women's World Cup#Qualified UEFA teams for Summer Olympics. S.A. Julio (talk) 04:26, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: To keep Olympics-only content on this entry would diminish the significance of the Women's World Cup and is potentially problematic when it comes to maintaining quality. There is already a prose explanation that comes up at an appropriate time, and could be moved repeated with a small mention in the aftermath section, but it is overbearing when given tables that bore the reader. The "previous appearances" table is pointless for readers of this article and absolutely should stay on the Olympics entry. SounderBruce 04:34, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Olympic qualifying 

message: I made this edit to the host city/venue map, because as it is, there's an inconsistency between way the cities are listed in the table and the map, but it was reverted by . Now, there's a debate to be had over whether host city name (i.e. "San Francisco" and "Los Angeles") or the stadium location (i.e. "Stanford, California" and "Pasadena, California") should be more prominent. But based on the way FIFA has listed the venues in its documents and how the media reports World Cup matches, the principles of WP:RS and WP:COMMONNAME tell me host city names should be more prominent than the municipalities where the stadiums are located. Ytoyoda (talk) 18:27, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit to host city map