Talk:2011 FIFA Women's World Cup

Official Bids

Unofficial sources cite at least 7 bidding nations, but I can only find specific mention of three: Australia, Canada, and France. Info on other candidates, especially links to their bid websites, would be most helpful.

Thanks.

--Supersexyspacemonkey 03:22, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

This says by Germany's bid that they're the only nation who competed in all editions and won. When exactly did the US team not play? 71.255.10.181 22:30, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

It says it's the only candidate to fulfill those conditions, the US isn't bidding to host this edition. Feel free to change the wording if necessary. Thanks, --Gabbec 22:53, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Host

When will the host be chosen? -- 72.139.19.189 (talk) 10 January 2007 (signature added later)

Germany was chosen as host on 30 October 2007 by the FIFA. -- 89.61.112.91 (talk) 15:34, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Venues

present map

german WP map

The location map of the 2011 venues is not very good. Dresden, for example is much to far east, Essen and Bochum should be moved as well. Please check and correct the locations! Thanks. -- 89.61.112.91 (talk) 15:34, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I will change the map once the actual venues have been announced in September. There is no need for cosmetic changes on a map that will be outdated in two months. EnemyOfTheState (talk) 17:57, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Qualified teams

Italy has not yet qualified for the World Cup. The azzurre have won their qualifying group and have advanced to the second round of UEFA qualifications, but have yet to qualify. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.81.159.47 (talk) 17:40, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

referee list

sourse http://www.fifa.com/womensworldcup/organisation/media/newsid=1420384/index.html http://es.fifa.com/mm/document/tournament/competition/01/42/03/73/listofreferees.pdf --Feroang (talk) 06:02, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

broadcasts

shouldn't the article mention what countries/channels the games will be shown on?--24.218.11.38 (talk) 16:50, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Sure, start the section.-Koppapa (talk) 17:38, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Pics

Section 2 (Venues) needs some picturees (Wolfsburg). I am trying to get WikiCommons to approve some photos it the following days. Please help, thanks. A comment by a person who has been editing Wikipedia since October 28, 2010. (talk) 05:24, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Fruit flies

An oracular group of fruit flies has been established for this tournament and is reported here (in German). But I guess its notability for this article will very likely be a function of its success, or otherwise. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:01, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Exactly what does that have to do with the Cup? A comment by a person who has been editing Wikipedia since October 28, 2010. (talk) 05:20, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Just as much as Paul the Octopus had to do with the 2010 FIFA World Cup, but not quite as successful. Some great YouTube videos, though. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:14, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

An not a notable. Keep it out. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:50, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Notable for its bizarre novelty and uniqueness. But I doubt anyone would ever want it in this article. Shame. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:01, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Scenarios

Are they needed? First, they're incomplete. They mention wins, but draws are a possibility. Second, they don't focus on all of the nations playing. We should simply not discuss scenarios until there's something concrete to discuss and should definitely mention all of the possible match outcomes. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:57, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Firstly, all the comments aobve are just false. The scenarios (when done properly as they are here) cover all the teams that may qualify or be eliminated in the next match. So they DO cover all the concrete possibilities. If a match cannot see a team be eliminated or qualify then there is no scenario to mention, and if a team cannot advance or be eliminated then there is also no scenario - but all nations playing that can qualify/be eliminated will be listed. They are very standard features of all tournaments. They are also done this way (that is, show how each team can advance/be eliminated rather than list what each cominbation of results will imply) because it is a far more flexible way of doing it - they can cover groups of any size, different match dates and so on. Jlsa (talk) 23:10, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

They're not false. All nations in a group, or are we simply concerned with the two with the highest point totals. For instance, in group A, it mentions Canada can be eliminated... as the only Canada-related scenario. Canada can also win the group if... was not at all discussed. Incomplete, partial, and preferential scenarios are just a waste of space. They should be eliminated until there's something important to write about. And not all of the scenarios as you mentioned are listed. There were usually only two per group. Not all eliminations. Not all possible advancements. Certainly no draw scenarios discussed. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:17, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

No draw scenarios are discussed because no team can be eliminated/qualified with a draw. If you bothered to actually read the section properly (and not just jump in) you would note that there is a context to the scenarios - what can happen on the next matchday (it should say that in words at the start - and it generally does). Within that context all eliminations and advancements are discussed - with no preference given (I'm not really sure what that is meant to mean - are you complaining we don't say how Canada might advance just because they can't, or that it is unfair to give preference to the teams that might advance by noting that?). These things have been worked out over a long perid of time. I think the problem here is you just don't get it. Jlsa (talk) 23:31, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

I did read it properly and it's not just about Canada. I honestly do get it: it's verbal diarrhea designed to use time and space by those with sporting interests. While it's frequently done and has no purpose in an encyclopedia (any more than a scoreboard does). --Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:15, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

It's like describing how many times two countries have played in past tournaments as if it has anything to do with the match about to be played. We'd all just be better off without the prose. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:17, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

The scenarios make sense, as anyone who has ever followed a tournament of this sort well understands. They are not "verbal diarrhea". They constitute useful and relevant information. The complaints above verge on the nonsensical, for reasons that Jlsa has explained. It's true that past matchups between two teams don't have a lot to do with the next round of matches in the tournament, but how anyone could compare that to scenarios for qualification and elimination (limited to the next round of play) is beyond me. --70.26.89.45 (talk) 00:39, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Did I say they didn't make sense? No. It makes sense. I said they're incomplete, as waste of space, and "verbal diarrhea". Useless information. Better just to leave the matches to be played rather than suppose what is required to qualify or be eliminated, which is obvious to anyone who can read the table. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:50, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Good grief. "The scenarios make sense" = "It is appropriate to include them". Your first two complaints were that the scenarios were incomplete and that they didn't take into account all the countries playing. But both of those claims are just false. Now your complaint seems to be that a reader could determine the qualification and elimination scenarios by reading the table. Sure, she could, but by that rationale, why even include the tables? After all, a reader could reconstruct the tables from nothing more than a list of the scores.--70.26.89.45 (talk) 01:05, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

In Group A Canada can NOT win the group with the next match so there is no mention about that, why should it as it covers only the next matchday, that´s described ahead of ALL scenarios, so please... It gives an overview of what can happen on this particular matchday. So i think we should put it back in as you are the only one against it. Kante4 (talk) 01:24, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Good grief. "The scenarios make sense" <> "It is appropriate to include them". Just because I understand them (hence they make sense) doesn't mean that it's appropriate to be included.

It doesn't give an overview of what can happen on a particular match day. It doesn't describe the draw scenarios. I think you will put it back just like the rest of the nonsensical trivia that gets put back into most sports articles. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:35, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

The "scenarios" say nothing that someone who can read the tables can't understand and as such are a waste of space. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:36, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

So everyone can understand it? How do you know that? You have to make it easy for everyone so when someone looks this article up with not much knowledge of it, the scenarios surely help. Also if a Team only advance if a), b) and c) happen, it is better to know that. Kante4 (talk) 01:39, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

@Walter: My little equation was just meant to indicate what I meant when I said "The scenarios make sense". I am quite aware that "makes sense" does not literally mean the same thing as "appropriate to include". But it is only if you want to be incredibly uncharitable and painfully pedantic that this point matters. The real point is that you have now made three complaints about including the scenarios. Again, the first two are based on claims that are demonstrably false. You have said nothing to indicate why you think otherwise. As has already been pointed out to you, the draw possibilities you mention have no bearing on qualification or elimination in the next round of play. Your third point is one that strongly suggests the tables themselves should not be included. If elimination of the tables is not a good idea, then doing away with the scenarios is not a good idea either. Ergo, the scenarios shouldn't be deleted. And when someone has suggested that something ridiculous follows from what you've said, just saying it again doesn't do much to make your case.--70.26.89.45 (talk) 01:58, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

The only thing that is demonstrably false is the idea that these are needed at all. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:27, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Just keep saying that. Maybe if you repeat yourself enough times, you will suddenly and magically be right. Until then, could someone who knows how to reintroduce the qualification and elimination scenarios please do so? --70.26.89.45 (talk) 04:00, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

No repetition needed Toronto, unless you want to convince yourself that this trivia is actually saying something important. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:06, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

It's like talking to a wall, but I will try one more time: Do you think that the group tables are examples of trivia? If not, then I fail to see why you think the scenarios are trivia. You could figure out all of the qualification/elimination scenarios, the group standings, the list of countries participating, the stadium where each game is played, the leading goal scorers, the structure of the knockout bracket, and pretty much everything else about the tournament if the article consisted of nothing but semi-detailed match reports. But that would be a really crappy encyclopedia entry. Is that what you want the article to look like? --70.26.89.45 (talk) 04:35, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Actually, it's not like talking to wall. I'm listening, but you're not saying anything worth hearing. No the tables aren't trivial as they reflect the outcome of past matches. Anyone who knows how to read them can understand how the potential results of future matches will affect the teams. Sorry you don't understand why the scenarios are trivial: since they say nothing that can't be deduced from the results tables and coming matches, and without leaving any gaps in the statements. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:49, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

It seems to me your opposition to including the scenarios in the article has 2 basic parts: (1) they are incomplete (i.e., don't include all the teams and don't mention draw possibilities) and (2) they are trivial. As to whether they are incomplete, you are mistaken. They don't list every team because not every team has a possiblity of either clinching a spot in the next round or of being eliminated from contention on the next match day, which is all the scenarios focus on. It's not an exhaustive list of all the possible scenarios in all future matches. As far as the possibility of draws, they are certainly included where they would lead to a team either clinching or being eliminated on the next match day; such as "Team A will advance if they defeat Team B and Team C do not defeat Team D - "do not defeat" specifically includes the possibility of a draw. When a draw is not mentioned, it's because a draw would not lead to the noted team clinching or being eliminated. As far as the scenarios being trivial, that is your opinion and I doubt anything I say will change it. All I can address is the factual part of your objections, which hopefully I've done. By all means, if you notice a scenario in the article that is factually inaccurate or incomplete (within the scope of the next match day), please correct it. LarryJeff (talk) 05:23, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

@Walter: For the fourth time: It is obvious that you can figure out the scenarios on the basis of the group tables. Why you keep repeating this point is puzzling, to say the least. Again, if the article consisted of not much more than detailed match reports, you could discern just about every facet of the tournament. So suppose someone argued that there should be nothing but a schedule of matches and match reports in the article. Then she would say pretty much exactly what you're saying. She would say of the group tables, "They say nothing that can't be deduced from the match reports". The right response to this ridiculous suggestion that the match tables be eliminated is that IT DOESN'T MATTER that it is possible to deduce what you want to know from the information provided. It would be possible to deduce what you want to know if the article were written in binary. So what? Note that it actually takes a bit MORE work to figure out the scenarios on the basis of the tables than it does to figure out the tables on the basis of the match reports. So, I'll say it yet again: By your rationale, there shouldn't be any group tables in the article.--70.26.89.45 (talk) 05:56, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

I would even disagree with the "you can work it out from the table" point. In the last WC finals, people tried putting the scenarios together and got them wrong (this is obviously on the last match day rather than this early on). Sometimes the alternatives aren't obvious. This is even more true given that there are two (or even more by some ways of counting) different ways to determine who advances when teams are tied on points - something that isn't obvious "just from the tables". The scenarios help people to know what a given team needs to do to advance in a simple (and consistent) manner. Jlsa (talk) 06:18, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

On a humorous note, look at these monster tie breakers at the U-17 Worlc Cup that arise if some best third placed teams advance. -Koppapa (talk) 06:48, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

After the second match day, the scenarios may make sense. After match day one, absolutely not. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 13:59, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Why the difference? Is being eliminated on the second day somehow less relevant than on the third? Jlsa (talk) 14:13, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Please give a reason why they don´t make sense instead of just saying that. Nothing else expected though... Kante4 (talk) 20:50, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

What this all comes down to is should the scenarios stay or go. This encyclopedia is a collaborative effort and things are decided by consensus. Both sides have made the same argument numerous times and no one has changed there mind. All but one individual sees merit in the scenarios (and even that individual says that they are useful, just only when they think they are useful). That means the scenarios stay, unless someone can come up with a new reason, not already listed that gives validation to removing them and changes peoples minds. Chris1834 (talk) 12:45, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Well said, Chris. LarryJeff (talk) 14:09, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

time zone

What time zone are the soccer matches listed in? UTC, EST? Thanks, A comment by a person who has been editing Wikipedia since October 28, 2010. (talk) 13:40, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

All times are in the CEST time zone (UTC+2), Listed here. Kante4 (talk) 13:44, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

CEST, UTC+02:00, German Summer Time, Local Time Jlsa (talk) 13:45, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Oh, GERMANCEST+02:00UTC/GMT, okay. Thanks, A comment by a person who has been editing Wikipedia since October 28, 2010. (talk) 21:26, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Correct name?

According to fifa.com her name is Anonman, but your article says Anonma. Which is correct? --Fredde (talk) 13:54, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Every source so far, club website, the dfb site, and every news site at least in germany called her Anonma. Anonman started just now. So, who know's. -Koppapa (talk) 15:58, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Say, I just changed it before seeing this. I noted it ends in 'n' on her jersey; it's also spelled that way on her FIFA page here. Smarkflea (talk) 16:14, 6 July 2011 (UTC)...

Found a source. http://www.gmx.net/themen/sport/frauenwm/aktuelles/107tdem-ich-heisse-anonma She herself declared her name is Anonma, a buereu in her country mispelled a new passport, which is the source for the fifa website and the jersey. -Koppapa (talk) 16:29, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

So what do we do? I personally think it should be what she's known by, which is what's on her jersey, but I'm not getting into it anymore...Smarkflea (talk) 16:33, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Noone (DFB, Bundesliga, German Newssites, ...) used Anonman before this Cup, so one can't say she is known by that. I think we should change it to Anonma, her correct name. Let's get some more opinions. -Koppapa (talk) 16:39, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

A german newspaper pointed that out and said that the FIFA made a misstake and that she is called Anonma. The article was from a few days ago. Kante4 (talk) 16:40, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Discipline

Is there a table of yellow and red cards? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bob305 (talk • contribs) 02:12, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Nope. A reason is maybe that not a whole lot are given. Kante4 (talk) 02:27, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't think a list of all players receiving a card is needed here. One could of couse refer to it (http://www.fifa.com/womensworldcup/statistics/players/topcards.html), not with the list of players but say a small sentence/section stating that yellow cards are wiped out after the quarters and before that 2 yellow lead to a one match suspension. -Koppapa (talk) 11:03, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Updates

This is the slowest-updated page I've ever encountered for a major sporting event on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.137.229.103 (talk) 01:12, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Actually it's not. There are many that take longer to update. In fact, I would argue that it should not be updated during game play and only after full-time. As for other events, what's to update? Perhaps in Virginia everything happens and then is instantaneously updated on Wikipedia, but in the rest of the world, we wait for facts and references before updating. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:15, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Maybew empty your cache and history? Kante4 (talk) 01:34, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Fifth-place playoffs

Why aren't there any fifth- or seventh-place playoffs in the 2011 FIFA Women's World Cup? --84.61.169.206 (talk) 07:06, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

There never were those, and not even the men have those. THey are uninteressing for spectators and teams. -Koppapa (talk) 08:01, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

If they were, Germany would have participated in these. --84.61.169.206 (talk) 09:06, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Not a good troll attempt. Kante4 (talk) 11:12, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Commerzbank-Arena

Why didn't FIFA stick with the actual name of the stadium, "Commerzbank-Arena", instead of going ahead and calling it the "FIFA Women's World Cup Stadium"?

In the article, it states that " Several of the stadiums are officially referred to simply as "FIFA World Cup Stadium", because FIFA prohibits sponsorship of stadiums unless the stadium sponsors are also official tournament sponsors. "

Commerzbank is an official tournament sponsor, but on FIFA.com, the stadium is just referred to as "FIFA Women's World Cup Stadium". Anyone know why?

68.55.212.71 (talk) 01:55, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Final Positions

Can someone edit it because it is linking to the men's team, not the women's team. I would but I am terrible at editing.--Ddog892 (talk) 21:33, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

 Done. BTW: Just try with the editing, if you do something wrong, people will let you know and try to help you. ;-) Kante4 (talk) 21:35, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

North Korea vs. Columbia

Does someone know if this game has subsequently been amended to a win for Columbia, due to North Korea having played with several doped players? Any results gained by doping are normally annulled, after all... --Roentgenium111 (talk) 18:29, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Player of the Match?

The men's WC page has a section for player of the match of each match - should we add it here? The information is in FIFA's website, would give a little more "oomph" to the page. Thoughts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tychomarxm (talk • contribs) 21:55, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on 2011 FIFA Women's World Cup. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110722140456/http://www.fifa.com:80/womensworldcup/news/newsid=1476704/index.html to http://www.fifa.com/womensworldcup/news/newsid=1476704/index.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110718115105/http://www.fifa.com:80/womensworldcup/organisation/media/newsid=1475411/index.html to http://www.fifa.com/womensworldcup/organisation/media/newsid=1475411/index.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 08:32, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 16 external links on 2011 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/20100308070023/http://www.fifa.com/aboutfifa/federation/news/newsid%3D625447.html to http://www.fifa.com/aboutfifa/federation/news/newsid%3D625447.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110712204353/http://www.fifa.com/womensworldcup/destination/stadiums/stadium%3D5001653/index.html to http://www.fifa.com/womensworldcup/destination/stadiums/stadium%3D5001653/index.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110608045458/http://www.dfb.de/index.php?id=500014&no_cache=1&tx_dfbnews_pi1%5BshowUid%5D=14063&cHash=c04eee2ef1 to http://www.dfb.de/index.php?id=500014&no_cache=1&tx_dfbnews_pi1%5BshowUid%5D=14063&cHash=c04eee2ef1
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.fifa.com/womensworldcup/news/newsid%3D1441231/index.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.fifa.com/womensworldcup/organisation/media/newsid%3D1376651/index.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110512032815/http://www.dfb.de/fileadmin/user_upload/2011/04/20110414172633301.pdf to http://www.dfb.de/fileadmin/user_upload/2011/04/20110414172633301.pdf
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.fifa.com/womensworldcup/organisation/media/newsid%3D1420384/index.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.fifa.com/womensworldcup/organisation/media/newsid%3D1463338/index.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.fifa.com/womensworldcup/organisation/media/newsid%3D1470844/index.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.fifa.com/womensworldcup/news/newsid%3D1342267/index.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110707105502/http://www.dfb.de/index.php?id=500014&tx_dfbnews_pi1%5BshowUid%5D=28123&tx_dfbnews_pi4%5Bcat%5D=167 to http://www.dfb.de/index.php?id=500014&tx_dfbnews_pi1%5BshowUid%5D=28123&tx_dfbnews_pi4%5Bcat%5D=167
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110707105502/http://www.dfb.de/index.php?id=500014&tx_dfbnews_pi1%5BshowUid%5D=28123&tx_dfbnews_pi4%5Bcat%5D=167 to http://www.dfb.de/index.php?id=500014&tx_dfbnews_pi1%5BshowUid%5D=28123&tx_dfbnews_pi4%5Bcat%5D=167
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.fifa.com/womensworldcup/news/newsid%3D1476704/index.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.fifa.com/womensworldcup/organisation/media/newsid%3D1475411/index.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110712191704/http://www.fifa.com/womensworldcup/statistics/players/topgoals.html to http://www.fifa.com/womensworldcup/statistics/players/topgoals.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080502022304/http://www.dfb.de/index.php?id=504446&no_cache=1 to http://www.dfb.de/index.php?id=504446&no_cache=1

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 07:18, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 2011 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://archive.is/20110613153928/http://www.espnmediazone3.com/us/2011/03/23/2011-fifa-women%E2%80%99s-world-cup-schedule-on-espn/ to http://www.espnmediazone3.com/us/2011/03/23/2011-fifa-women%E2%80%99s-world-cup-schedule-on-espn/

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 08:51, 7 January 2018 (UTC)