Talk:Women's international rugby union

message: Should this maybe be renamed list of Women's test rugby matches? Thats if these are all classed as Test matches. It's basically a list though, so that will probably be a more appropriate title.. Looks very comprehensive, and I think with a little reformatting may even be WP:FL material. - Shudde talk 23:17, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a proper term. What is regarded as a Test match is determined by the national team's governing body though. They can award a test cap if they believe it warrants it, I know that in men's rugby thats how it works anyway. They used to not always award Test caps for internationals especially if they thought the opposition were not of a high enough standard, but now days they seem to just award them in every international. It would seem that they do in fact have tests for women's rugby, see the rugby museum Black Fern profiles here. They clearly distinguish between Tests and other matches. As far as the list goes, you can have a main article that is mainly prose on womens international rugby, and then a separate list of all women's rugby matches. This article will eventually get quite large, and splitting it up is probably a good idea. - Shudde talk 00:37, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Nice page, however, most links were to the men's side, so I have relinked to the womens of each country, some with new templates, others, by modifying the womens rugby box so that manual input of the countries such as the Austria/Croatia teams can be made easier. --Bob 20:38, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

text: They should have their own page. Definitely not be included with the men's team. They are separate and independent. They both represent their country in rugby union but that doesn't mean they should not have their own pages. - Shudde talk 00:21, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

text: It may be sexist, but I believe it is almost a given when talking about a national men's (team) side, you don't say "men's", unless you are talking about events at the olympics. However, when talking about women's sides, you invariably qualify it with "women's". Just look at the IRB official names for the respective world cups: "Rugby World Cup 2007" v "Women's Rugby World Cup 2006". Even the respective unions have divisions for the women: RFUW and SWRU v RFU and SRU. In French we talk about "XV de France" v "France Féminine". Even the IRB, talks about rugby as it applies to men only, and a qualified page that talks about women. If we look to football (soccer), it uses the same system as that applied to rugby union, so does hockey. I would say use  template at the top for a link to the women's pages (if and when they are created as there are only a few so far). --Bob 17:27, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Simple. As I said, use the  template at the top . i.e. typing  at the top of an article gives:
--Bob 21:00, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: No reason to highlight missing data. Also, the bias regarding "poor coverage" of women's rugby is far too apparent in this article. Nouse4aname (talk) 11:21, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moved from main article 

message: The first hurdle for this article is that it probably would rank only at start level as an 'article', due to the small readable content at the beginning of the article. It would be of a far higher calibre if it were considered a 'List of Women's international rugby union matches'. FruitMonkey (talk) 13:57, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Assessment 

message: I propose adding another link in 2011 section entitled "Autumn internationals" or "End of year women's rugby tests". 
I could also create a page with all matches because, as John Birch wrote, that's "the largest round of autumn women’s rugby internationals ever seen in the game".
What do you think about it? Killer4979 (talk) 14:38, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Autumn internationals 

message: The 2013 "other matches" listed all have 2012 as the year. Also, I can't find any source for them. Is the year wrong, or are the matches wrong?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Grande (talk • contribs) 23:44, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  2013 "Other Matches" 

message: I'm seeing some inconsistencies with the test numbers. For example, in 1993, the Canada Cup is listed as having matches 78-80 (three games), however it had six. The gap in numbers under Other Matches is from 79 to 84 (seven matches), and the 1993 Canada Cup article lists the numbers as being 71-76.
I guess I have two questions:
1. Where do these numbers come from? I've never seen them anywhere other than wikipedia.
2. If they are wiki-only, should they be removed or renumbered so that they're consistent?
Grande (talk) 16:39, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I would not suggest deletion, as often even if the data is not correct, it's a jumping off point for further discussion and editing. Personally I'm not that fussed in seeing matches listed in order, as the men's game doesn't do so, and sometimes games are retrospectively changed to Test status, which will throw all the figures off. I would update for consistency. FruitMonkey (talk) 17:24, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Test Numbers 

message: I'll be updating a number of articles related to women's rugby over the next few hours or (more likely) days as I've come across a number of inconsistencies when it comes to the test match numbering. I've been told by John Birch (who is as best an expert I know on the subject) that the following is the definitive list of tests as it currently stands, so I'll be updating to reflect that.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1tfwSaUGF4dcY_XIhZTYVGKTcWd8t6frVMconWadDqTM/pubhtml
I'll also note here any major changes (eg, new tests) that I come across.
* Added game: ITA vs NED, 1989-04-20 (#32)
* Added game: ESP vs ITA, 1994-05-16 (#119)
Grande (talk) 01:15, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Updates Incoming!

message: Should the Unofficial Rankings be removed, now that there are official rankings? I think so, but I'd like some other opinions. Grande (talk) 23:30, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, no need for 2 tables of rankings when there are already so many tables in this article.  Also, the unofficial rankings are now 8 months outdated, whereas the official ones are being kept up to date. Pseudopanax (talk) 22:53, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Unofficial Rankings

message: NOTE: I have cut and pasted this section from above, so that it can easily be found.SethWhales talk 07:46, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Think of a way of splitting it up. It's just like if you split up history into different periods. I think it could prob be split into three, with this page retaining the text, and a summary of results. So maybe into three time periods. then each article would be <32kB, which would be ideal. For example List of womens international rugby union matches (1982-1992) or something. The time periods don't need to be the same length. Also the events should be excluded from the lists and kept in this article under a history section (should be prose rather then bullet points). Anyway those are my ideas but thats just one way of doing it. - Shudde talk 07:55, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Split