Talk:Women's international rugby union

Untitled

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)

I think a redirect from "list..." might do? I have been thinking about broadening things now that the basic core is complete, though. Is "list" too restricting?

Not sure about "test matches" - I've never heard the term used in relation to women's rugby internationals. I've always looked on it as a term borrowed from cricket by journalists looking for snappier headlines. Is there any way in which an international would not be a "test"? Is test a broader (or narrower) term than "international"?

And if you have any bright ideas for formatting please tell let me have them!Johnlbirch 13:40, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

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)

Interesting. I had noticed that the some New Zealand sources use the term "test", but I've never seen it used widely else where - the RFUW in England never seem to use it (even in "journalistic" articles). IRB only seem to use the term in press releases but not in official documents (well, not that I can trace with a fairly quick search). My interpretation therefore is that the term "test" is, at least on a wordwide basis, somewhat unofficial - it certainly lacks the very clear (and narrow) definition that it has in cricket. I had, however, already built in referal from "test" to the main article, so searches usng the term shoudl find this list.

I did wonder about separating out the chronology from the match list for the reason you suggest - I've already created separate pages for specific tournaments. There is certainly more "prose" type information out there on, for example, players. I've simply been more concerned in getting the list more complete for the moment. Whether the two halves would work better separated, or more closely merged, I'm not sure. Separates article would tend to repeat each other perhaps - and keeping them all up-to-date would be a problem (its already an issue with prose on the World Cup, for example, repeating information on the World Cup pages).

The one final idea I have is to try to run these results through the IRB's ranking calculator - though at present there are probably a few too many gaps to make it worthwhile.

Johnlbirch

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) --Bob 20:38, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Bob - realised that. I was wondering whether it would be better to include information about the women's teams on the men's pages, rather than create separate women's team pages... but hadn't really got much beyond that. Sort of a philosophical point really - is the England Womens rugby team (say) primarily an England rugby team or a Women's rugby team? If the former then should they not be included on the main England team page? But on a more pratical point would their then be rather buried? I hadn't up until now come up with an answer... 86.11.6.100

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)

Oh - I agree it should be cut and dried as you suggest if it wasn't for one thing. Take the England team page entitled England national rugby union team. No appearence of the word "men's" there, nor does that qualification appear anywhere in its content. Indeed the first couple of sentences of the article equally apply to the women and at no point does the article make it clear that it applies ONLY to the male game.

The same can be said of pretty much every other "national rugby union team" article.

But is not the women's team also a "national rugby union team"? They are not "separate and independent" - in most countries they are now run and selected by exactly the same body that run's the men's team - indeed the IRB increasingly demands this. At the very least - even if the women's teams do have separate pages some sort of acknowledgement that women's teams exist should also appear on these "national team" pages. That or they shoudl be clearly labelled "national men's rugby union team". Johnlbirch

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 {{for}} 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)

Well, I'd hardly use the IRB as an example of forward thinking on... well, anything! This is a body which has a pretty poor record of discrimination based on nationality (as their treatment of Argentina, Japan, Samoa etc. down the years has shown) so getting them to join the 21st century on sex (or even the 20th) is probably asking bit much! In practice I think it depends on both the sport and the country. from what I have seen hockey - which has always had a singnificant level of female participation - does use "men's" and "women's" (certainly in the UK), and newer Unions such as the USARFU have sometimes given both sexes equal coverage since their formation and use the terms "Men's" and "Women's" for their teams.

If there is a neat way of displaying a prominent link from the men's pages to the women's then that is better than nothing. Its maybe easier than adapting the text of existing men's pages to include women's information. I guess in the end though it depends on how strongly the writer feels about the issue. Johnlbirch

Simple. As I said, use the {{for}} template at the top . i.e. typing {{for|the women's team|Argentina women's national rugby union team}} at the top of an article gives:

For the women's team, see Argentina women's national rugby union team.

--Bob 21:00, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Moved from main article

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)

"Missing" matches"

The poor coverage that women's rugby receives in almost all quarters of the game means that many international results are almost impossible to trace - even when it is known that a game took place at all. Below is an indication of matches which is is known are missing from the article, or linked articles on tournaments. Readers are invited to add any missing results.

NOTE ON ADDING RESULTS: To reduce the length of the list separate (linked) tournament pages have been or are being created for things like the Six Nations and the FIRA Championships. If you are adding results of games from these tournaments please follow the link and enter the result on the tournament's page. If you have any problems dealing with the layout please list any results you have below and these will be added in due course. (Also please note that the database is restricted to 15-a-side games only please).

---

Results to be processed:

---

Unconfirmed games:

• 2005 or 2006: Jamaica v Cayman Islands; Zambia v Zimbabwe

Results unknown:

• 1993: Canada v Wales
• 2004: Denmark v Norway
• 2005: Thailand v Hong Kong

These 3 match results have apparently been found - they are all listed at their respective pages.

Scores unknown:

• 1987: Great Britain v Netherlands
• 1988: Great Britain v Italy; Great Britain v Netherlands, Italy v Netherlands
• 1993: Canada v England
• 1996: England v Ireland, Spain v Netherlands; Italy v Netherlands
• 1999: Italy v Wales; Wales v Kazakhstan - Italy 17-28 Wales, Wales 11-22 Kazakhstan
• 2001: Wales v Kazakhstan, Germany v Belgium

All other matches have been found and appear on their respective pages

Venues unknown

• Canada v USA in 1988, 1989, 1992, 2001 (two games),
• 1990: Netherlands v France
• 1995: Netherlands v Scotland
• 1997: Kazakhstan v Russia (series); Spain v Russia
• 2001: Wales v Netherlands
• 2002: Wales v USA
• 2005 or 2006 (?): Jamaica v Cayman Islands
• 2006: Ireland v USA

Date unknown The exact date for some games is not known - or is a matter of some debate between different unions - but the more glaring ommisions are:

• 1984: Sweden v Netherlands
• 1985: Netherlands v Sweden
• 1986: Netherlands v Sweden, Belgium v Netherlands
• 1988: Great Britain v Italy; Great Britain v Netherlands, Italy v Netherlands, England v Sweden
• 1997: Kazakhstan v Russia (series); Spain v Russia
• 2001: Spain v Ireland
• 2005 or 2006 (?): Jamaica v Cayman Islands

Also: It is likely that the following will have played more games than have been traced:

• China
• Kazakhstan
• Kenya
• Hong Kong
• Rwanda
• Zambia
• Zimbabwe

---

Assessment

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)

Autumn internationals

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)

2013 "Other Matches"

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)

Test Numbers

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)

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)

Updates Incoming!

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)

Unofficial Rankings

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)

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)

Split

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)

This article certainly needs to be split up. It's currently 79kB! See WP:SIZE for more information. How should it be split? I think there should be an article that is List of womens international rugby union matches. This would help. - Shudde ^talk 23:01, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

But 90% of the article is already that - a list of results. It may not be caled "List of..." but then having a title that starts with a passive word like "List..." is hardly good information management practice!

The remaining 10% is text relevent to the list without which there are problems (mainly because of the lack of agreed defination of what an international is, so this needs to be explained). It will get shorter as the as the "missing matches" list reduces in size, but beyond that its difficult to see what could go elsewhere.

All tournament results have already been parked on other pages - thus reducing the list by about half - and the introductory historical text has also gone elsewhere. Individual country results could maybe go to individual pages, but that would cause duplication, make maintence a nightmare and would also detract from scope of the article which aims to show the breadth of the international game.

Any other suggestions?Johnlbirch 07:27, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

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)

• I support splitting this article. SethWhales ^talk 07:46, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

User:Seth Whales: FYI, I split the article. Thanks for resuscitating this. CUA 27 (talk) 03:12, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

I agree the article should be split up. Everything to do with women's rugby is just thrown in this article, whereas with men's rugby is broken up into different articles and it makes it easier for people to read and find the information they want, whereas here its just one big mess. I have appealed for help in creating a women's world rugby ranking wiki article on the men's world rugby ranking article talk page (see here) and the template talk world rugby rankings(see here). I think the information related to the world rugby women's ranking could be moved to a new article and it would be inline with how the soccer world rankings for the men and women are displayed on wiki. I have did some work which you can see on the talk pages I have linked above — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.1.202.203 (talk) 19:21, 2 April 2018 (UTC)