Talk:List of men's footballers with 1,000 or more official appearances/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of association football players with the most official appearances. 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:

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 09:09, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 external links on List of footballers with the most official appearances. 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:

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 11:17, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

New addition

Hello, have you got a list of additional players who are near to reach 1,000 appearances in career ? I will love to see the possible 1,000 appareances break again and again ! JOGIROX (talk) 15:18, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Hello! I don't have any such list, but I am aware of the active male footballers who have at least 920 official matches, regarding footballers at the top divisions and ones that one can find info in trusted football databases and/or trusted (considered reliable in WP) statistical sources (from Diego Souza to Zlatan Ibrahimović). Regarding men's professional football players from countries where such info cannot be found on the previously mentioned sources or ones from lower categories (that one has to search on other not known reliable sources), I am not aware of, however I often perform searches for these cases as well. Kind regards, Lorry Gundersen (talk) 10:14, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Paul Bastock

It appears Paul Bastock has almost exclusively played for semi professional clubs. It does not seem appropriate that he would be included on this list in any regard whatsoever. 2A00:23C4:9C0A:BF01:AD96:451E:AF9A:1213 (talk) 23:28, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Agree Maxaxa (talk) 04:40, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
Strongly agree - as per the other thread I started below. Only 115 of his games were at a senior/professional level ColchesterSid (talk) 09:34, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
Strongly agree, non-league and amateur football shouldn't be included. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 22:41, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
Hello! For everyone's information, you can see previous related discussion here and here. Kind regards, Lorry Gundersen (talk) 10:17, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Scott McGleish, Jamie Cureton and Barry Hayles

Noted that Paul Bastock (after several discussions) has been accepted for inclusion despite only 3 seasons (115 games) being played whilst with teams in the top four (senior) divisions of English football (Cambridge United 1988/89 and Boston United 2002/03 and 2003/04)

By the same logic, shouldn't Scott McGleish (1,077), Jamie Cureton (1,069) and Barry Hayles (1,035 - including 10 for Jamaica national team) also be added? All three had far more substantial careers in English League Football than Bastock.

I'm happy to go ahead and do this but I think I'd want some consensus - their individual WP pages have good citations to confirm total appearances

My own preference would be to remove Bastock - but, if he is to remain on this list, we need to start adding players who have topped out over 1,000 as a result of careers in English lower league football ColchesterSid (talk) 09:02, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

Hello! If those numbers you are mentioning are based on sources considered reliable in the English Wikipedia, which also state clearly they are talking about official matches, and additionally those players were professional, go ahead and add them. Kind regards, Lorry Gundersen (talk) 10:21, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
I concur, no non-league and amateur appearances should count towards such a list. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 22:42, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Ronnie Rooke and Stanley Matthews

Noted also that Ronnie Rooke has been added despite at least 161 of his games for Fulham being played in war time competitions - were these to be removed his total would fall to 852 or lower. War time competitions of course were deemed "unofficial" by both the Football League and the Football Association

Nevertheless - if Rooke is included in this list then surely Stanley Matthews also needs to be added? As well as the 873 games on his WP page he also played wartime games for Stoke (69) Blackpool (87) and England (29) giving a total of 1058

My own preference would be to remove Rooke but if he is to remain on this list then Matthews should be added as well ColchesterSid (talk) 21:24, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

[1]https://www.thesportsman.com/features/wizard-of-dribble-sir-stanley-matthews-was-the-first-gentleman-of-football ColchesterSid (talk) 21:26, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
Hello! Ronnie Rooke is included with matches categorized as official by a source considered reliable in the English Wikipedia. If the case of Stanley Matthews is similar, go ahead and add him to the list. However, if you have a source that is not considered reliable here or one considered reliable but claiming he additionally played 185 matches that are considered unofficial, then he cannot be added to the list. Kind regards, Lorry Gundersen (talk) 10:27, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
Hi there, Just to let you know, Stanley Matthews, as well as Peter Shilton, Ray Clemence and Pat Jennings now have individual files showing all there games on the RSSSF Thousand games section, file here. I'll leave it yourself Lorry for editing, however if you would like some help I can do so. 84.64.223.21 (talk) 16:35, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
Agreed, war-time football football wasn't official and shouldn't be counted. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 22:44, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Sergio Ramos

Ramos was added yesterday with 1,001 career appearances however 31 of those are with Seville B team - No citations added but for the 970 other appearances that should be fixable as per Ramos' WP page however the 31 for Seville B look problematic - His WP page shows only 26 appearances for Seville B team so falling short of 1,000 as a result. However even these 26 lack any citation - I've not reverted the edit but I guess it could be deleted or at least hidden until he definitively hits 1,000? ColchesterSid (talk) 08:12, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

@ ColchesterSid: Hello! References have now been added. Kind regards, Lorry Gundersen (talk) 20:01, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
Brill, thanks for the update ColchesterSid (talk) 20:19, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Images

@Lorry Gundersen: I've reverted your reversion but wanted to start a conversation here in anticipation for your reversion!

The three additional images create a large blank space between the key and the beginning of the table. If they were to sit alongside the table then there would be no complaint (like List of footballers with 100 or more Premier League goals) Felixsv7 (talk) 16:15, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

@Felixsv7: Hello! Thanks for the information. It has now been fixed. Kind regards, Lorry Gundersen (talk) 16:29, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

@Lorry Gundersen: That hasn't worked on my screen at least! Maybe try clear? Though it'll still leave large blank white spaces on the page for minimal gain! Felixsv7 (talk) 18:45, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

@Felixsv7: Hello! It is now similar to the one you said it was ok: the way I look them on a Chromium-based browser in a full version mode, i.e. computer; laptop, is footballers with 100 or more Premier League goals and this article (no blank space between the key and the beginning of the table). Maybe it's some glitch on the browser you are using, or perhaps you are talking about a mobile version layout issue? Kind regards, Lorry Gundersen (talk) 08:08, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

@Lorry Gundersen: Ah, so from the looks of things the reason for the discrepancy is that I am using Vector (2022) appearance and you are on Vector legacy (2010) so the page alignment looks different for us! In the latest version of Wikipedia, the table doesn't begin until after Sergio Ramos. Felixsv7 (talk) 09:26, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

@Felixsv7: Hello! Yes, I saw it in an incognito mode window. So the issue is the new appearance, because the images had been on the article for years without any appearance issue. I will look at it later if something can be done so the images to stay, as they convey important information, and at the same time avoid having a large intro. Kind regards, Lorry Gundersen (talk) 10:18, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

Just to say that I disagree that it conveys important information as it is all (bar Sergio Ramos which I added) written in the intro already. Felixsv7 (talk) 10:28, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

@Felixsv7: Hello! I have found a solution by placing them under Trivia. This Vector (2022) appearance is not handy at all, by the way, as I also noticed it doesn't show the table of contents and couldn't do anything to make it appear (tried all relative templates). Anyway, regarding the "issue" with the images, I think it has been resolved. Kind regards, Lorry Gundersen (talk) 08:23, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Notes

There is an absolute overkill of notes in this article. The note regarding "span" for example, which needs to be maybe 10 words at most, reads as follows; ""Span" of a player is the year of the first match taken into account in the list and the year of the last match taken into account in the list (only official matches are taken into account), and it has nothing to do with the career span the player has in the infobox of his bio article, or the one described on his bio article's text, in case it's different from the infobox. For instance, if a player from the list had played his last match in 2018, but officially retired in 2020, as he was an unused substitute for 2 years, the list will have 2018 as the ending year of his "Span" value. Likewise, if a player, e.g., has been part of his first team since 1992, but made his debut on official matches in 1993, the beginning of his "Span" value will show 1993". This is completely unnecessary

A note about Javier Zanetti reads as follows: "Javier Zanetti, based on oGol, has played in 861 matches for Inter Milan, instead of 858, but that source wrongly includes 3 matches more, in which Cristiano Zanetti played instead of Javier Zanetti (this has been checked and confirmed by other several football statistics databases available on the web, videos, newspapers, specifically from the reports of these matches in la Repubblica and in Inter-related websites)". This note is followed by 10 sources? All of this is also completely unnecessary. As are the vast majority of the notes in this page. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 17:54, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

Hello!
The note regarding "span" was added because many people/editors would constantly change the span according to the year the footballers in the list announced their retirement from football and not according to to the year they played their last official match, it was and still is completely necessary.
oGol is used as a major football DB for the records of this list, so, in the case of Javier Zanetti, an explanation of why his total numbers for Inter Milan disagree with oGol's total numbers was and is completely necessary. The 10 sources are there to back up the note, which claims several other sources claim otherwise than oGol and explain why.
With same or similar rationales, the vast majority of the notes in this page had been created, and added to the list.
Kind regards,
Lorry Gundersen (talk) 21:30, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
It doesn't need 100 words to explain what "span" should constitute, it should be kept simple i.e. "span constitutes the time from the player's first professional appearance to their last". That's all we need. If oGol isn't the source for Zanetti's numbers, so what, no explanation whatsoever is needed, just use the source/s which correspond to the truth. The page shouldn't rely on one source anyway, it should use many to paint an accurate picture. We don't need to explain why a certain source is or isn't used for each player/statistic unless another editor asks, in which case it can be discussed on the talk page. If this is the rationale for the "vast majority of notes", then all those notes should all be removed. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 21:37, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
As an example of the "too many notes and citations" problem - the page length in bytes for the Kazuyoshi Miura section alone is over 35,000 bytes. That is surely unnecessary - the entire WP page for this player is only 55,000 bytes. Overall page length is 410,858 bytes - so a page listing 43 footballers has somehow ended up being 60% bigger than the main WP page on World War 2!! ColchesterSid (talk) 10:51, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
In this case, I see it differently, because if the facts regarding the statistics are unclear, a note is a must in order to also be informative as to what exactly is being complained about. Unfortunately, with 18 clubs in which Kazuyoshi Miura played, it is not surprising that discrepancies occur between the databases for some clubs, which should also be mentioned in these notes. However, nothing would speak against making the notes collapsible (default collapsed). Then everyone would be free to choose whether to see them or not. Something like that:
::::<div class="toccolours mw-collapsible mw-collapsed">
::::== Notes ==
::::<div class="mw-collapsible-content">{{notelist}}</div>
::::</div>
::::
Miria~01 (talk) 21:27, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
The facts wouldn't be unclear. We report the fact with the reliable sources as citations. We don't need to say why we aren't using a particular source for a particular statistic. Anything else is OR. Do you know what is unclear? Explaining in excruciating detail why a source isn't used for a particular statistic. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 13:27, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
I certainly see your point. But I'm not a fan of lump sums declaring any information about discrepancies as unnecessary. If none of the sources allow a clear, unambiguous statement, preferably a database with match reports, a detailed note makes sense.
However for example,, I also have the opinion that Raul's note regarding the unofficial friendlies (which you wanted to delete) is unnecessary. That should be common sense. It is therefore better to question individual notes than to judge everything in general. Miria~01 (talk) 14:25, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
If there's a discrepancy, all is that is needed is "source A says XXX, source B says YYY, source C says ZZZ", we don't need "well source A says XXX because DDDDD, and source B says YYY because EEEEE, and source C says ZZZ because FGHIJKLMNOP, and in fact blah blah blah blah blah also here's 45 sources and 30000 bytes of data for some reason". It's just overkill in every sense. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 14:37, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
Have you got any response, any thoughts, any proposals. @Lorry Gundersen? All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 21:52, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
Hello! Yes, it needs 100 words so everything to be clear, even examples included, when there is much violation/relative vandalism involved. After all, as a note, it does not make the article "ugly" (even though that's not the case, I am bringing this up to avoid future stupid disputes). Regarding the case of Zanetti, oGol has to be used because it backs up other numbers (it's not a source only for Inter Milan) and does so including match reports, which makes it one of the best, and it is very reliable, especially for South Americans, yet not the pope, so it is not infallible, and, having it on the article, a note explaining why the total for Inter isn't coming there has to be made/added. Nothing else to say here. P.S. By the way, your edits do not only change some of the format, which may be needed (e.g. in some like removing "df=dmy-all" parameters) and remove "unnecessary" notes (notes that you and only you yourself deem unnecessary as nobody else complained about this), but it also, accidentally or not, remove content with sources. Please be careful. Kind regards, Lorry Gundersen (talk) 22:06, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
No, oGol doesn't "ha[ve] to be used". Reliable sources have to be used. If one reliable source says Zanetti has played X games and two or more reliable sources say Y games, we say Y and make no mention of X. It is completely unnecessary. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 17:28, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
Hello! As far as I am concerned of, oGol is a reliable source. If WP says otherwise, please give me a link for when and why was that decided. Now, as I explained earlier in simple English, oGol's source is important for Zanetti's other than Inter Milan numbers and, since it has to be included, a note has to be included as well to explain why the total for Inter Milan is not the one oGol claims. Kind regards, Lorry Gundersen (talk) 09:35, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
Hi Lorry, why have you reverted the changes made? All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 21:07, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
Hello! Because the majority of your changes was vandalism (for instance, reliable sources were removed and numbers based on them). If you wish to make a specific change for a specific player, please discuss it first in the article's talk section. Thanks. Kind regards, Lorry Gundersen (talk) 09:57, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
I double-checked the numbers before removing any extraneous source. Glad to clear that up. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 17:16, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
What you're doing is sheer vandalism to get your way, and what seems like a personal vendetta. If you really want to change something constructively, then make a discussion about a specific player, where everyone can also understand a desired change in a targeted manner. Miria~01 (talk) 17:49, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
Which of my edits was vandalism? All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 18:00, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
Regarding the Zanneti note, I am 100% in favor of retaining all relevant information regarding the databases as it is.
Regarding the "Span" I share ItsKesha's opinion and would also support a shortening without removing the main info for other users. So here is my following suggestion:
actual Version A (148 words) proposed Version B (85 words)
The "Span" of a player is the year of the first match taken into account in the list and the year of the last match taken into account in the list (only official matches are taken into account), and it has nothing to do with the career span the player has in the infobox of his bio article, or the one described on his bio article's text, in case it's different from the infobox. For instance, if a player from the list had played his last match in 2018, but officially retired in 2020, as he was an unused substitute for 2 years, the list will have 2018 as the ending year of his "Span" value. Likewise, if a player, e.g., has been part of his first team since 1992, but made his debut on official matches in 1993, the beginning of his "Span" value will show 1993. A player's "Span" refers to the years of their first and last official matches in the list. It is unrelated to the career span mentioned in their bio's infobox or article. For example, if a player's last match was in 2018 but they officially retired in 2020 after being an unused substitute for 2 years, their "Span" value would be 2018. Similarly, if a player joined their first team in 1992 but debuted in official matches in 1993, their "Span" value would begin in 1993.
Miria~01 (talk) 22:37, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
For the span I use this (about 30 words) on "List_of_footballers_in_England_by_number_of_league_appearances" - "Displays first and last seasons where appearances made. For example - 1972-1994 displayed where first appearance was in the 1972/73 season and last appearance was in the 1993/94 season" ColchesterSid (talk) 08:49, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
So much less waffle than what is currently there. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 17:34, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 18 June 2023

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. Moved to List of men's footballers with 1,000 or more official appearances.

Consensus is weaker for 1,000 vs 1000 and this may be the subject of further discussion. (closed by non-admin page mover) BilledMammal (talk) 04:19, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

List of men's footballers with the most official appearances → List of men's footballers with 1000 or more official appearances – This is what the article is. And it will match the following:

Thanks. 90.255.15.152 (talk) 11:15, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

Support - for reasons of consistency. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 17:55, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page moves. GiantSnowman 18:18, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
  • Comment - shouldn't it be '1,000' rather than '1000'? GiantSnowman 18:20, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
Miria~01 (talk) 13:43, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
  • Support - For transparency with other related articles. I believe the achievement of getting 1000 appearances should be recognised in the title.
90.241.236.29 (talk) 23:13, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
  • Support (with 1,000 not 1000) to highlight the clear inclusion/exclusion guideline, rather than a wooly definition of "most", which people could choose to take as whatever they feel like. 1,000 is already the inclusion criteria for this list, so makes complete sense to clarify that in the article title. This is also why the other articles mentioned use a specific number. For these reasons, I also strongly oppose Miria~01's suggestion of reverse moving the other articles to "most". Joseph2302 (talk) 08:03, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
  • Comment – Hello! A generic name is always better, because it can be adjusted to whatever the inclusion criteria is. After all, for your information, 1000 matches was not the criteria for this list. The criteria was 900 matches when the article was created, and it was replaced with 1000 some time later, arbitrarily (not discussed) by a user, and without an adequate explanation/edit summary, in my humble opinion. Kind regards, Lorry Gundersen (talk) 17:45, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
    It's not arbitrary when reliable sources don't talk about players with 900 games. Why 900? Why not 837, or 782? All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 20:43, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
    Hello! Yes, it is when it wasn't first discussed in the article's talk section and the edit summary says "900 games isn't a thing", as that is not adequate enough. By the way, the same qeuestion can be made for 900, why not 900? Do you have any idea what statistical significance is? What makes you "condemn" 900 as a threshold? After all, when the article was created, there very only few people with at least 1000 matches recorded in it, so the most relevant articles were about the footballers with the most official appearances. 1000 is a new thing. If in the future there are many footballers with at least 1100 matches, then the articles in news, sites, et c. will report footballers reaching 1100 matches, not when they would reach 1000, that's why a generic name is more preferable. Kind regards, Lorry Gundersen (talk) 10:14, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
  • Comment – Hello! I think the same name as of now is very flexible like the previous 900 to 1000 games thing can easily be changed etc in the text itself. So i would say keep it as it is and maybe when people search for it like example "players with most appearances" it is there so why not. Bakermannn (talk) 22:44, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
  • 900 was an arbitrary number, whereas 1,000 is a number referred too in multiple reliable sources. We should follow reliable sources rather than let people set the criteria arbitrarily. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:11, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
    Hello! I am not the one who had set 900 as the threshold, I had found it like this, but I do remember most relevant sources in the past being about 900 matches, and not 1000 matches. Kind regards, Lorry Gundersen (talk) 10:22, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
@Bakermannn: Hello! So do you oppose to or do you support the name move? Kind regards, Lorry Gundersen (talk) 17:54, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
@Lorry Gundersen: Hello! I oppose to the name move i think it is good as it is. Kind regards,Bakermannn (talk) 21:07, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
Support with 1,000. 1,000 represents a significant milestone in a career and receives media attention (whereas 900 for example is quite arbitrary). It is also consistent with similar Football lists as mentioned above ColchesterSid (talk) 10:03, 29 June 2023 (UTC)


The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Name of article

Maybe this article needs a change of name: what are men's footballers? Ehrenkater (talk) 08:24, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Someone who plays men's football. I think it's a compound noun. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 08:30, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
We had an RM last month to agree on current name, don't see an issue with the name. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:13, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

International youth appearances

I want to try and have a discussion on this matter. Should international youth appearances count on such a list? All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 09:27, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Hello! When I started editing this article, such matches were already included, and, if I recall well, relevant talks had taken place that had decided these matches are worthy of being included, even though junior club levels aren't for various reasons, e.g. they are highly regarded in the majority of the relevant sources both in statistical sources and media outlets, et c., covered in the footballers' WP bio articles infoboxes, et c. If this has changed, i.e. the majority says otherwise, then they can be removed. In my opinion, it is fair and less biased that the list to reflect the whole official career for each player to the level that this is feasible, so they should be included, i.e. stay. Kind regards, Lorry Gundersen (talk) 17:12, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
theyre considered official by fifa, unlike youth club appearances.Muur (talk) 07:03, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
Please can you give some examples? All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 17:34, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
@Muur: Hello! What do you mean youth club appearances? Is U23 or U21 or U19 youth? Was, for instance, Leicester City Reserves when Peter Shilton played, which was back then the B team of Leicester City, a youth club? What does England Football's site say about this? Click here. Kind regards, Lorry Gundersen (talk) 08:35, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Hello! Official game is a tournament, league, cup etc AND friendly, beach or whatever is NOT. Again the Rec.Sport.Soccer Statistics Foundation (RSSSF) one of the most known uses it (RSSSF's database has been described as the "very best" for football data.) even in the list with "List of footballers with 500 or more goals" it is used but the games does not count what general consensus/against professional stats is this SERIOSLY? Kind regards. Bakermannn (talk) 21:03, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Non-league appearances

I want to try and have a discussion on this matter. Should non-league appearances count on such a list? All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 09:26, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Hello! I am quoting part of my input on the matter on a previous topic here and adding to it: I had tried in the past to only include professional matches or even exclude matches against non-professional opponents or semi-professional opponents, like in the case of the Brazilian tournaments, and the result was bad, i.e. it is not only that it is exhausting and not that feasible, but also that it adds a lot of bias, which is the main issue here - i.e. if one starts excluding, bias will be added, so the best way to have the least bias is to include all official matches, regardless of the level (except for the junior levels, for which there is an explanation why they are not included at the lede). It is fair that the list to reflect the whole official career for each player to the level that this is feasible, and it is not at the expense of other players, this is why junior levels are not included, even though these numbers exist in the totality for some players - that is a normalization. After all, as I have explained in the past (see archived talks) more than once in details, this is a quantitative list, and not a qualitative one. Kind regards, Lorry Gundersen (talk) 17:03, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
I'm not asking about matches against non-league or amateur opponents, I'm asking specifically about appearances for non-league clubs. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 18:38, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
Hello! For the same reasons stated in my previous input here, I am in favor of including those. Kind regards, Lorry Gundersen (talk) 18:50, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
Where do you draw the line, exactly? Beach football? Sunday league? Powerleague? Subbuteo? Esports? All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 20:56, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
non league is competitive football, and most teams in the national league are professional. at one point, 23 of the 24 teams in the national league were professional with the only one not pro being chorley. theres not much making it different from league two, honestly. the only thing that should be dqed are youth football and reserves unless theyre in the pyramid i.e barca b. generally the focus should be competitive fixtures vs non competitive with non competitive being friendlies and most football that isn't senior football.Muur (talk) 07:03, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
Most teams currently are professional but not all, and I'm not sure the project would yet consider it a fully professional league. And even then the professionalisation of the National league is only a modern phenomenon, and examples of professional clubs below that is a rarity. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 18:07, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Hello! Official game is a tournament, league, cup etc AND friendly, beach or whatever is NOT. Again the Rec.Sport.Soccer Statistics Foundation (RSSSF) one of the most known uses it (RSSSF's database has been described as the "very best" for football data.) even in the list with "List of footballers with 500 or more goals" it is used but the games does not count what general consensus/against professional stats is this SERIOSLY? Kind regards. Bakermannn (talk) 21:03, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Why leave out OFFICIAL GAMES?

Hello! Official game is a tournament, league, cup etc AND friendly, beach or whatever is NOT. Again the Rec.Sport.Soccer Statistics Foundation (RSSSF) one of the most known uses it (RSSSF's database has been described as the "very best" for football data.) even in the list with "List of footballers with 500 or more goals" it is used but the games does not count what general consensus/against professional stats is this SERIOSLY? Kind regards. Bakermannn (talk) 21:03, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

RSSSF are proponents of demonstrably fringe theories. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 19:37, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
youre crying over the word 'official'. just rename the dang page if it shuts you up. when teams buy players they dont say 'this new striker played 50 games for [team] reserves, they only use their real stats and refer to their international youth stats like when mageburged signed Xavier Amaechi. https://1.fc-magdeburg.de/aktuelles/profis/1-fc-magdeburg-verpflichtet-xavier-amaechi/10164 they brought up his first team stats and his appearances for the england youth team. reserve and youth club football are not notable and where are you going to find stats for when amaechi played for the arsenal under 10 team? no one cares. we would never have any accurate stats ever because wed need every players stats from under 8 level, under 9, under 10, etc. and rsssf listing some reserve stuff means nothing - lots of reserve matches arent even covered cuz theyre friendlies. when every source other than one refuses to include them its meaningless. do you have the stats from when shilton played for the leicester under 13s team?Muur (talk) 00:32, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
NO RSSSF is about FACTS not Theories it is WHY they are used so much and is considered the BEST. All my warmest wishes, Bakermannn (talk) 21:03, 18 July 2023 (UTC)


When you "undo" EVEN Peter Shilton is not allowed to have games for Derby anymore talk about shut up what a MESS? The best source does not matter because you have newspapers etc were so much is incorrect instead of people who ACTUALLY does research for a player when did anyone talk about U13 or anything like that just make up things that is not there or a SUBJECT at all? Countless of times there has been wrong numbers, incorrect numbers etc etc in newspapers++ but as long it is a billion wrongs it is OK for you? RSSSF does this MAIN subject a newspaper etc does only mention this as a small note because the main subject of the article is something else but HEY if you tell a wrong a billion times it becomes correct yeah? Bakermannn (talk) 21:03, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
Explain to the folks which newspaper source is wrong, and demonstrate how. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 06:14, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

shilton

why does his total not fit the toal on the actual shilton page, his page 1,390 says whislt this page says 1,411 what are the 20 extra matches this page is counting? unofficialy trial matches and abandoned matches?Muur (talk) 01:04, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Hello! What one WP article claims is irrelevant to another WP article, as WP:USERGENERATED material. Besides, that info on Peter Shilton's WP bio article is either outdated or wrong and possibly not sourced, since on the next phrase the first source is the one from RSSSF that has him with a total of 1503 matches, assuming [5], [6] and [7] refs are the sources referring to that phrase, as otherwise, if [5], [6] and [7] are not the references there, then there are not any sources at all connected to that claim of 1,390 competitive appearances in world football. The hyperlink to this article is, first, outdated, as Peter Shilton used to have a total of 1,390 appearances in the list here before the latest updates on relevant sources (if you see old versions of the article, you will find out 1,390), and, secondly, without sources on the article itself, as just a hyperlink, is also wrong (again as user-generated content). Kind regards, Lorry Gundersen (talk) 18:02, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
Outdated? He's been retired since 1997! RSSSF is a fringe source no matter how many times you want to bang on about it. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 21:20, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
would be nice to know what these 20 extra matches are so we can know if they count. abandoned matches dont count, for example, cuz it never finished and usually gets replayed.Muur (talk) 22:38, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Suggested improvement to article lead

Looking at the wording, what does everyone think about the following (posting here first so as to avoid yet another edit war)

This is a list of footballers who have played in at least 1,000 official football matches. For junior levels, only appearances for national teams are counted because the data for club sides cannot be found for most players. Reserve team appearances are not counted unless for teams playing in their national league pyramid structure against A teams (for example, B teams in Spain and Germany).

English goalkeeper Peter Shilton holds the record for the most appearances.

The currently active player with the most official appearances is Paul Bastock, who is second overall.

Cristiano Ronaldo holds the record among outfield players, is fifth overall, and is also the active outfield player with the most official appearances.

1. Robert Carmona is already covered in the trivia section so no need to mention in the lead as well.

2. No need to mention “Wikipedia editors’ consensus” in first paragraph or to list all the various age groups.

3. The mention of goalkeepers’ careers is contentious, but I think comment on the greater frequency in recent years of hitting the 1,000 milestone would be useful. More continental games at club level – better conditioning and sports science meaning longer careers – greater financial rewards etc.

4. I've not used the word "professional" or "semi professional" or "amateur" as these are still being discussed on this talk page ColchesterSid (talk) 21:23, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

I'd change the first sentence to say "in association football, 43 players have played in at least 1,000 or more official matches". We already know it's a list from the title of the article. We should then explain the appearances which are counted, which is more important than rushing into declaring which games aren't counted. And there shouldn't be a "trivia" section, anything worthwhile should just be mentioned in the lead and the rest discarded. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 22:20, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
the wikipedia part is silly honestly and it just bending to one guy. its not wikipedia deciding it, its the sport itself. the only reason international youth caps even count is cuz fifa themselves count them.Muur (talk) 01:05, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
Hello! International youth caps are counted because that's what WP football editors had decided. If this has now changed, these matches can be removed, but in general such matches are included both in the majority of the statistical and in the majority of the journalistic sources. After all, there is an open/on-going relevant discussion. Kind regards, Lorry Gundersen (talk) 17:32, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
Hello!
This info has been omitted because there are more than 43 male footballers who have played in at least 1,000 official matches. This list is a work in progress, like any other similar football list, i.e. some players still lack official matches, some players may be missing from the list, et c., and, in contrast to other similar lists, where the players missing may be counted in one-digit number, here there may be many more, so saying 43 players have reached the feat is totally wrong.
Why explain the appearances which are counted? You say official matches from the title, and then it is easier to explain which ones are not counted, like it is right now.
Trivia section is a section with trivia information, not essential, but still someone may interested in learning it, so I think it should stay, however some info that is already in the lede can be removed from the trivia.
Kind regards,
Lorry Gundersen (talk) 17:41, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
Hello!
  1. Robert Carmona having more matches than Peter Shilton, who leads the list, is a very important info, so I think it should be mentioned in the lead. Could be omitted from the trivia's section though.
  2. Yes, there is a need. As reliable sources include these, there is a need to specify why WP's list does not include them, and also so to avoid people adding such matches in the players.
  3. It is not a secret goalkeepers' careers span longer on average, so a separate mention is noteworthy. Perhaps the wording can be improved?
Kind regards,
Lorry Gundersen (talk) 18:15, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
Why do you disagree with my edits to the lead? All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 06:16, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
"This is a list" is completely pointless start to the article. It has list in the name and thus clearly violates MOS:REDUNDANCY. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:50, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
Hello! Thanks for the info, it has been changed. Kind regards, Lorry Gundersen (talk) 13:31, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
Hello! Your edits on the lead do not make any sense. Separating Shilton's part from Carmona's part there makes no sense at all, since the footballer most impacted by Carmona's tally is Shilton, and, obviously, getting on the top gives and needs "prominence" at the lede, no? In addition, merging that part with the part about Bastock is also totally irrelevant, as there is no cohesion, and, by the way, why is it important for the list to mention Shilton is the most-capped player for England's NT? How is that relevant? Furthermore, "with over 1,200 appearances" for Shilton can be debatable, especially when the list has him with over 1,400 appearances, and the info about the spanning decades he played at the lede is also trivial, since it is primarily a list of quantity in numbers of matches played, not a list about longevity (besides, one can see the span from first to last official match at the table). P.S. The note on Xavi is also not needed, since the ref directs to an archived link. Kind regards, Lorry Gundersen (talk) 13:30, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
If Carmona was so important, he'd be in the list. He is the modern day equivalent of Arthur Friedenreich, there is no documentation or specific stats to back up what is being said, this is therefore undue prominence. Re explaining Shilton's stats, you're basically asking why it is important to have key stats explained in the lead for the number one in the list; why isn't it important? It's not trivial to explain that Shilton played X games, but it must be explained that Carmona played Y games? Also, there's no point whatsoever to a span column if such information also can't be highlighted in the lead. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 16:58, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_men%27s_footballers_with_1,000_or_more_official_appearances/Archive_1&oldid=1218616839"