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

This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Football Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Football, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Association football on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FootballWikipedia:WikiProject FootballTemplate:WikiProject Footballfootball articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

On 18 June 2023, it was proposed that this article be List of men's footballers with 1000 or more official appearances. The result of the discussion was moved.

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3

This page has archives. Sections older than 50 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present.

A trivia section is not encyclopedic, as per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Trivia sections. The encyclopedic information should be converted to sourced prose, and the random trivia like Paolo Maldini has the highest number of appearances (1,028) in senior top-level football, having played with the lowest amount of teams. Also, we don't need explanations of why other players are not listed, as that's out of the scope of this article. If there aren't 1,000 sourced and confirmed matches, they aren't needed in the table or anywhere else on this article. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:53, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Agree completely. I've already removed it once but it was blindly reverted without any explanation whatsoever. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 18:04, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to remove the trivia section in due course. There seems to be no opposition to this. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 21:12, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Regarding Paolo Maldini, I am not the one who added that info, and it had been like that for years, apparently because people can read and count, i.e. it is a fact based on the table and I personally fail to see anything wrong with that; it is a logical conclusion drawn by the article/list, like who is the latest addition to the list. Regarding the other part, if this is about the note regarding Zlatan Ibrahimović, which is also a note I did not write, I would like to add here that there is a source that includes him with at least 1,000 matches, even though it does not have any details (yet I guess) - see here – maybe if it could be tweaked to explain that, and concluded that, based on other sources (football databases, statistical football sites and media outlets), the tally is 999, then it would make more sense as a note? Kind regards, Lorry Gundersen (talk) 06:45, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you reverting edits where I remove the trivia sextion, @Lorry Gundersen? All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 03:42, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! How one removes a section that does not exist, @ItsKesha? P.S. Off topic: I was wondering if a sextion is a thing; I do have a twisted mind, but never came across of that before. Kind regards, Lorry Gundersen (talk) 11:31, 5 August 2023 (UTC) (talk) 11:30, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Renaming it from "trivia" to "notes" doesn't change anything else regarding what the section is. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 10:24, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Apparently you are missing context here... more than half of the information there was actually in the lead initially and not under trivia, but was moved there because there was an issue (see here) with the new WP layout look, and will of course be re-added as soon as possible. The majority of the info there was/is not trivia. As simple as that. You can see here what that section included when it was added. Kind regards, Lorry Gundersen (talk) 12:54, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Trivia section consensus

There seems to be a majority in favour of removing this section. There is however one user who is adamant of it staying on the article. It seems best to have a discussion and vote in order to make an agreement for this page going forward.

Do you agree with the removal of the trivia section in the article?

OLLSZCZ (talk) 16:24, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Agree to removal. Not encyclopaedic as per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Trivia sections. I also feel that some of the trivial information is not relevant at all to what the article is about. Thabks

Hello! There is already a section to discuss this matter here, there is no need to open a new one. Besides, agreeing to your proposal/voting procedure and immediately afterward proceeding to relative changes on the article makes no sense at all. Kind regards, Lorry Gundersen (talk) 13:01, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! No need for another thread for the same ongoing topic, hence it was merged. Kind regards, Lorry Gundersen (talk) 09:52, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thoughts on a Wordpress site purporting to be an archive for an official R&D website before the original club when bust, a site whose admin admits to continually updating the website and therefore runs deep into self-published territory. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 21:08, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! It is a special case; it is about a player who played in the lower categories of English football, and in such cases many times you can find statistics fully only on self-published sources. By the way, for your information, the official sites of the teams such players played in their majority are usually coming from WordPress or BlogSpot. Kind regards, Lorry Gundersen (talk) 09:48, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a special case just because you declare it to be. If you can only find statistics on self-published sources, we don't use the statistics. It's as simple as that. And no, the majority of lower league clubs don't use Wordpress or Blogspot, this is just an inaccurate statement. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 17:38, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Why is not Ferenc Bene from Hungary appears on the number one spot with his 1480 matches? He does not even on the list. Barni9292 (talk) 13:41, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Because Ferenc Bene had played in fewer than 1,000 official matches. This total you mention, i.e. 1,480, even though without a source, also includes friendly matches. Kind regards, Lorry Gundersen (talk) 13:22, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's a fairly recent addition, his games for Alavés B (reserve team in 4th tier, 32 senior matches) have now been added to Bdfutbol so have been updated on his own article. Tried to do so here but the page size is so huge that it won't load in edit mode. Can someone with more powerful tools at their disposal please add those 32 appearances and move him up the list? Thanks... Crowsus (talk) 04:31, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! It has been done. Thank you for informing. Kind regards, Lorry Gundersen (talk) 20:07, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! As he is nearing to 1,000 matches and I am currently looking at his numbers, and hence their sources, I noticed he has a match on his WP bio-article club career section for