Talk:List of footballers with 500 or more Premier League appearances

Completely inaccurate statistics
The statistics for appearances include those before the Premier League was created (ie prior to 1992), hence the article actually ought to refer to top flight appearances. If this is the case then surely many more players like Gordon Banks, etc need to be added. If the article is only referring to Premier League appearances then the whole table needs to be updated and correct figures added; ie Gary Speed has not played 640 games for the Premier League as many of those were for Leeds United in the old First Division. In fact, David James currently holds the record.

Unless anyone disagrees I will start to change it to the latter format of Premier League appearances only. Feudonym (talk) 10:18, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Clubs
Should the list of clubs played for, only include those that were in the Premier League when the player played for them? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.208.218.180 (talk) 07:00, 15 June 2011 (UTC) – HonorTheKing (talk) 08:28, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes.

Necessity of Sources
Do you need to cite sources for each of these? Surely the link back to the player's page does the trick. I am struggling to find an easy to use source for all the players, especially those who are no longer active. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.25.14.223 (talk) 00:32, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Misleading title
I clicked on the article, expecting a comprehensive list (or even a current list) of EPL players. But this article is limited in scope and should be re-named, e.g. "List of Premier League players with 300 or more appearances". There is already a list of 500+ players, so may be this article isn't even necessary. The title defi itely doesn't reflect the scope of the article. There is a need for an ABC list of players in the current season.Darorcilmir (talk) 20:30, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Years Active
The years mentioned on the right of the table are not clearly defined- What is the intention with them? Should it be year of first PL appearance until year of last PL appearance? Some players have their start year several years before they even made their first PL appearance just because they were on the club's books for a while (Theo Walcott for example) TheRealGutripper (talk) 13:31, 27 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Should be First Appearance / Last Apperance, with "—" for the "last apperance" for the currently active players, something like this.

If Transfermarkt.com is not considered a reliable source for PL appearance dates (I'm not sure why) as I suggested then we need a good alternative as there are currently LOADS of mistakes in the first/last appearance years and the current reference does not provide detailed enough data for that. TheRealGutripper (talk) 13:35, 28 February 2019 (UTC)


 * TM has user-generated data and is therefore not reliable, use Soccerbase.com player profiles for easy checking the 1st appearance. Snowflake91  (talk) 14:44, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Do you wish to include that reference in a similar way as my previous suggestion perhaps? I was also thinking that to active players should also have a 'last appearance'. I don't see any reason why not to include a year for them as well. Some 'active players' haven't played for a long time (4 current active players had their last appearance in 2018) and it's not a big chore to update the few active players to the current year TheRealGutripper (talk) 14:07, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Yeah that would make sense, use 2018 or 2019 for all active players instead of "–" Snowflake91  (talk) 14:11, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Listing order
Ordering by number of goals scored is too arbitrary, and more cumbersome in terms of maintenance.

Active players should be top as they have potential to change and will change their position most frequently - thereafter names should be listed alphabetically (surname) as per the source used. That also creates a static positioning going forward. This list does not relate to goalscorers so therefore it makes no sense to use that as an ordering restriction. Please undo the changes and rework the changes accordingly if you wish - I will rework as well.TheRealGutripper (talk) 11:21, 13 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Then it should be initially ordered by the number of appearances, and then alphabetically – active/inactive cannot be ordering criteria and is never used in such lists, just because it would be easier to update. Snowflake91  (talk) 11:05, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
 * The ordering is both administratively better (as I have experienced since I have been updating this list weekly vs before were it was not updated for months) and logical in terms that active players are top as they are likely to add to their appearances and move up the list. This a very acceptable method of listing order and alleviates work and potential listing mistakes for future updates.TheRealGutripper (talk) 11:21, 13 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Not per list guidelines, we never sort things according to what would be easier to update, pretty much all other such lists (including Featured Lists) have this order: Apps > alphabetical order > goals > year of first appearance if necessary. Snowflake91  (talk) 11:28, 13 May 2019 (UTC)


 * From the Wiki list guidelines "Although lists may be organized in different ways, they must always be organized. The most basic form of organization is alphabetical or numerical (such as List of Star Wars starfighters), though if items have specific dates a chronological format is sometimes preferable (List of :::Belarusian Prime Ministers). When using a more complex form of organization, (by origin, by use, by type, etc.), the criteria for categorization must be clear and consistent." - (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Lists).
 * It is therefore completely acceptable to have a list ordered with active players first when tied as long as it is specified. As an active player is likely to add appearances vs an inactive player it makes sense to have them higher and this is not an uncommon feature in such lists - if it at the same time also is better administratively (less mistakes, etc) then this is an added bonus. Alphabetical order is the basic default form of listing and there is no requirement int he guidelines to make this explicit - basic information (like this article is in English etc) does not help the reader. TheRealGutripper (talk) 07:42, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Active players on top are not really a good criteria and is nowhere used, if anything it should be the otherwise, i.e. the player which first reached that number of caps, is listed above the one which done it later, it is always sorted like that. See List of European Cup and UEFA Champions League finals among many others, the clubs with the same number of titles / runners-up are listed chronologically, according to your logic Porto should have been listed above Forest as they play in the CL and therefore have a chance to surpass them. Snowflake91  (talk) 09:37, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Goals
I'm wondering what statistical relevance goals has for this article as it's only related to appearances and nothing else - is there any good reason why this shouldn't be removed? Otherwise there's similarly a case to have clean sheets and other statistics on this page, and there are already other Wiki pages covering PL players with 100 goals or 100 clean sheets etc. Just starting a discussion to see other's opinion of this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheRealGutripper (talk • contribs) 18:33, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Steven Gerrard missing
Steven Gerrard as mentioned in total premier league appearances has 504 for Liverpool. Yet he is missing in the appearances at a single club table. 81.77.204.109 (talk) 17:45, 17 September 2023 (UTC)


 * No, the list gives only players with most appearances for given club. Red Devil (talk) 18:28, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

Most appearances by club
Given there is a finite number of teams to have played in the Premier League and we've already got 80% of them listed, what is the logic for only including clubs where a player has made a century of appearances? Would the readers curious as to who's made the most Premier League appearances for Wimbledon not be equally curious to see who had made the most for Brentford, for example? OGBC1992 (talk) 12:01, 16 February 2024 (UTC)