Talk:List of men's footballers with 1,000 or more official appearances/Archive 3

Can we summarise the disputes here and try and move towards agreement?
There is a lot of work here, all in good faith - but fundamental differences in outcome so we are getting pulled into an edit war

1) Are citations/notes excessive or are they necessary to give the required authority to the numbers displayed? As I have mentioned previously a list of 40 or so players should not be one of the ten longest football articles on WP

2) Should the player totals include every possible game (for example reserve team appearances, war time appearances, non league appearances in England) or should it reflect the generally accepted conventions of only counting "senior" level competitive appearances? Nowhere else in WP records appearances 1939 to 1946 or any type of reserve team appearances for English players. Similarly in England records/comparisons are restricted to EPL/EFL level players. This impacts as well players from Brazil (with their complex and shifting regional league and cup competitions/structures), players from Northern Ireland (multiple lower level cup competitions) and no doubt others as well.

3) Should page be headed "1000 appearances" or "most appearances"

So this is just to try and establish what disputes exist. Once we have all agreed the scope of the disputes perhaps we can then take it to WP Football and get some guidance on how to reach a consensus. I'm not a WP expert but I believe that would be the next step (please chip in if I've got that wrong!!)

Thanks all ColchesterSid (talk) 07:10, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Hello!

1) Is there a bytes' limit for each article? Is there a competition about which is the longest football article? Should less important articles have fewer bytes/details/less information? The notes are there because they give extra information that is deemed important for a player's career (e.g. when you have a mainstream football DB used for the X reason including legend matches, a note is needed to explain that these are not official, while all the rest being there are) or for an explanation about a statistic that deviates from the Y source (the why), et c. I don't actually check articles in football and say let's make this longer so to be on the top ten. After all, there are max two sources/notes next to a team, no more, i.e. the article isn't looking flooded by excessive notes.

2) Reserve team appearances are senior numbers, i.e. they are equivalent to B and C teams of other players, so yes they should be. Now, regarding wartime appearances and the rest in general, if the (reliable) source claims these to be official, then they have to be included, based on the list's criteria. Have in mind this article is not only about what the English FA considers official. Finally, it's about official numbers, not the league level, it has always been like this since the start, and explained many times before (as one can see in the archived talks). 3) According to me, the name should not be changed, but, if the majority thinks otherwise, it will be renamed (since there is an ongoing relevant discussion and voting procedure).

Kind regards,

Lorry Gundersen (talk) 09:59, 26 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Notes which say friendlies don't count are important? Notes which say abandoned matches don't count are important? Notes which say the player played games for the reserve team of an English side are important? Explain why the following notes is important "Peter Shilton played in 121 official matches for Stoke City". All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 18:02, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I'll reply here since I was the one who did the edit removing the excessive Shilton references and added this "Peter Shilton played in 121 official matches for Stoke City" note. I did this only because it matched up with the other notes on Peter Shilton's section of the article (Nottingham Forest & West Ham to name two). My preference would be to remove the notes entirely as they add nothing to what is already there and just keep the sources. I was just after some conformity. 90.241.236.29 (talk) 18:20, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Reserve games do not count in English football. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 18:04, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Why did you undo this edit? All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 18:07, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Hello! There is nothing wrong with this edit, however when there are many edits done and you have to revert some edits, sometimes there are side-effects, i.e. in-between edits also get reverted, but what is wrong in having the "|language=en" parameter? I mean that could help when this is needed in adding these refs to other language versions of the article, and it's also invisible. Kind regards, Lorry Gundersen (talk) 18:31, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Proves you didn't actually check what you reverting as these are being questioned in chronological order. This is clearly an admission of vandalism 👍All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 18:57, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Hello! Yes, I hadn't checked them all. There were many edits and large ones (many bytes of information involved), so checked many edits that reverted sources, edits that didn't make sense, edits without any edit summary or an edit summary that was offensive or didn't make sense (e.g. like "removing shite", et c.), edits that were done with legit edit summaries, but the edit summary didn't give an adequate explanation about them, i.e. only of other edits done simultaneously, et c., so I decided to restore the page without reaching to the last one. Kind regards, Lorry Gundersen (talk) 23:12, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Why would you revert edits without checking them, and then not even start a discussion? All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 17:30, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
 * You are vandalising the page and making absolutely no effort to address any of the point made regarding edits. But you simply must defend reserve team football in England and the RSSSF! All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 10:19, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
 * This edit, where I simply amended the source names? All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 18:07, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Hello! Something must be broken with this link. It leads to the "View history" page of the article. Kind regards, Lorry Gundersen (talk) 23:06, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
 * This. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 17:33, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
 * This edit, where I removed Quora as a source per Quora? All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 18:09, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Hello! Wrong link, this -> https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_men%27s_footballers_with_the_most_official_appearances&diff=prev&oldid=1161680010 is where you removed a Quora ref. Anyway, as I have said previously, it is indeed something coming from a generally unreliable site, but it is not used as a primary source for the meaning of the phrase that is reffed, only as an "extra", and is clearly stated it is a Quora discussion so people to know it's coming from a forum, as the discussion taking place there may be useful to some people. Kind regards, Lorry Gundersen (talk) 23:26, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
 * What do you mean "it is not used as a primary source", exactly? All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 17:40, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Hello! There is another source there first. Kind regards, Lorry Gundersen (talk) 21:54, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
 * That's just not what a primary source is. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 22:20, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Hello! Yes, bad choice of words. Would it help to say it is used as a secondary source? Kind regards, Lorry Gundersen (talk) 01:43, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Doesn't matter what you call it so long as you remove it. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 04:54, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
 * This edit, where I removed blogs as sources per NEWSBLOG and WP:BLOGS? All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 18:10, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Hello! It is true that blogs are generally not used as sources, and better to not be used, but there are cases they can be used (something that is also explained in NEWSBLOG and WP:BLOGS). For instance, https://nifootball.blogspot.com/ is an exception. Kind regards, Lorry Gundersen (talk) 23:18, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Who said that blog is an exception? Also, if that was your belief, why didn't you just reinsert them instead of blindly reverting without discussing? All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 17:49, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Hello! There aren't many sources about statistics for footballers from Northern Ireland, and this blog has been used a lot as a reference for such statistics, as it has been deemed to be reliable, apart from being one of few such sources. Yes, it is a blog, but there are cases where blogs can be used. Besides, those numbers are also backed by RSSSF's Thousand Matches publication. Kind regards, Lorry Gundersen (talk) 02:06, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Deemed to be reliable by who? All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 18:13, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Hello! By WP football editors. If you make a simple Google search, you will find out this specific blog is an exception. Kind regards, Lorry Gundersen (talk) 21:56, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I did a quick google search and the main links are Blogger.com, Twitter.com, Facebook.com, ScottishLeague.net. Thanks for your help. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 22:08, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
 * This edit, where I amended names of notes and amended the span note? All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 18:11, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Hello! Since when removing is amending? Kind regards, Lorry Gundersen (talk) 21:58, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Do the notes need names? All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 22:09, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Hello! As the majority of them is used in more than one positions within the article/player's info, yes, they need. Kind regards, Lorry Gundersen (talk) 22:25, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
 * That's blatantly just untrue. There are over 90(!) notes in the page, 13 are used on more than one occasion. At first glance, several of those are unnecessary i.e. the Zanetti one, the Hutchison ones. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 22:38, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
 * This edit, where I removed one source and removed names of other sources? All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 18:13, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Hello! I see more than one source removed, but why did you remove them? You didn't explain. Also, why did/do you remove the names of notes and references? How do they bother you? Since these are invisible when one is reading the article. Kind regards, Lorry Gundersen (talk) 22:02, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Do you think "bolavip" is even a good source? Do you think a foreign language blog is a reliable source? Notes and source don't need names if they aren't used more than once, and names of sources and notes definitely don't need to be so ludicrously long which makes editing more difficult due to the sheer unnecessariness of the length. Why do you think source and note names are so important when a) they aren't even being used a second time, or b) when they are unnecessarily lengthy? All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 22:15, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Hello! Why "BolaVIP" is not a good source? Yes, a foreign (from Uruguay) language blog regarding a player from Uruguay may be a reliable source. Did you read it? Did you think the reason it had been added may have been because it contains important information the rest sources lack? Well, some names surely can be shortened in length, nothing wrong with this, however a) that they aren't used a second time doesn't mean they won't in the future, b) having in all references and notes names is also made for consistency reasons. Kind regards, Lorry Gundersen (talk) 22:33, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Explain to the folks what a "reliable source" is. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 22:38, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
 * This edit, where I removed more blogs? All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 18:14, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Hello! This is the same edit with the previous one. Also, regarding blogs, my input is the same with the one I made about NIFootball.blogspot.com . Kind regards, Lorry Gundersen (talk) 22:04, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
 * . This edit. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 22:23, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Hello! The same I said about blogs before. Kind regards, Lorry Gundersen (talk) 22:39, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Which was... what? That you, and only you, get to pick and choose which blogs are reliable, which just so happens to be all of the ones you want to include in the article? All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 22:41, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
 * This edit, where I removed further source per above blog policies? All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 18:15, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Hello! That's not a blog. Kind regards, Lorry Gundersen (talk) 22:06, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Explain to the folks how NASL Jerseys isn't a blog. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 22:18, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Hello! You are the one who removed it as a blog. Why don't you explain why it is a blog? Kind regards, Lorry Gundersen (talk) 22:42, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
 * It's clearly a self-published source. I mean, who is Dave Morrison, exactly? All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 22:44, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
 * FYI I'm going to remove all blogs from this article, including but not limited to Wordpress and blogspot. Obviously they are a violation of WP:NEWSBLOG and WP:BLOGS and I haven't been convinced otherwise in the last four weeks. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 17:58, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Why are you reverting edits where I am removing blogs and self-published sources, @Lorry Gundersen? All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 03:43, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
 * This edit, where I removed YouTube videos of football highlights as a source for stats? All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 18:16, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Hello! The same thing that stands for blogs stands also for YouTube. There are cases they can be used, e.g. when no other source is available. Kind regards, Lorry Gundersen (talk) 22:09, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Grainy 30 year old copyright violations are not good sources in any way. Using YouTube videos to extrapolate random stats is original research. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 22:21, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
 * This edit, where I removed more blogs? All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 18:16, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Hello! I have already replied about blogs and name removals in notes and references, since you also did this here as well, even though you forgot to mention. Kind regards, Lorry Gundersen (talk) 23:02, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Explain why the particular self-published sources in question should be included. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 23:56, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
 * This edit, where I reduced more names of sources, and removed a note which said "Gianluigi Buffon started his career in the national teams as early as 1993, playing for Italy U16". Why is this note needed? All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 18:18, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Hello! This note is needed to explain the left term of Gianluigi's Buffon span in the list. In addition, you also removed names in notes and references, and also important sources, which you again forgot to mention. Kind regards, Lorry Gundersen (talk) 23:05, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Why does literally no other player have such notes? Which important sources were removed? An internet forum and Sportskeeda? All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 23:37, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Hello! Perhaps because the other players do not need it? Perhaps because their info about the left term of their span is already clear without such a note? Kind regards, Lorry Gundersen (talk) 23:43, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Why does Buffon need it? How is it not clear his appearances began in 1993? All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 23:46, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Hello! To avoid overlinking and at the same time not lose important information, the method of no more than two notes next to a team has been applied. That note includes two necessary sources. Kind regards, Lorry Gundersen (talk) 23:59, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
 * What on earth does this have to do with Buffon's appearances beginning in 1993? All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 00:01, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Hello! You are right. It has nothing to do with Buffon's appearances beginning in 1993, however, two sources needed to be added as a note because of that method, which I had totally forgotten (I am sorry, it has passed a lot of time since then, and I am not getting any younger) and these two refer to his earliest days, so considered fit the note to have a relative description. Kind regards, Lorry Gundersen (talk) 01:14, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm going to remove the aforementioned Buffon note shortly, there has been no explanation put forth for its inclusion. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 21:06, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Why are you reverting edits where I remove the nonsense note about Buffon, @Lorry Gundersen? All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 03:43, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
 * This edit, where I did the following; removed notes about friendly matches (various notes of players selected for Football League XI's, a note about an unofficial England C fixture), conjecture and original research about Fabio ("may have possibly", "could be attributed", "could well be referring" are just a selection of phrases used here), a note about how many goals Rogerio Ceni scored (even though there is a column for goals and it's already sourced), a note about Roberto Carlos playing in legend matches, notes about how many times Roberto Carlos played for Palmeiras and Corinthians (even though there is a column for appearances and it's already sourced), a note about Dani Alves playing in unofficial games for Brazil B, a note about Raul playing for Real Madrid legends, a note about how many times Ze Roberto played for Palmeiras (even though there is a column for goals and it's already sourced), a note about how many times Rivaldo played for Corinthians and Palmeiras (even though there is a column for appearances and it's already sourced), a note about Moutinho playing in the Emirates Cup, conjecture and original research about Moutinho ("may have possibly", "even though he may" are just two phrases used here), a note about Maldini playing for Italy's Olympic team (even though there is a column for appearances and it's already sourced), conjecture and original research about Modric ("may have possibly", "even though he may" are just two phrases used here). All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 21:08, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Hello! All these notes are giving important clarifications, e.g. i) for instance, there are reliable sources that count matches for a Football League XI as official and this is why an explanation is needed for why these are not included, ii) for Brazilian footballers where there is a total of matches with friendlies included, a person must look to any match report to exclude the friendlies, so this is why there is the note to help to confirm the total number in the list and also explain why that is minus some matches, iii) for some noteworthy (like legends and unofficial national team matches) matches football databases include along official ones, a need for a note explaining these are not included in the list is necessary, et c. Kind regards, Lorry Gundersen (talk) 23:13, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Which reliable sources include Football League XI's as official? Why are you performing original research to come to the conclusions you do? Which sources said legends matches were official? All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 23:40, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Hello! To answer your first question, one example is https://www.rsssf.org/players/duizend.html, another one is https://www.11v11.com/, which has been used in the article for national team numbers/statistics, and another is FIFA, via publications. To answer your other questions, I never said legends matches were official, I just said they are included along official matches, so a note explaining they are not official is necessary. Kind regards, Lorry Gundersen (talk) 23:46, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
 * RSSSF, as has been pointed out to you over several articles, regularly propose fringe theories on football statistics. Linking to the main page of 11v11 is absolutely no help whatsoever. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 23:54, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
 * This edit, where I removed original research and conjecture about Hutchison which included the following sentences "with the source from Merthyr Tydfil's site (with the club now – 23 November 2021 – called Merthyr Town) having his last name misspelled, but it's crystal clear this is about him", "if the lineups of these matches (which were for Swansea City in the FA Cup) are aligned with the lineups of them in his profile in ENFA (English National Football Association)", "two of these three being able to be traced with the misspelled surname from the same site that had these two matches of Tommy Hutchison for Swansea City, where he is listed as "Tommy Hutchinson"". I rest my case. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 21:12, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Hello! I fail to see anything illicit here. Care to explain more? Kind regards, Lorry Gundersen (talk) 23:18, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
 * You fail to see why original research is bad? All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 23:40, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Hello! I fail to identify any OR there, please explain in more details. Kind regards, Lorry Gundersen (talk) 23:47, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
 * "but it's crystal clear this is about him". That's you, that is. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 00:00, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
 * This edit, where I removed a note about Zanetti which included the following bizarre admission of original research; "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). Why this entry couldn't simply just avoid using oGol as a source is anybody's guess. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 21:18, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Hello! No, oGol as a source was/is needed there to back up his numbers in other teams he played, apart from the fact, even though secondary, that is also used for consistency reasons. Kind regards, Lorry Gundersen (talk) 23:16, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
 * And... the other sources don't back up the numbers? Why? All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 23:41, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Hello! They don't suffice. Kind regards, Lorry Gundersen (talk) 23:48, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
 * So they're not reliable sources? Great. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 23:52, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Hello! No, just one source doesn't suffice, it has to be backed up by other reliable ones, specifically a statistical one, if it's feasible. If not, then a journalistic one. Also, for consistency reasons with the rest players, some sources have been added, even though they may look superfluous. Kind regards, Lorry Gundersen (talk) 00:31, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
 * So if there's several sources beyond O-Gol, why include O-Gol, when you claim it's incorrect? Are they the only source for the other info? All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 00:34, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Hello! While oGol has errors (3 matches more) for Inter Milan, for which an explanatory note has been added, it is a good enough source for a South American player who played football in South America, for numbers in other teams, and also for match reports for the rest matches they include him playing for Inter Milan (they have 3 matches more, but for the rest ones they are correct, and this can be verified by other sources, besides it's a free and open source that gives match details you cannot, for instance, find in FoootballDatabase for free), apart from consistency reasons/alignment with other players' sources, something that has been also done for fairness reasons. Kind regards, Lorry Gundersen (talk) 01:18, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
 * And you're saying no other source can be found for any other statistic? Just remove the note and the source, they're both absolutely unnecessary. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 04:57, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
 * This edit, where I removed notes about Messi playing for various Argentina youth teams (even though there is a column for appearances and it's already sourced). All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 21:19, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
 * notes explaining national team matches, and I fail to see why these notes were removed, as similar notes are a regular part of WP's footballer's bio articles statistics, and I see no harm in the information they carry. Kind regards, Lorry Gundersen (talk) 23:42, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Why does it matter about specific youth international appearances for one player? Why don't we have a note breaking down every appearances for players at every club? All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 09:25, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Hello! Such a note has been added only to the players that have a source that only includes the total and not match details/the where were the matches played, or if there are more than one sources (e.g. like in the case of Javier Zanetti, where you have a source about Olympic matches and another source about U23 NT matches in another tournament, and not one with the total and match details). Regarding your second question, if you mean that the same should be done about junior club levels, I have to say that the why these are not included has been explained in the very first paragraph of the article. Kind regards, Lorry Gundersen (talk) 02:15, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
 * "Such a note has been added only to the players that have a source that only includes the total and not match details/the where were the matches played"? ...what? Why? This is absolutely pointless and bordering on violating OR. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 17:45, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Hello! Because the source(s) the other players have already include this info, such a note is not needed. Kind regards, Lorry Gundersen (talk) 22:13, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
 * That doesn't even make sense. Either we do a complete breakdown of appearances for each player or we don't, we don't pick and choose random examples based on completely arbitrary criteria. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 15:24, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Hello! If the modus operandi of WP in such cases is that it has to be done for all players in the list, just because it has to be done for a couple of players, for which I highly doubt, then it makes sense a complete breakdown of such appearances to be done for each player and not be removed from the couple that had the note, no? So why did you remove them? However, what is the point of a note? Is it not one of its points to explain something that looks a bit different or isn't clear enough, et c.? I don't see any point in having 43 notes instead of two notes which suffice. Kind regards, Lorry Gundersen (talk) 09:40, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I removed them for the reason you have just pointed out - they are the only ones there! How isn't it already clear enough what the data is? Messi played X youth games for Argentina. The end. If the user wants a more detailed read on Messi's youth career for Argentina, the user can simply click onto Messi's name and read in great detail. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 09:50, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Hello! This info is clear for the rest players in the list, so it makes sense, for completion and consistency reasons, to also be there for these two players as well. Kind regards, Lorry Gundersen (talk) 23:50, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
 * How is it not clear for Messi but it is for Iniesta? All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 23:52, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
 * This edit, where I removed English reserves teams from the table, on account of them not being official appearances. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 21:20, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Regarding the matches for reserve teams, if such matches are added, they are added because they were official ones; English reserve teams played in official reserve leagues (teams equivalent to B and C teams of other countries). Kind regards, Lorry Gundersen (talk) 23:37, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
 * As explained below by @ColchesterSid, reserve games in England are not the equivalent of such teams in other countries. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 09:26, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Hello! Did he explain why they are not official? Kind regards, Lorry Gundersen (talk) 23:51, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, hence me directing you back to the comment 👍 All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 00:00, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
 * This edit, where I removed further blogs used as sources, and also removed notes about friendlies and unofficial appearances for Planicka which contained the following phrases; "which could raise the total to 1,253+ matches, but such matches are also often seen as unofficial ones", " which would suffice to make him top this list, but this claim isn't in agreement with the majority of the other sources", "which could well be a typo, but in details the total appears to be", "the other are matches for veterans and selects, which are also often seen as unofficial ones", "it could well have been even 74 or 76". All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 21:26, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Hello! Same things I said about blogs earlier. That note, however, does need an update because that total, after updates had taken place in the list, wouldn't suffice to make him top the list. Other than that, I don't see anything wrong there. Kind regards, Lorry Gundersen (talk) 23:24, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Nope. You don't get to decide blogs are reliable because you can't find an actual reliable source. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 23:51, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Hello! Perhaps it would be easier if we could raise this issue in WP:Footy and get a consensus? Kind regards, Lorry Gundersen (talk) 23:52, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Go on then. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 23:59, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Hello! I won't, since you are the one who wishes to make changes, you do it. If we cannot solve it here in the talk's page, maybe more opinions are needed? Kind regards, Lorry Gundersen (talk) 00:01, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
 * You asked whether it should be raised at WP:Footy, I agree, you refuse? Absolutely incredible banter mate. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 00:03, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Hello! I don't see anything wrong here. If you do, please seek consensus in WP:Footy. It won't be hard. The discussion is already here; it's just a link. You are the one who wants to pass changes, you should do it. I don't need to bother doing it. Kind regards, Lorry Gundersen (talk) 00:10, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
 * You're the one who wants to bypass numerous guidelines and policies. Therefore, it's not me who needs to seek consensus, it's already in my favour! All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 00:14, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
 * This edit, where I removed notes about Shilton about how many appearances he made for various clubs (even though there is a column for appearances and it's already sourced), removed several sources which had been put in the "teams" column after corroborating the information was already sources in the references, removed notes about Jennings playing in various friendlies, removes two random notes about players having 1000 games in England, amended names of notes. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 21:31, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Hello! The reasons why these are needed have already been explained in previous questions. Kind regards, Lorry Gundersen (talk) 23:26, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Nope, I'm asking about notes about Shilton. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 23:51, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Hello! His notes are needed, like in the rest of the players who played for both for the A and reserves (B) team of an English club, for clarifying numbers that one otherwise may find as a total. Kind regards, Lorry Gundersen (talk) 23:56, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
 * What other numbers may somebody find in the sources? If sources are proposing incorrect numbers - don't include them! Why are incorrect sources being included! Also, reserve football still doesn't count. 🧱All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 23:58, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Hello! For which incorrect number you are talking about? If reserve football at the time played included in the list doesn't count, go ahead and prove it. Kind regards, Lorry Gundersen (talk) 00:02, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
 * You said "for clarifying numbers that one otherwise may find ". Either we're including incorrect information, in which case, why; or we're not including incorrect information, in which case, this note serves no purpose. You're the one who wants to include reserve team appearances in England against a clear consensus, you need to prove they do count. if you want them included. In the meantime, I will remove them from the page in due course. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 00:07, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Hello! You are right. My sentence above is incomplete. The correct should be "...may find as a total in internet, books and magazines". On the other matter, the one about reserve team appearances, there was never a consensus. Did we vote? Did proof was added to explain your claim? No! Kind regards, Lorry Gundersen (talk) 00:17, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
 * "...may find as a total in internet, books and magazines" - We could say this about literally every player and/or stat on the page. Why is this particular player being singled out? Consensus isn't reached by a vote, by the way. But several people have disagreed with your assertion and it's been explained to you on this talk page. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 00:20, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Hello! This matter regards English clubs, where reserve teams may be absorbed in an expanded total (one that includes them) in other reliable sources, also the same thing stands for some other players (for instance, Miura's B national team matches), and they of course have an according note. Kind regards, Lorry Gundersen (talk) 00:26, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
 * "This matter regards English clubs, where reserve teams may be absorbed in an expanded total " so why doesn't Ryan Giggs have this note? If a source includes B team matches, and this isn't right, why is the source being used? All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 00:29, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Hello! Yes, it regards English clubs, but not all players. For a player, like Ryan Giggs, that hasn't two different totals in reliable sources (ones that are kosher, i.e. they include only official matches), such a note is not needed. Kind regards, Lorry Gundersen (talk) 00:54, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
 * So you're saying you're being biased in who receives an explanatory note? All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 00:57, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Hello! No, I am saying I am using an explanatory note when it's needed. If in the future such a note is needed for Ryan Giggs, it will of course be added. For the time being, there is not any need for such an explanatory note for this specific player. Kind regards, Lorry Gundersen (talk) 01:01, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Why is a note not needed for Ryan Giggs? Did he not play for the reserves? Did you bother to search info, videos, lineups??? lol. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 01:07, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Hello! Obviously, the 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., but we go with what we have available, and for the time being such a note was/is not needed for Ryan Giggs, as last time I had checked for Ryan Giggs there was no info available or, if you prefer, I failed to find such information, for official B or C team matches. Do you have info, videos, lineups, et c. about such matches that you think they should be added and aren't for Ryan Giggs? If so, then perhaps you could do something useful and become constructive. Kind regards, Lorry Gundersen (talk) 01:28, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Doesn't matter if I have videos or lineups, that's original research which we don't conduct and certainly don't include in articles All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 02:48, 9 July 2023 (UTC)👍
 * Hello! If one has a source, like in the case of Xavi with a different total, which also includes match details (lineups, et c.) about the additional matches, (s)he would surely try to confirm this with other sources that include match details, e.g. a match report, a match description article, and even videos of highlights or the entire match if they are available, et c. A one-and-a-half-year younger Kesha doesn't seem to have a problem to do that (see here, where I see as "actual match footage" linked from YouTube a video from a random user's YouTube channel). What happened since then? Why did you transform or are you just a hypocrite and whenever it suits you one stands and when not the same one does not stand? In the case of Ryan Giggs, we don't have another total (one that includes B and C teams matches, and, of course, if we had, we would certainly check if these extra matches could be verified by other sources before including them in the list), do you? Do you have a source which includes Ryan Giggs with more matches and these extra matchres can be verified by other sources? If so, feel free to add them to the list. Kind regards, Lorry Gundersen (talk) 14:09, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Refrain from personal attacks please. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 17:40, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
 * This edit, where I corrected the stats for Xavi to 767 for Barcelona based on the references used. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 21:34, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Hello! What do you mean corrected? There is a source from Barcelona's official website, with match details, having a total of 779 official matches. How removing it is not vandalism? Kind regards, Lorry Gundersen (talk) 21:40, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
 * That one random Barcelona link says one figure, O-Gol, FootballDatabase, BDFutbol, and Mundo Deportivo all have 767. This article on Barca's website has 767. I A quick search leads me to articles by The Guardian, Marca, ESPN and BBC, all who say Xavi made 767 appearances. We don't use fringe theories. As you have been told countless times. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 21:47, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Hello! First, The Guardian, Marca, ESPN and BBC, all get their numbers from somewhere else, probably from the same source, as they are not a football organization or a football statistical source. Secondly, did you bother to search info, video, lineups, et c. about these matches in question or you just searched for the total in The Guardian, Marca, ESPN and BBC? Kind regards, Lorry Gundersen (talk) 22:12, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
 * The Guardian, Marca, ESPN and BBC are what we call "reliable sources", and seeing as they all say the same number, as do Barcelona but which you have conveniently ignored, we go with what they say. Why are you picking and choosing when to believe O-Gol, FootballDatabase, BDFutbol, by the way, who also all have 767. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 22:26, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Hello! I haven't ignored it, but "players" of Barcelona's site with match reports and details is more reliable than "news" of Barcelona's site. I certainly do not pick and choose when to believe O-Gol, FootballDatabase, BDFutbol, by the way, there are though cases where more significance is given to one vs. the others or to two vs. the one left; what I mean is, for instance, when you have Brazilian or Argentinean footballers that played in South American clubs, oGol is more significant and likely to be correct when there are deviations compared to the other two. Likewise, when you have players who played in a Spanish club, BDFutbol becomes more significant and FootballDatabase does so in other cases of European clubs, e.g. like in the case of numbers in the French league. In addition, where and when it is applicable, all players' numbers have been aligned with the statistics the official site of the team played claim, and that stands both for clubs and national teams, unless there is an issue (like in the case of CBF including friendlies in the totals of club matches and unofficial matches for the national team). Kind regards, Lorry Gundersen (talk) 23:37, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
 * " "players" of Barcelona's site with match reports and details is more reliable than "news" of Barcelona's site" - how on earth do you come to this conclusion? This statement alone sums up everything wrong with this article and contributions made to it. I'm not even responding to the rest of that absolute drivel, so all I'm going to say is O-Gol, FootballDatabase, BDFutbol all say 767. Barcelona say 767, dozens of reliable sources. Anything else is a fringe theory. Do you know what a fringe theory is yet? All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 23:44, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Hello! Do you know what a statistical source is yet? Do you know what a journalistic source is yet? Kind regards, Lorry Gundersen (talk) 00:04, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
 * O-Gol, FootballDatabase, BDFutbol aren't statistical sources? Journalistic sources are the ones I have mentioned above i.e. BBC, The Guardian. They are also what are known as reliable sources. Do you know why they are known as that? Because the information they report is... reliable! 🔥🔥🔥 All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 00:12, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Hello! So you do know the difference (who would imagine). Now, do you know which one holds more statistical significance? Kind regards, Lorry Gundersen (talk) 00:19, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
 * O-Gol, FootballDatabase, BDFutbol all say 767. BBC, The Guardian, Marca and ESPN all say 767. So is it the one source which doesn't say 767? Hmm, tricky question, I sure hope I'm right! 🤞 All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 00:24, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Hello! As you failed to understand my question, I am paraphrasing: which one of the two holds more statistical significance? The statistical source or the journalistic one? As the answer is the statistical source, it makes sense between "players" and "news" of Barcelona, one to pick "players" as more reliable, especially when lineups and match report are included. On another note, I have to repeat myself: did you bother to search info, videos, lineups, et c. about these matches in question or you just searched for the total in The Guardian, Marca, ESPN and BBC? Kind regards, Lorry Gundersen (talk) 00:59, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I didn't fail to understand your question, your question is bollocks. Without even trying I've listed about eight sources which say 767, you are wilfully choosing to ignore it in favour of something else entirely. "or you just searched for the total in The Guardian, Marca, ESPN and BBC?", no I also searched O-Gol, FootballDatabase, BDFutbol who all say 767. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 01:04, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
 * So, this "players" source, which you have been promoting as the only correct source, is wrong, @Lorry Gundersen? All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 21:47, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Hello! First, I have not been promoting any source as the only correct one, as I never said other sources are not correct. Now, as I previously said, regarding a specific team, all players have been aligned with what their team includes in the team's official site, if applicable. However, no source is infallible, and, as thinking beings, we do not copy mistakes (for instance, like in the case of Javier Zanetti with oGol, the matches of a source with ideally match logs or match reports get checked and cross-verified with others). The source has been including for a while three matches at a specific season twice (double records), and of course these, obviously, cannot be taken into account twice in the count, @ItsKesha! Kind regards, Lorry Gundersen (talk) 00:40, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
 * So you've done original research and come to conclusions not verified by any of the sources included? All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 06:07, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, no? Which is it? Several sources say 767, the source you have chosen to specifically support the Barcelona number says 782, but you claim 779? All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 18:09, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Clear WP:OR violation here, and we do follow sources, since that is explicitly what no original research and verifiability tell us to do. Sorry if that offends you, you could always make your own website to publish your "research" on this. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:01, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
 * @Joseph2302: Hello! How is this OR? There was nothing wrong with the source when it was added back in 2021, and we do not copy mistakes, and that is why the status was changed to dead so the ref to not direct to the wrong total (782). If you check the matches, because the source includes match logs, you will see that it anymore includes three matches twice, which is why the total now says 782. 779 is the correct one. Kind regards, Lorry Gundersen (talk) 10:18, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
 * And this also is original research. You are not an authority on what the correct stat a website publishes is! All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 17:22, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Hello! This is not only totally irrelevant, but it also doesn't make any sense regarding the "matter". Kind regards, Lorry Gundersen (talk) 23:23, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, you thinking that you are an authority on which stats are correct makes no sense whatsoever. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 06:09, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Also, two people are telling you it's original research! Stop reverting! All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 17:32, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Hello! I gave you an explanation of why the correct number is 779, but you did not give me any of why this is OR (also, apparently you did not bother to even check the matches to find out that three matches have double records anymore). At the time the source added, which is where it directs to, it stands correct. Kind regards, Lorry Gundersen (talk) 23:25, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
 * You conducting your own research to conclude a source is inaccurate without anything else to back this up is original research. How do you not get this? All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 06:06, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
 * This edit, where I removed the source "BeSoccer" as it didn't source anything that wasn't already sourced by FootballDatabase, Ogol and BDFutbol. I cross-referenced every player that had BeSoccer is a source before removing each link. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 21:38, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Hello! For players who played in a Spanish and/or a Portuguese club, "BeSoccer" does give more information and is also more reliable in such cases. In addition, for consistency/format/layout reasons, all such players have been aligned with their "BeSoccer" profile, i.e. it is included even if extra/additional info isn't added. Furthermore, even if one football database is overlapped by another, using another one for confirmation is not a crime. But why did you remove "FussballDaten.de" and "FlaEstatistica.com.br"? Isn't removing sources/references without an explanation or without a consensus vandalism? Kind regards, Lorry Gundersen (talk) 21:48, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I looked through every source and it was a superfluous source. The stats were already backed up by the sources in place. If you don't believe me you can take a look yourself, or if you have a particular one you doubt, ask me and I'll prove it. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 21:49, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Hello! Even if it was a superfluous source, I explained why it had been added, however you didn't respond to my questions here: why did you remove sources? Kind regards, Lorry Gundersen (talk) 22:14, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I removed sources as they are superfluous. The stats were already backed up by the sources in place. If we have 4/5 reliable sources saying the same thing, why do we need additional sources which only support one stat? This is unnecessary and complete overkill.All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 22:28, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Hello! I would like to add here that the additional source sometimes, apart from consistency reasons, is also needed to back up notes. Kind regards, Lorry Gundersen (talk) 23:39, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Notes which are in and off themselves superfluous. Great. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 23:45, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi Lorry
 * 1) There is no bytes limit but Article size does flag potential issues around technical performance and readability. My own thought is that the complexity/length of the table in this article act as a barrier to editing or adding new names
 * 2) I would disagree on your comparison between (for example) Liverpool Reserves and Barcelona B. In England, reserve sides did not play within the football pyramid. They were never considered "notable", received no national press coverage or attention. However in Spain (and Germany, Holland and other countries) the "B" teams of major sides played within their league pyramids against professional sides. This is why counting Barcelona B appearances for Messi is perfectly appropriate but doing the same for Shilton is not. See WikiProject Football/Fully professional leagues. I think the problem here is that the article description of "official games" is too imprecise. You and I can interpret this differently and neither of us are wrong so we end up in disagreement. To solve this is not for us, really WP:Football needs to define
 * 3) For the article header, using 1,000 or most, I have no opinion other than it is better if it can be consistent with similar articles across WP ColchesterSid (talk) 09:03, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
 * 3) Should page be headed "1000 appearances" or "most appearances" - this is being discussed the proper way, with a WP:RM at . It makes more sense for people to contribute to that discussion rather than setting up a second discussion for it here. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:23, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
 * @ColchesterSid: Hello! 2) The description isn't imprecise, because the right approach should be including all official matches; in fact, if official numbers even in junior/academy level were available for the majority of the players, it would be wise these to have been also added, because that way you cover the whole official career of the player. You know, 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 - 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. After all, as I have explained in the past (see archived talks), this is a quantitative list, not a qualitative one. Kind regards, Lorry Gundersen (talk) 01:44, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Reserve matches aren't official in England. It's that simple. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 17:54, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
 * @ItsKesha agreed, can you remove as well the Liverpool reserve team appearances for Ian Callaghan? Also the formatting for Ramos and Reina has fractured. Apologies but the complexity of this table is such that I don't want to make changes myself! ColchesterSid (talk) 19:38, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
 * @ItsKesha, @ColchesterSid l: Hello! This doesn't make sense. For instance, the Brazilian clubs and the Brazilian FA do not separate their matches to official and friendlies, and most of the times consider them of the same value/importance, should we include about 20 more Brazilian footballers because of that? Kind regards, Lorry Gundersen (talk) 22:18, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Sounds like original research on your behalf. Once again, reserve matches aren't official in England. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 15:25, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Hello! Original research? No, I am just explaining why including only what the FA of each country claims wouldn't be working well, since, if you have to do that for the English clubs, then you should do the same/the equivalent for all other FAs. However, you are claiming reserve matches (and by that I mean only matches of U18, U19, U20, U21, U22, U23 teams, not minors, specifically these that serve as the B and C teams, which are the ones included) without providing any proof for this claim, i.e. just saying it is not good enough. Kind regards, Lorry Gundersen (talk) 09:29, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
 * " the Brazilian clubs and the Brazilian FA do not separate their matches to official and friendlies, and most of the times consider them of the same value/importance" is original research. If you don't know what original research is, you really need to read the article WP:OR. Eight different people have told you reserve football doesn't count in England, and you've been told why. If you think us eight people are wrong, why don't you go and ask the kind folk at the project talk page? All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 09:46, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Hello! It's not OR when such totals are coming from CBF. Kind regards, Lorry Gundersen (talk) 22:15, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
 * The article doesn't even once use CBF as a source. Can you give any examples of this? All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 22:30, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Hello! LOL, this is what I am actually saying; the article doesn't use CBF as a source because CBF included friendlies in the totals. By your rationale, we should follow in inclusion of official numbers of English clubs what the English FA claims, then we should do the same for the Brazilian FA, no? Or do we apply different criteria for each FA? And, if we do the same for CBF, then we should include friendlies in the Brazilian players. As simple as that. Kind regards, Lorry Gundersen (talk) 22:49, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Exactly. Except the article also doesn't use the FA as a source, and nobody is proposing that we do. So your entire point is moot. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 22:51, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Hello! What are you talking about? Quoting Kesha: "Reserve matches aren't official in England. It's that simple. All my warmest wishes" – first, you haven't still provided any proof they are not official, but what do you mean with "aren't official in England"? Isn't that they are not official by the English FA that administrates football in England? Kind regards, Lorry Gundersen (talk) 22:58, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
 * "you haven't still provided any proof they are not official" - you've been told you're wrong by multiple people, you have been advised on what course of action to take. Do it or drop this please. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 23:50, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Hello! Please provide any proof they are not official. Unless you do, it doesn't seem to be any point spending bytes on this matter. Kind regards, Lorry Gundersen (talk) 00:07, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Consensus is against you mate, the onus is on you to prove they are official! If you don't trust the consensus on this page, maybe go to the project talk page and ask there? All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 00:10, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Hello! Please provide any proof they are not official. Unless you do, it doesn't seem to be any point spending bytes on this matter. Kind regards, Lorry Gundersen (talk) 00:21, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, and there's no point spending bytes on them in the article either, great advice! All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 00:24, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Hello! Are you sure reserve matches aren't official? If so, where is the proof? Kind regards, Lorry Gundersen (talk) 22:19, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi @Lorry Gundersen
 * Looking back over the talk archive for this page I can see that at various times @ColchesterSid @ItsKesha @maxaxa @Whiteabbeywords @jogirox @00aa0 @billyjones1000 @ogbc1992 and two anonymous users have disagreed with inclusion of reserve team and/or non league appearances. I don't think I have misrepresented their postings on this talk but have tagged them to alert them to this posting
 * The only supporters of including reserve team and non league appearances are yourself, either as @Lorry Gundersen or as your previous ID to August 2021 @nialarfatem and one anonymous user
 * The consensus here would seem to be that reserve team and non league appearances should not be included ColchesterSid (talk) 10:07, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I tend to agree with your statement here. If there is a consensus on that, I would have just one concern and one question:
 * 1.) The difference should then be explained with maybe 1-2 sentences in the article. So, as you actually described, the reserve teams e.g. in Spain, Italy, Germany are an integral part of the league system in contrast to England. 2.) Would that apply in general to the English reserve teams or should the appearances of the academics in the EFL Trophy since the 2016-2017 season be an exception? Miria~01 (talk) 12:01, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi @Miria~01
 * 1) Yes I agree an explanation would make sense
 * 2) For the EFL Trophy the template used within the career stats sections of individual players is that appearances in EFL Trophy are included - an example would be Declan Rice - you'll see West Ham United U23 games in the EFL Trophy are recorded in his totals but any other West Ham United U23 appearances are not. So the EFL Trophy since 2016-17 would be an exception and these games could count in overall totals. In reality this probably isn't going to be an issue for another 10 or more years as it will take that long for any players in this group to reach the 1,000 game milestone ColchesterSid (talk) 13:51, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the clarification. looks consistent to me. Miria~01 (talk) 14:40, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
 * @ColchesterSid: Hello! It's fine by me. However, if such matches are going to get removed, then a (custom) description should be added in the intro about which matches are included and which not, since then official matches would be omitted. As I previously said, if you start excluding matches, you add bias. I don't explain what bias is, as I assume you are familiar with the term. 2) It doesn't matter if WP bio articles include them or not. WP doesn't serve as a source for itself. Kind regards, Lorry Gundersen (talk) 09:49, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
 * There already is a description for why such matches aren't included. I'll give you a clue, it's in the title of the article. It's not "bias" to remove reserve team football appearances from players in a country where reserve games don't matter, where reserve teams aren't in the football pyramid, where reserve football holds absolutely no merit competitively or professionally. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 09:57, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Hello! First, these matches do matter. As I said, I need proof they don't, and by that, by the way, I don't mean a dozen of famous news outlets not mentioning them in the players' totals. Second and last, you are saying that reserve matches should count for some countries and not for others? Does this sound fair to you? Kind regards, Lorry Gundersen (talk) 10:11, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
 * How do they matter? It sounds completely fair to remove reserve team football appearances from players in a country where reserve games don't matter, where reserve teams aren't in the football pyramid, where reserve football holds absolutely no merit competitively or professionally, which is what I actually said. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 10:22, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Hello! These matches are included in the list as official with a source from a site that is considered reliable in WP. Can you prove they are not official? I am sorry, but just your word is not good enough. As you have failed to present any proof that the matches in question are not official, you have no right to revert, unless the inclusion criteria changed. Kind regards, Lorry Gundersen (talk) 21:26, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
 * One ludicrous source has them down as official games. You have been told several times about the concept of fringe opinions and theories. Eight users have been repeatedly telling you you're completely wrong. Which part of this are you struggling with exactly? All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 21:37, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Hello! There is clearly a lack of communication here, so I have to rephrase: I believe their addition is in agreement with not only article's inclusion criteria, but also WP's rules and policies. If you think otherwise, please bring this up to the kind folk at the project talk page (who may help to solve this), because a loop of your "argumentation" doesn't seem to be getting anywhere. Kind regards, Lorry Gundersen (talk) 22:22, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Eight people have told you you're wrong. The only one not getting anywhere is you. I'm going to remove reserve stats from English players tomorrow as that is the clear consensus. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 22:40, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the tag. I am still in agreement of non-league and reserve appearances not counting - It makes the entire list farcical. I have also long held the suspicion that the addition of these non-league players was an attempt by certain individuals to try and legitimise and promote the "RSSSF", who are not an authority of any note within the world of football, yet inexplicably began popping up all over wikipedia as a source for these irrelevant and dubious football statistics. There are certain users here who have an unusual affinity for promoting the word of the RSSSF. I will let you be the judge of their motive here. 00aa0 (talk) 00aa0 (talk) 16:30, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Hello! RSSSF has been used since the start of Wikipedia (WP). In fact, the majority of similar articles had started with just a source from RSSSF (as a primary source), it is probably the main source for football statistics in WP, i.e. it has been used more than the other available choices, and in all talks taken place in WP:Footy has been deemed as a reliable source. To attest this, you can search WP's articles and statistics, or try using sites that retrieve such statistics. In fact, what was odd-unusual was new editors popping up all over Wikipedia (3-4 years ago) disregarding all that was previously mentioned. Kind regards, Lorry Gundersen (talk) 10:03, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Why have you now reverted the edits of @Dhamo95? All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 10:24, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
 * @Lorry Gundersen and @ItsKesha - can we please avoid an edit war? I can count I think 6 reversions against each other, each of 170k bytes in last 24 hours. My suggestion would be to firstly (1) Update the page to remove the appearances we've provisionally agreed to exclude then (2) to update the introduction, trivia section and pictures to align to the updated list and then (3) to work on the notes and citations
 * The present approach isn't really getting us anywhere
 * For the @Dhamo95 edits - I think these were all re: Sergio Ramos? My understanding is that although he's left PSG he can still be considered "active" as he is very likely to sign for another side soon (Miami or Saudi perhaps). @Lorry Gundersen I'll defer to you here as to how the page should reflect his status ColchesterSid (talk) 10:35, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
 * @ColchesterSid: Hello! Sergio Ramos, even without a club currently, is still active/eligible to play, and, from what I know, there is no doubt/opposition about this, but, if one thinks otherwise, it can be of course discussed. Kind regards, Lorry Gundersen (talk) 11:30, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
 * @ColchesterSid: Hello! Just for the record, apart from the fact WikiProject Football/Fully professional leagues "is currently inactive and is retained for historical reference, as it is either no longer relevant or consensus on its purpose has become unclear", based on what it says, it is also not addressing the issue raised here. There was never a question here of whether the reserve matches we are talking about are fully professional or not, but if they are official, and there was not any proof indicating otherwise provided by you, Kesha, or any other editor engaged in this discussion. Besides, on another note, a user-generated site cannot be ever used as a source, i.e. even if that WP article you linked said the matches in question were/are not official ones, it would still not suffice. This is also why what a player has in his WP bio article (career section, tables, infobox, et c.) is also irrelevant. P.S. If the article should be about fully professional tournaments only is something that can be discussed, as it's been also done in the past, but I can assure you it will lead to bias and conflicts, e.g. such as which official match to be included and which not, and to why include a match in the country's X tournament and why not include for the same reasons the country's Y equivalent tournament, et c.. Kind regards, Lorry Gundersen (talk) 12:15, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Hello! No offense, but that is none of your business to ask, unless you are perhaps @Dhamo95 in disguise? LOL! Anyway, since you ask: first, his edits appear as testing, at the pace they are done, to not say disruptive, and then, second and last, there is no edit summary in them, and not any explanation whatsoever somewhere relevant regarding those edits. Kind regards, Lorry Gundersen (talk) 11:26, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Do you disagree with any of the edits I made to the page or are you just being obstinate? All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 16:51, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Hello! Yes, of course I disagree, and in many I have already added input/feedback to back up my disagreement, though not to all, as my time is precious. As soon as I get time, I will respond to some I haven't. Kind regards, Lorry Gundersen (talk) 22:52, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
 * @Lorry Gundersen and @ItsKesha I'll take this to the WP:Football talk page for help - it will be later this morning when I get home. May be an idea to pause the discussions and updates to main page until then? ColchesterSid (talk) 05:07, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Youth/reserve/war appearances should not be counted. GiantSnowman 08:30, 9 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Concur with the above. And neither should friendlies or league selections. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 17:05, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Hello! What are you talking about? No friendly or a league selection match is included in any of the players. Kind regards, Lorry Gundersen (talk) 17:56, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
 * So why are there dozens of notes mentioning friendlies and league selection and reserve team football and war time football, if they have no bearing and aren't counted? All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 18:22, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Hello! I have already explained why/answered this before in this talk page. Kind regards, Lorry Gundersen (talk) 22:01, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Oh yeah, because one source included them! You still haven't explained why we are using sources which promote fringe theories. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 22:35, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Hello! What are you talking about? Seems you are predetermined to understand whatever you wish to understand. I mentioned three sources that include them, not one: FIFA, 11v11, RSSSF, and now, just for the sake of it, I am giving another one: Barry Hugman's Footballers. Kind regards, Lorry Gundersen (talk) 15:49, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Can you provide any examples of the above sources counting club friendlies as official matches? All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 17:50, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Hello! LOL. I am talking about matches of selections and yes, of course I can provide such sources. Friendlies aren't included anyway, and no-one said they are; they aren't included in the player's count, even if they are included in the references, i.e. along official ones, like, for example, in the case of SoccerWay for Moutinho or legends' matches in BeSoccer for Raúl, then notes have been added to explain these are not official ones, even though the DB(s) referenced include(s) them along official ones. This is not hard to understand. Kind regards, Lorry Gundersen (talk) 18:49, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
 * So let me get this straight, using your Raul example - Raul has the following sources; BDFutbol (741 appearances), FootballDatabase (741), Playmaker Stats (741). OGol, another source that is widely used throughout this page, have, you guessed it, 741. Four sources is far more than adequate. Your solution is to use a source that includes matches we don't include, and then highlight this error? All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 21:27, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Wait, BeSoccer say 741 for Raul at Real Madrid? In the "historical performance in clubs" section of his profile, there is no mention of the legends team. In the "career" tab, there is no mention of Real Madrid legends. This note officially makes zero sense. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 21:31, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Hello! All players in the list who played either for a Spanish or a Portuguese club have BeSoccer in their references, because BeSoccer is one of the most reliable sources, along BDFutbol, when it comes to such players, and this is why it is included for Raúl as well. Now, regarding your discovery that it officially makes zero sense, I have to say that the BeSoccer ref was added back in 2021 and when it was added the matches of Real Madrid Leyendas were included alongside the others, as if being official, which one can also see in the archived link included there: https://archive.ph/20211125092036/https://www.besoccer.com/player/career-path/raul-23347 Apparently BeSoccer got updated and does not include them anymore, so the note will be updated accordingly as well. Kind regards, Lorry Gundersen (talk) 13:54, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Hello! The note was actually removed, not updated, because even the tribute farewell match that previously existed in the source is not included there anymore. Thanks for pointing out the source had been updated, I had missed it. Kind regards, Lorry Gundersen (talk) 14:10, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Fixing the rows to say 50 - per my first response here, it will avoid having hundreds of rows when more players reach their 1000th official appearance. Other Wikipedia articles have a certain amount of rows given, such as List of most-followed Instagram accounts. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 09:48, 9 July 2023 (UTC)


 * This edit, where I removed the website parameter from sources due to it being similar/identical in nature to the work/publisher parameter. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 17:47, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
 * @Iggy the Swan: Hello! As I honestly don't understand this, can you make a demo here or even in the article? I need an optical example to understand. No player has more than 50 rows anyway, but I suppose you are talking about something else. Kind regards, Lorry Gundersen (talk) 17:52, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
 * i.e., only listing the footballers who had made enough official appearances to be in the top 50 instead of continual expansion to increase the maximum rank by 1 whenever someone gets to be in the 1000 apps club. I can see this article follows a different table format to some of the "list of most..." articles.
 * This article does not currently have any technical issues with how it is displayed. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 18:11, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Hello! For the moment, there is no top 50, as only 44 players are in the list, but of course I have no issue with having a limit of 50 records when we get to pass 50 players included in it. It's just a phrase added in the intro, after all. Kind regards, Lorry Gundersen (talk) 21:59, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
 * unless theyre in the league pryamid like some spanish youth teams or the efl trophy like some english u23 teams - where only the efl trophy matches count - reserve and youth club appearances do not count and no one even tracks them in the first place how you gonna figure out how many appearances a guy made for a league two under 5s team theyre effecitvely the same as pre season friendlies, also that page still has a lot of useless references like shilton playing twice for bolton reserves and 63 times for liecester reserves etc. just sounds like the above user should be banned as everyone is telling him hes wrong. the page was fine before it was stank up with non official matchesMuur (talk) 23:38, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Hello! Can you provide a reliable source for this claim that the matches in question are not official? Kind regards, Lorry Gundersen (talk) 05:10, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
 * no one counts them. like, heres hibernian last month saying adam le fondre has played 694 games and scored 273 goals in his career - cuz thats all the senior games he's played scored. so not a single youth or reserve one is counted. man uniteds total for bobby chalrton only includes senior. no one gives a shit about this but you.Muur (talk) 07:16, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Hello! This is not true. They are included in the list with a source that is considered not only reliable in WP, but it is also one of the most used in WP for football statistics. Kind regards, Lorry Gundersen (talk) 19:39, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Why do you bang on about consensus, and when consensus is demonstrably reached against you, you ignore it and continue to vandalise several pages based on fringe theories? All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 19:47, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Hello! What are you talking about? There are clearly points that haven't been covered/resolved yet. Kind regards, Lorry Gundersen (talk) 20:05, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
 * 00aa0, GiantSnowman, ColchesterSid, Miria~01, and Muur, and I make it 6, who have all told you goals in friendlies don't count. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 20:09, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Hello! It is because simply no-one has not yet proven with sources these matches that are questioned are/were not official ones. Kind regards, Lorry Gundersen (talk) 17:28, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
 * You are YET AGAIN editing against consensus by adding reserve team appearances. Can you give a reason why? All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 18:36, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Hello! I have already given a reason why more than once in the edit summaries. You, on the contrary, have not given any reason why not, and you started again edit warring. The article says "Regarding B teams and reserve teams, appearances for such teams are only included if made in the primary football pyramid and not reserve divisions." and, once more explaining the why here, the 8 matches included were played in tournaments that also A teams participate(d). Kind regards, Lorry Gundersen (talk) 20:55, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Do you actually know what the Manchester/Liverpool senior cup is? Do you actually know what the Lancashire senior cup is? All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 21:17, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Hello! Yes, they are regional (county) cups, where also A teams play. As explained and discussed many times, this is a quantitative list of official matches, where the level of the tournament is not in question/in the inclusion criteria, except for the exceptions explained in the intro. Kind regards, Lorry Gundersen (talk) 23:42, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
 * "appearances for such teams are only included if made in the primary football pyramid and not reserve divisions" - regional FA's don't organise football as part of the football pyramid. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 00:00, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Hello! LOL. What about regional leagues in Brazil and all the cups in players included that were not organized by the country's FA? This part, which you added, is deficient and not clear enough, and also talks only about the league pyramid. I have fixed it now. Thanks. Kind regards, Lorry Gundersen (talk) 14:05, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
 * This conversation has got absolutely nothing to do with Brazilian football, seeing as Ray Clemence never played there. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 17:14, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
 * @Muur: Hello again! Besides, official club sites' almost always, for comparison reasons, give out only the statistics/numbers for the A team and are not a good metric for the B and C teams' ones. Kind regards, Lorry Gundersen (talk) 20:04, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
 * one person disagreeing and 50 people agreeing is consensus. Muur (talk) 07:32, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Agree, there is a clear agreement from all but one editor, but that editor continues to edit war to their preferred version. And they're just stonewalling this conversation by posting against every comment, so that they can continue to claim "no consensus and so we must use my preferred version". Nonsense that they feel that they can continue to do this. Joseph2302 (talk) 18:19, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
 * It's clear that not a single other person who posts here thinks the same way as them, and they have not been able to convince anyone otherwise. I think this now falls into the category of edit warring or disruptive editing and should be handled as so. How much longer can this article remain a farce with these nonsense stats? 00aa0 (talk) 20:59, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Trivia section
A trivia section is not encyclopedic, as per 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)


 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)

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)


 * Agree to removal. Not encyclopaedic as per 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)
 * 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)