Talk:List of men's footballers with 100 or more international caps

wrong where is modric

Copyright issue

Page is lifted wholesale with some wikiformatting added. Contrary to claims in edit summaries, the content is not free, as a casual glance at the page will reveal. We cannot work to improve the current version, as this would be a derivative work, which we do not have the right to create. Chris cheese whine 23:56, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Per Feist vs. Rural, facts in and of themselves are not copyrightable. As you can see, most of the additional commentary (that exists in the original in form of footnotes) has been removed. All that remains in this article are statistics. If this a copyright violation, then so is the current roster of a team, or the box score of a sporting event. And what if I were able to compile this list completely on my own, without referring to the RSSF web site, and I came up with the exact same numbers that are listed here (which are listed in the most obvious order, I might add). Would you still call it a copyright violation? howcheng {chat} 00:17, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

This is not merely statistics, it is a compilation of statistics, presented in a specific fashion. It does not necessarily fall under the specific exemption of being "just the facts". If you were to compile such a list yourself, I would not call it a copyvio. I would, however, call it original research. Chris cheese whine 00:32, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

What is the "specific fashion" you're referring to? That it's in a table? Well of course -- it's tabular data. The order in which the names are listed? It's the most obvious order -- most caps to least. We could put them alphabetically or even reverse the order, but that wouldn't make sense. Or is it because the cutoff point is 100 caps? It just so happens that 100 is a special number, what FIFA calls a "century".

In other words, it is just statistics, just as if I were to tabulate the statistics myself during a baseball game. The box score for a baseball game is compilation of statistics, presented in a certain format. By your logic, if I copy it from the newspaper, it's a copyvio, but if I did it on my own and came up with the exact same numbers as what's in the newspaper, it's original research -- this is a Catch-22. What we have here is a prime example of PD-ineligible: If anyone were to do this, they would essentially come up with the exact same thing. howcheng {chat} 00:52, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

You know exactly what I mean by "presented in a specific fashion". Changing the star to bolding the name does not suddenly make everything all right. Do not force me to the point of posting screengrabs. Chris cheese whine 01:19, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry, but I am not a mind-reader. Using an asterisk to denote something (active player) is hardly unique. howcheng {chat} 03:18, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I am just curious to see how many other tables and lists in wikipedia could qualify for this discussion. There must be hundreds. Baseball. Politics. Geography. Religion. Transportation. Cinematography. etc. etc. etc. I am going to assume good faith from the person(s) who think this is copyvio, and ask: What can be done to still offer this information and not violate any copyright? Please enlighten us.

Take, for instance, this table: List of individual National Basketball Association scoring leaders by season, and the external link on its page: http://www.infoplease.com/ipsa/A0909479.html ; is this a case of copyright violation, or a case of original research? --ChaChaFut 02:28, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, I was just about ask the same question. I would like to resolve this amicably, so please state your concerns and let's see what we can all do to address them. howcheng {chat} 03:18, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Compare this with this. Also, compare this with this. The only difference I see is that one of ours has visible table borders and wikilinks. RSSSF have clearly made some creative decisions - format and layout of the table (which has been copied along with the list), as well as what for the purposes of their table will count as a "cap". It's safe to say that they have done enough analysis over the figures that it is no longer merely raw statistics. Their statement is (C) Copyright Roberto Mamrud, Karel Stokkermans and RSSSF 1998/2007. You are free to copy this document in whole or part provided that proper acknowledgement is given to the authors. All rights reserved. Clearly not GFDL-safe (does not appear to allow modification or commercial distribution). If you want to find a way of pulling the information only, go ahead. You could always ask them if they are willing to licence the content to us under GFDL or a compatible licence. The NBA example is a red herring, on account of the fact that the article doesn't match the source. The information extends further back, and does not (currently) appear to be a direct lift. If however the early results have been reached by collating match results, then it may well be OR. Chris cheese whine 04:06, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

It also seems that said NBA list is for an award given out by the NBA itself for the best scoring in a season, in much the same way as FIFA gives out the Golden Boot to the highest scorer in the World Cup. Zero collation required, since the NBA would announce its scoring champion for the season, presumably with the basis on which they have awarded it. Chris cheese whine 04:09, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

In favour of having this bit of knowledge available, would something like this work (notice the HTML formatting gone as well)?

Rank	'Player	National team	Matches	First cap	Last cap
1.	Mohamed Al-Deayea	Saudi Arabia	181	January 1, 1990	January 1, 2006
2.	Claudio Suárez	Mexico	178
3.	Hossam Hassan	Egypt	170
4.	Cobi Jones	United States	164
5.	Adnan Al-Talyani	United Arab Emirates	164

ChaChaFut 05:38, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Maybe, if you can do reliable cites on the dates to at least month/year accuracy (we can do without the day if it can't be established), and generally make it look like you didn't just run the RSSSF format through sed. You would also need to look elsewhere for data to corroborate the existing figures (particularly given RSSSF claims some of the figures reported elsewhere is not accurate). I still think this is a job better done by categories (sortkeys are wonderful things). Chris cheese whine 12:54, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you would like to weigh in the proposed deletion of Category:Footballers with 100 or more caps then (here). howcheng {chat} 23:11, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

This is not a copyright violation

Arranging widely available facts into a simple order has no creative content, and is not copyrightable. Dominictimms 22:33, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

We've been through this before, read the discussion above and elsewhere. Chris cheese whine 22:51, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

At this point, let's leave it to the admin who handles WP:CP to make the decision. howcheng {chat} 23:10, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Also, if the facts are "widely available", it should be easy enough for User:Dominictimms to recreate the list from scratch. Chris cheese whine 23:32, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but then based on the discussion we had prior to this, you would call it original research: a no-win situation. howcheng {chat} 20:54, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

It would not be original research if it is "widely available". It would only be original research if you had to dig through the individual match records to collate it. Chris cheese whine 21:06, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

FIFA list

What if this were compiled starting from the official FIFA list at [1] then? howcheng {chat} 23:23, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

What would be required to make this not a copyvio?

I'm unclear on the difference between a copyvio, and using either the RSSSF page, or the FIFA page, as a source. How could this article be created without it being a copyvio? KeithD 09:40, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Removed copyvio, and started from scratch

I've removed the copyvio notice and started the list from scratch. I've taken the information about the number of caps from the Wikipedia articles of the footballers concerned. There are some differences with the http://www.rsssf.com/miscellaneous/century.html list, which I guess means that this new version of the list isn't a copyvio. Bashar Abdallah, for example, doesn't have the number of caps listed on his Wikipedia page and hasn't been included.

I've not done more than 20 so far, as based on the previous discussions on the talk page, we're treading a fine line between being a copyvio, and being original research. I thought I'd start with this, to see if it is acceptable to everyone, before spending a lot of time adding many more to the list. Obviously the formatting is very simple at the moment, but I guess we need to come to an agreement on the nature of the content first.

Any problems with doing it this way? KeithD 20:14, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I realise I should have created a temp page instead, as per the copyvio notice. Apologies. It can be found at Talk:List of football (soccer) players with 100 or more caps/Temp —The preceding unsigned comment was added by KeithD (talk • contribs) 20:24, 22 March 2007 (UTC).

Done. —Centrx→talk • 18:20, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I have a problem, as Wikipedia itself cannot be used as a reference. Please find & check with a reference (FIFA or RSSSF) and ignore the copyright hoodoo, it is bogus since tables of statistics are themselves not copyrightable. The original deleton of this page was idiotic, in my opinion. Qwghlm 13:17, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Also, I've converted it to a table. Whether something is a bulleted list or table had nothing to do with its copyrightability, and it makes no sense to have it as a list of bullets. Qwghlm 13:25, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Improvement to article

Glad that the copyvio has been resolved, but the article seems rather empty now. I have added national flags - doubt that would violate any copyrights!

Can we not add number of international goals; date of first cap & opponents; date of last cap & opponents? Any other suggestions? GiantSnowman 22:20, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

First cap details would be good, and last cap details only for deceased or permanently-retired players might also be useful, but should you find this information it would also be good to add it (along with the cites) into the player's article. Chris cheese whine 23:53, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Have a look at what I've started here: if you think it is worthwhile: lets build up the info in it and, when it is ready, move it over to here. The moot point would be whether, for still active players, the Last international column is left blank or used to record most recent (which both fits usage of the word last, and prepares the page for an unannounced retirement (or being dropped, as the less diplomatic might put it)). Kevin McE 16:33, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Looks good to me Kevin! GiantSnowman 18:36, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

active players

Would be useful to highlight those on this list that are still playing in matches, say making their name bold, as per this list. Lugnuts 13:41, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Good idea. Done! Siba 15:55, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I am a bit confused by the bold names, though. It says bold denotes players "still active at international level" but I see a number of players who, despite still being active in football, no longer play for their country (e.g. v/d Sar, Rüstü, Ayala, Zagorakis). Should we change the description of what bold denotes or should we un-bold these players? Robbert_o154 —Preceding undated comment was added at 09:04, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

WHY IS PATRICK VEIRA ON THERE TWICE? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.87.193.40 (talk) 16:01, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, Thuram as well. He's in 16th and 19th place. Unfortunately I don't know which one is true, so I can't correct it. Maef (talk) 08:09, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Thuram corrected, he's 16th with 142 caps at 13th June (and also at today, he doesn't play against Italy).--Actarux (talk) 22:20, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Deletion debate on related Category

Category:Footballers with 100 or more caps, which I started, was put up for deletion in March (which it survived), and again in July (which it failed). Its deletion is now being contested, and editors here might be interested in that discussion. Kevin McE 15:51, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

• The category has been restored, but has gone straigh to CFD again! Lugnuts 04:56, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Shay Given

Shouldn't he be there instead of Robbie Keane? Spiderone 16:42, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, Shay Given Is on 100 caps not Robbie Keane who has 93ish caps. Gero13 (talk) 19:43, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Ranking's gone wrong (again)

The ranking numbers are currently wrong from 57/58 onwards. Nor sure how David Beckham is ranked 6.5 either. I'd have to do it by hand, I assume someone else can do it more easily... MikesPlant (talk) 11:53, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Fixed Pelmeen10 (talk) 13:45, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Gone wrong again - from 31 MikesPlant (talk) 12:57, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Djalma Sandos (Brasil) with 111 games is not included —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.136.192.196 (talk) 12:46, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Djalma Santos has only 98 caps. Pelmeen10 (talk) 13:47, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Miroslav Klose

He made it today to his 100th cap. However, the document which lists who made it to 100 doesn't show this. What to do?DandyDan2007 (talk) 00:30, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

This page should be updated only according to FIFA documetation, not every player invidually. Pelmeen10 (talk) 14:23, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Tables disagree

There are a three seeming contradictions between the table "Most men with 100 or more caps by country" (hitherto called the second table) and the main list of most capped men.

• The second table states 3 for Cameroon yet the main table only lists Geremi. I'm sure Rigobert Song should be added but I don't know who the third would be.
• Borislav Mikhailov appears on the main list but then it says later that he is not recognised by FIFA as having 100 caps. Also Bulgaria do not appear on the second table despite his inclusion in the first.
• The second table claims four for Denmark yet five names appear on the first.

I'm not sure what is right and what is wrong here and I am not confident editing these sortable tables so I thought I would bring my concerns here and let somebody better placed sort these out as otherwise this a fascinating, well constructed list. Keresaspa (talk) 03:12, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Fixed. The numbering is wrong anyway, but anybody can update according to [2]. Pelmeen10 (talk) 14:25, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Miroslav Karhan

He is missing in the list - see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miroslav_Karhan — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.98.195.244 (talk) 18:40, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Added, although his article states 107 caps, the most recent fifa list [3] only has 106, so I've gone with 106 as I believe we treat the FIFA centurions list as the ultimate arbiter? danno 18:48, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

new data added

Preetam040 (talk) 18:22, 28 September 2011 (UTC)INDIAN player Baichung bhutia is missing earlier in table.I added it.Preetam040 (talk) 18:22, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

10 years, 222 days

Quite remarkable the number of players whose international careers have lasted exactly this length of time... danno 21:06, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Fixed. 69 players with the same international career length now reduced to one.... danno 18:15, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Oleg Blokhin

Oleg Blokhin - 112 caps: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oleh_Blokhin Should be included--195.93.246.47 (talk) 13:49, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

2001|10|6|2012|10|12}}

Rafael van der Vaart duration doen't work ....can't see why...somebody please fix this...thx :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.72.107.82 (talk) 10:16, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Andreas Isakson

Should Andreas Isaksson be on the list? He played 102 matches with Sweden so far. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.52.81.118 (talk) 20:57, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Croatia

Stipe Pletikosa, Josip Šimunić and Darijo Srna also have 100 caps. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.139.19.0 (talk) 15:39, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Darijo Srna and Stipe Pletikosa

Dario Srna has 108 caps, and Stipe Pletikosa has 107 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.138.146.161 (talk) 14:27, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Stipe Pletikosa

Stipe Pletikosa has 109 caps — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.138.120.174 (talk) 12:27, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

http://www.hrsport.net/nogomet/reprezentacije/hrvatska/?igracID=908&sID=18 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.138.120.174 (talk) 12:47, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Darijo Srna has 117 caps — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.138.66.142 (talk) 15:11, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Darijo Srna has 120 caps

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darijo_Srna — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.138.107.192 (talk) 14:08, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

List of footballers with 100 or more caps

I am an italian user (sorry for my bad english) - One explanation: for site "http://africansoccer.weebly.com" Joseph Musonda (Zambia) did not present in 6 september 2014 vs. Mozambique - Do you can verify ??? Thank you and good job--79.3.231.88 (talk) 11:55, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

FIFA CAPS

Please stop changing to the number of caps mentionend on the players wiki-page.

FIFA CAPS ONLY!!!!!

Examples: Robbie Keane, Sergio Ramos, Peter Schmeichel...lots more.

THX

Darijo Srna

Darijo Srna has 121 caps

http://hns-cff.hr/players/116127/darijo-srna/ Here is the list all of his FIFA international matches — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.138.33.155 (talk) 14:43, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, but he has not. It is quit easy, you just have to take a look at the FIFA document above the list. FIFA and the different federerations count differently (see the post above this one). Latest example: Lukas Podolski: 121 caps referring to DFB and 120 if you look at FIFA stats. Reason: On 14 November 2014 he played in a european qualifier against Gibraltar, but Gibraltar is only a member of UEFA, not FIFA, so FIFA doesn't recognize it as a cap. There are a lot of other reasons. The rules are explained in the document and below the list itself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.100.56.240 (talk) 00:53, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Srna never played against Gibraltar. Now he has 122, it is my job to know that officaly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.141.126.105 (talk) 13:12, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Totals

How useful are the totals, especially for the women, if there is no source and some players are only added whenever a user stumbles over them. It cannot be complete, i'd bet. -Koppapa (talk) 13:42, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

DO NOT USE WIKI-PAGES OF THE PLAYERS

Please do only update if you know a) who ALL played and b) if it was a FIFA cap. Best would be to wait for the respective official new list. The FIFA list is the only verified source. Live with your player having less games than you think. The Wiki-pages of the players do count non FIFA-caps as well. Sometimes if a national assosiation is banned by FIFA, their players would disappear from the official list. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.100.56.243 (talk) 21:06, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Jaime Penedo

I think also Jaime Penedo from Panama should be on the list — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.52.93.179 (talk) 17:48, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Croatia

Again and again you are stealing caps of croatian players. Srna has 123, Olic has 102 FIFA caps. They did not play against Gibraltar. If you can not do accurate job then do not do it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.138.242.75 (talk) 01:40, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Darijo Srna

Darijo Srna has 132 caps. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.1.140.68 (talk) 00:54, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Position in ranking

Some players with the same number of caps are in different position in the rangking (Casillas and Astafjevs both with 167, but one is 6° and the other 7°), while other are in different ranking position if they have the same caps (Matthäus and Nekounam 17° with 150 caps each one) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.31.71.64 (talk) 08:42, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Celso Borges

He has 100 caps according to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Costa_Rica_national_football_team#Records but he's not on this list. EvanJ35 (talk) 12:59, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of footballers with 100 or more caps. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110628192800/http://www.rsssf.com/miscellaneous/century.html to http://www.rsssf.com/miscellaneous/century.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:42, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Iker Casillas

The editor has taken bold letters off of Iker Casillas, assuming he has retired from national team of Spain. Well, that's incorrect. He's still active and he didn't ever said he doesn't want to play again with Spain. It's just new coach Lopetegui prefer other goalkeepers, but this may still change. I repeat: Iker Casillas is NOT retired, both football and international matches.

This page doesn’t follow the official document from FIFA, can somebody please refer to the most recent version of the FIFA century club, and correct the mistakes? Madridista 911 (talk) 08:43, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Hossam Hassan's International Statistics

What is the actual number of official international appearances that Hossam Hassan made and the offical number of goals that he scored for Egypt between 1985 and 2006? This page currently says 178 appearances, but his actual wiki page says 169, and the list of all-time goal scorers page also says he made 169 appearances (and scored 69 goals). The two FIFA sources on his page (169 appearances; 69 goals) and the RSSSF (178 appearances; 68 goals) source cited on his page appear to be giving conflicting information, and the stats table further down shows a different number altogether (176 appearances; 68 goals). Any help would be appreciated, thanks! Best, Messirulez (talk) 05:09, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Official Number of Mohamed Al-Deayea's International Appearances

Also, according to this FIFA source, Mohamed Al-Deayea made 178 official international appearances, but in the List of footballers with 100 or more caps wiki page he is listed as having 172 official international appearances for Saudi Arabia between 1993 and 2006 (as I've been told by a kind fellow user, the RSSSF source also confirms this). Does anyone know what exact/correct/official number of caps he made is? Any help would be much appreciated, thanks! Best, Messirulez (talk) 05:45, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

The 172 comes from his RSSSF page probably. ClubOranje^T 06:01, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

We should go with the 178 as it is directly from FIFA. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 03:11, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Iker Casillas again

To the editors: please add bold letters to Iker Casillas. He has NEVER retired from Spain. NEVER. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FrankGuacamole (talk • contribs) 19:52, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

New data available

Please refer to FIFA’s century club new list. The numbers have been refreshed and some of the players’ rankings in the list have changed. Madridista 911 (talk) 19:46, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Can someone please refer to the new list and edit this page? Madridista 911 (talk) 12:10, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

https://resources.fifa.com/image/upload/fifa-century-club-men-1.pdf?cloudid=tsatiy6dhwatj9k5pi1i Madridista 911 (talk) 12:11, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

@Madridista 911: Thanks for this. I will update it once I have the time. ^{Babymissfortune} 12:22, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

@Babymissfortune Thanks for your help, it’s very much appreciated. Madridista 911 (talk) 12:26, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Archiving references

@Gog the Mild: Need archiving here. Dey subrata (talk) 11:23, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Definitive Resource

Is the general consensus to use the FIFA century club as the definite resource . If so, there are discrepancies between Vitālijs Astafjevs' 167 caps (on Wiki) and 166 (via FIFA), Andrés Guardado's 162 (Wiki) and 160 (FIFA), Landon Donovan 157 (Wiki) and 155 (FIFA), Maynor Figueroa 163 (Wiki) and 156 (FIFA), Salman Isa 156 (Wiki) and 149 (FIFA) etc.

If we are not choosing FIFA's document as the definitive one, does anyone have a better resource to use? Felixsv7 (talk) 09:50, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

@Felixsv7:,

still don't know which match FIFA would not recognize, Király did not play in the Hungary-Gibraltar match...check his Hungarian wiki, all the 108 match are listed, I want to which match and why is not recognized, if you claim that!(KIENGIR (talk) 22:54, 11 July 2020 (UTC))

@KIENGIR: So the one I have it down as is the incomplete Bulgarian match as it wouldn't be classified as a "full" international by FIFA due to it's incomplete status however in RSSSF and on the Hungarian wiki for Kiraly it is listed towards the 108. Felixsv7 (talk) 23:06, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

@Felixsv7:,

the source tell only the match stopped in the half-time, but FIFA's non-recognition is not written...what would justify this claim?(KIENGIR (talk) 23:16, 11 July 2020 (UTC))

KIENGIR, Felixsv7, there is no specific criterion for accepting "A" international, A international are considered if it's not violating any laws of FIFA. Above that FIFA is very inconsistent with its records. Various time it has been seen FIFA accepts country's FA stats because of its laws allows flexibility to the national FAs. If FAs allows/accepts not violating other rules and laws of FIFA it's fine to accept. Secondly, if abandoned at half time, the result of half time is considered and the match is an international match, per law FIFA allows the organisers or the FAs to decide. So yes, if the match is considered by FAs then its full A. And felixsv7, RSSSF members are also working/worked with FIFA, their statistics are summarised taking into conideration of all factors of FIFA and FAs and are very consistent also. As mentioned already, many a times it was seen..mostly incase of Asia and African stats, FIFA later on accepts FAs stats. Hope you get it. Thank you.Drat8sub (talk) 01:36, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. The Hungarian Football Federation accepted that match as valid, and Király 108 appearance has never been internationally contested. Though I won't revert now, let the discussion for a while, but I have to express again no consensus for Király's (only) 107.(KIENGIR (talk) 01:44, 12 July 2020 (UTC))

Cheers Drat8sub. To clarify, I put Kiraly at 107 as that is what FIFA's document lists him as. In order to provide clarification I listed the reason as Bulgaria's incomplete match however, as KIENGIR notes, there is no official reference to that therefore I am more than willing to remove the offending note and leave the reason for Kiraly's 107/108 discrepancy blank. However this article should list as 107 as the FIFA document is the source that was decided in previous talks to use. I saw that RSSSF worked with FIFA in order to compile the document as they're referenced in the footnotes therefore they must be aware of the inconsistency so once FIFA accept the Hungarian FA's I assume that they will update it in their records. Also, KIENGIR, removing 37,000 lines of code because you dislike how Kiraly is displayed is not a helpful edit. Felixsv7 (talk) 06:59, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

As I've told, FIFA laws give upper hand to the FAs in such situation. In case of such situation, matches are concluded by decision of referee and result accordingly and its upto FAs if they consider it as full "A". FIFA has no say in it. As I said FIFA is very inconsistent. Another such example I am giving you, FIFA law says there can be 6 substitute, the the same laws says, there can be more substitute if both the FAs agree along with the referee. And in many cases both FAs played more substitutes with mutual understanding with the referee but it has been observed FIFA did not include those matches in many cases. In recent years FIFA had to face embarassement and had to accept FAs stats. And the list you are talking about does not describe anything about it. Its RSSSF stats that tell your what happens or not. And more than that, the stat of 108 is not violating FIFA laws as it does not describe what will happen if half played or abandones, it gives flexibity to the FAs to take decision. And please don't do edit war, the moment one editor, here KIENGIR, reverted your edit you should have participated in discussion and get a consensus, which is not achieved here by you that you gone again and restored the materials. That is edit war and persistent edit war leads to blocking. So please go through policies and guidelines. thank you.Drat8sub (talk) 15:11, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Woah now you've reverted as well after not receiving consensus? At least maintain consistency with the rules you're promoting! The discussions above (19, 22, 30, 31 and 33) says that this article is going to take the FIFA document as the reliable source for the list therefore that is the data that I used. The edit that you've reverted was not just clarifying the inconsistencies between FIFA & RSSSF, it also featured visual edits for rowspan and how coding is presented. Also, I had not fallen foul of the three-revert policy so does not amount to an edit war thus far. Felixsv7 (talk) 17:54, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Felixsv7, here is the thing that you need to understand. The page is existing in its present form until 5 July 2020, where you added materials without consensus changing the status quo. So, the previous editor removed your materials. And it was your responsibility to open discussion, and you did which is good but you should not have added again without consensus. I did revert but it was to maintain the exisitng status. You need consensus of adding which you don't have and no for me. And above that I can see a consensus, I agree with KIENGIR and they too seems agreeing with me. Drat8sub (talk) 19:53, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

And rational here should be per FIFA laws which does not define what you are saying. "A" international is when its not violating any laws of FIFA. There is nothing called FIFA "A" international matches but its "A" international matches. Drat8sub (talk) 20:03, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Concur with Drat8sub with everything said. Felisxsv7, the user has right, per policy the previous last stable version has to be set back, per policy, not because somebody wish to damage your work.(KIENGIR (talk) 12:11, 13 July 2020 (UTC))

References

More caps for Ahmed Mubarak and Bader Al-Mutawa

In the FIFA source, Ahmed Mubarak had his last match vs. India, but he played the Gulf Cup in November as shown in rsssf source, so the total should be 179.

The same happened with Bader Al-Mutawa, his last match according to FIFA source was vs. Nepal, but he played the Gulf Cup, so he played 178 matches in total according to rsssf. 220.76.26.206 (talk) 02:05, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Can Somebody Add a Date of 100th Cap Column?

The list has 518 people, and the sum of the confederations has 509 because it was updated less recently. I can check the active players just above 100 to try to find the newest 9, but both for that and anything else, I request a column for the date of each player's 100th cap. If every player has a page listing their caps, it will be easy. If the caps in each year are known but not the dates, the years can be provided. If breakdowns by year aren't available for players who retired earlier, the column could say the date is unknown. The column and knowing the amount of caps above 100 and time since the 100th cap could be used to know how often the players are getting caps when they are older. I'm not asking for a time since 100th cap column because that's easy for anybody to do on his or her own if a date of 100th cap column is added and everyone knows the date they look at a page. EvanJ35 (talk) 23:48, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Soh Chin Ann

This player has suddenly appeared out of nowhere with over 200 caps. How has this come to be? From what I can tell based on conversations here, and the first line of the article, the references are official FIFA documents; however, the only references for this player are RSSSF and IFFHS statistics. The most recent FIFA Century Club document (dated 04/05/2021) does not include this player. Yellowman94^{Talk•Contribs} 21:58, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Essentially, football stats are still being researched. A lot of FAs haven't been great at keeping detailed records (ditto with FIFA) therefore organisations like RSSSF are taking their time finding all of these players that appeared and scored in historic international matches. The FIFA document referenced actually has numerous discrepancies with the article, all of which are addressed in the Notes section. For just one example, you can see that Hossam Hassan has 176 caps on this list, not the 170 attributed by FIFA as the RSSSF method was deemed more accurate (see a conversation above). RSSSF helpfully list every match that the individual participated in which makes verifying the stats much easier and recently released their data on Malaysian footballers which led to the inclusion of Soh Chin Ann, Shukor Salleh, Mokhtar Dahari etc., none of which appear on the FIFA document (yet). Football stats are ever-evolving but the 224 have been deemed as legitimate by RSSSF and, as they're a trusted source and responsible for developing the FIFA document as well (see the bottom of the PDF), that is why Soh Chin Ann is now listed at number 1. Felixsv7 (talk) 22:39, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Soh Chin Ann should not be on this list. He does not appear on the FIFA list. The fact that RSSSF are acknowledged on the FIFA document which does not include him hardly makes them a definitive or trustworthy source so the fact that they 'deem them legitimate' is irrelevant. The RSSSF document referenced does not itself include any references to allow people to check whether their claim is correct. I propose deleting this row of the table. BillyJones1000 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 10:20, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

RSSSF has been accepted as a reliable source since 2009. RSSSF.com is also used in over 55,000 sites in this wiki Felixsv7 (talk) 11:27, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

FIFA is not a statistics organization. Their stats are actually coming from RSSSF and IFFHS. That said, you will eventually see most or all of these 224 appearances also on their list in its next updates. Now, I have great respect for FIFA and kudos to them for what they are doing, but, since FIFA was created, their cooperation with specific companies, their advertisement for specific footballers only, the history of all FIFA tournaments, their variability of sanctions regarding the same or similar offense of clubs or FAs, and the articles on their site show clear biased behavior by them on many decisions taken, so, in my opinion, the less FIFA references the better (the best is none at all). It's not random that many link references from FIFA's site articles on WP articles become dead, because, being biased, they make articles claiming, e.g. a record, and then they find out from other sites they made a mistake and remove those articles. Finally, RSSSF cannot put references when the references are newspapers not yet digitalized or lineups on paper, but you can email them and seek evidence if you think something is a wrong calculation. The ones who create a page on RSSSF always include their emails. Nialarfatem (talk) 13:03, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I'm not sure this argument makes sense. We can't trust FIFA because it's biased but we can trust RSSSF because FIFA mentions it in one of their documents? — Preceding unsigned comment added by BillyJones1000 (talk • contribs) 21:43, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Nope, you got it all wrong. According to me, as it matters to statistics, we shouldn't trust FIFA (even though they are the highest governing body of football) for two reasons: 1) they are not a statistics organization, and 2) they have always been highly biased. Regarding RSSSF, you may confuse me for another user, as I never said we should trust RSSSF because FIFA mentions it in one of their documents, but I strongly believe we should trust RSSSF because they are a statistics organization and their history has proven they are reliable at the majority of times in their statistics. Of course, there may be pages on RSSSF's site that have inaccuracies (there are people behind the computers after all, and people make mistakes), but they have overall, at least from my experience getting statistics from their site, been way more reliable than FIFA. Also, as user Felixsv7 said before, RSSSF has been accepted as a reliable source since 2009, and with this I think there is nothing else left to say here... Nialarfatem (talk) 00:12, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

'According to me' isn't a sufficient citation for wikipedia. If you've nothing more to add then I will correct the article BillyJones1000 (talk) 06:52, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

I used 'According to me' because other people, like you, have the right to believe otherwise, i.e. to value FIFA (the highest governing body of football) more than-over RSSSF, and so believe only what's written in FIFA's lists and its next updates or publications to be added. However, that would be pointless (as it's actually the same), as, as it was told more than once before, their list is made from RSSSF, and so most of his 224 appearances (if not all) will eventually get included in the FIFA's list next updates. The point is: do we want this list to be FIFA only (which eventually doesn't matter since RSSSF is the one behind, it's just that FIFA takes time to verify the new additions or changes from RSSSF's according list)? Or should it be RSSSF only? Or both? All that I know, it makes more sense for Wikipedia to be both, in which case Soh should be included with 224 matches and a note that those haven't yet been recognized by FIFA (this is covered with "according to FIFA official documents and RSSSF"), but they are from RSSSF and IFFHS, and it's only a matter of time (of when) to also be from FIFA, it's only a matter of time awaiting checks for validity. Nothing else left to say on this aspect of the subject...

I do, though, have something to add regarding to 'This player has suddenly appeared out of nowhere with over 200 caps.' and that is that because you don't know him (never heard of him) doesn't mean he came out of fiction. Some citations regarding his 252 caps with the national team (because he also has 28 against non A level teams, and, by the way, 18 also from Malaysia Selects' team) before 2021 (because he was revealed for the first time from RSSSF and IFFHS in March 2021 and April 2021 accordingly): Malaysia's Famous Players, 2020, 2014, and of course 2010 in the book Football The Ultimate Guide: Updated 2010 Edition and the newspaper The Star Malaysia (those are only some in English out of many, and it's possible you find even older ones, and of course there are also many in his native language, bahasa Melayu, and apparently there are non-digitalized proofs to attest these caps, because not long ago we weren't living in the computers' era). Obviously, they are about 252 matches (non-FIFA included) he played, so someone can easily understand RSSSF made over 10 years to confirm the validity of that number, along with separating those matches to FIFA and non-FIFA level (vs. non A level teams). If you also count his 18 matches with Malaysia's Select teams, you get to 270 matches in senior level representing Malaysia (Malaysian football) and, regardless if many matches are against non A-level teams and people do not know his name, it's an extraordinary number and deserves some recognition (credentials and credits), don't you think? These 224 appearances didn't just appear out of nowhere...

Kind regards! Nialarfatem (talk) 14:51, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

My use of the phrase "out of nowhere" was meant as a figure of speech, more to question why this player has only just appeared and with so many caps, as well as not appearing to fulfil the parameters of validity as set out in the article. As far as I'm concerned my question was answered; while I am not so sure about the RSSSF and their methods (note the player's caps have already dropped by 3 since I started this discussion), as it is accepted as a valid source by Wikipedia then I can assume it has been properly vetted by those much more experienced at that sort of thing than I am. Have a good one! Yellowman94^{Talk•Contribs} 23:46, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

In my opinion, the timing of these revelations by RSSSF and IFFHS is not random, and it can't be random in all circumstances. As you saw, his caps have been around for many years, and I doubt it took RSSSF's 10+ years for verification and validity, because someone with 200+ caps would be a priority. Also, I must admit I have seen more than once before "new" information coming out when a record is about to be broken. It's not the first time, and not the second. I am not sure about the why, but I could bet there are interests behind, it could be due to money-related reasons (advertising et c.), due to glory-related reasons, or due to both. Generally speaking, such records are or have been a "fight" among confederations. For instance, to my understanding, someone could claim UEFA created a Nations League so CR7 (UEFA's favorite kid in the latest years) could break Ali Daei's international scoring record, and other records related to official matches scoring, records that wouldn't otherwise be broken if CR7 had fewer official matches to play. Yet, this list is an ongoing research, and the change wasn't only Soh, but it was Malaysian players in general. Did RSSSF delay on purpose to make the changes and additions to their list? It is possible, but it's the site providing statistics that has been the most reliable of all such sites. Did people who edit on WP had waited until the record to be broken by Mutawa before they introduce Soh? Of course they did! RSSSF had him since March, but he was added here 3 months later. Is it by chance? At the end of the day, the reasons behind are not important, and we, since it's coming from RSSSF, have of course to include him in the list and of course to take into account the next updates of the RSSSF's page, if there are any. By the way, the decrease in the number of his caps in RSSSF is weird, with the meaning of being very uncommon, as usually the numbers in their pages increase, and not decrease... the changes I see in Soh there are 2 matches gone and 1 added to the Malaysian Selects' team - I counted there 19 instead of 18, so I guess they probably found line-ups from more reliable sources that didn't include him as playing in those two matches scrapped... Nialarfatem (talk) 02:03, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

But are King's Cup, Merdeka Tournament, President's Cup, Jakarta Tournament, Ovaltine Cup counted as official FIFA matches?

You say "correct the article" but we've explained that RSSSF is a reliable source, that it is used throughout Wikipedia, that FIFA used RSSSF to compile their list, and that it is RSSSF's stats are used in this article - not those listed in FIFA's document (see the Notes section for the numerous discrepancies). Therefore the information is correct as shown. Felixsv7 (talk) 09:32, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

This sums up perfectly why there is nothing else left to say here! Nialarfatem (talk) 15:51, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Even if we accept that a Malaysian guy suddenly shows up out of nowhere with 221 national team matches (who, by the way, is not even remembered by his home country’s football association), 21 matches according to his listed matches are Olympic qualifiers.

Adult national team matches do not include qualifiers for the 1972, 1976, 1980 and 1984 Olympics, this is not taken into account for any other player, so this fact cannot be altered even by the RSSSF employees [The Jakarta Tournament and Merdeka Tournament matches, more specifically their recognition by FIFA, are still under review - it is nonsense that in such unknown tournaments someone played more matches in his national team than a contemporary European player in his whole career]

With the cancellation of the Olympic qualifiers, Soh Chin Ann has "only" 200 matches, and with the cancellation of Merdaka Tournament and Jakarta Tournament matches, he has only 121 (official) matches in the Malaysian national team. And then I do not even mention the Jakarta Anniversary (?) Tournament, the Ovaltine Cup and other funny competitions...

Once again, I am not questioning the RFFFS statistics, their creditibility, but whether these matches really MUST be classified as adult national team matches? Shadon (talk) 16:19, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

@Shadon: Soh Chin Ann was the captain of the Malaysian national team for nine years, it's fairly unlikely that his FA has forgotten about him and if the Olympic qualifiers are still recognised by the nation's FA then RSSSF includes them (examples include Grzegorz Lato, Kinnah Phiri, Björn Nordqvist and Cha Bum-kun). As for the "unknown tournaments" - if they featured main national teams, then they're counted as full internationals. If RSSSF find that these matches aren't official then they'll update their records and we'll update the article accordingly. Felixsv7 (talk) 18:16, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

So FIFA recognised Al Mutawa, I think sums the dispute. Remove this "record" and bring Bader gold back https://twitter.com/FIFAcom/status/1408477692316602371 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.204.150.102 (talk) 19:04, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

As it has been explained before, the list in WP follows both RSSSF and FIFA (...according to FIFA official documents and RSSSF...), and not only FIFA, so it's correct the way it is right now, i.e. with Soh on top... Nialarfatem (talk) 21:04, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Shouldn't the rank column be removed then now? I mean, if not even the top 10 were ranked correctly, there is no point in ranking someone 379th. Would make updating easiert too. -Koppapa (talk) 11:56, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

No, the rank shouldn't be removed, in my humble opinion. However, I think we have to only follow RSSSF's listing and its updates, and not FIFA's listing at all (as I have said before, it's the same anyway, as sooner or later FIFA will recognize what FAs recognize as international A-level matches, or at least the vast majority of them, especially when their list's basis is the RSSSF's list), and doing that the rank can stay. Even though this may seem as a paradox, as FIFA is the highest governing body of football, I have explained my rationale for this before (see above the previous discussion on the same subject).

Now, I think removing ranking wouldn't make much difference in making the updating easier, but what would make updating easier would be a segmentation, e.g. having 3 (or 4) lists instead of 1: players with 100–124 international caps, players with 125–149 international caps and players with 150– international caps, because the main reason that this list can't be easily updated is that it has become too large... Nialarfatem (talk) 15:31, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

I think that segmentation can defeat the purpose of a sortable list. A large list doesn't actually make any difference to an update as players will only ever be moving up a single spot, meaning that the only information that requires amendment is the latest cap, two rowspan numbers and the rank number - not a particularly strenuous edit. This debate should also take place in a different section. Felixsv7 (talk) 16:55, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Soh Chin Ann photo in the list

Hello! As I am not familiar with finding the copyrights of an image, as well as with adding images on WP, even though I could easily google and find an image of Soh, could someone who knows better of these things add his image, as the person with the most international caps? Cheers! Nialarfatem (talk) 21:14, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Missing Kuwait Players

Mahboub Juma'a a international footballer capped 108 I hope someone adds him. thank you thats his page in Wikipedia --Sportshrejmann (talk) 21:30, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

@Sportshrejmann: Hello! No need to be added, as he has already been in the list since long before the time you asked. Cheers! Lorry Gundersen (talk) 15:32, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

@Sportshrejmann: @Lorry Gundersen: Hi, In the article, it was mentioned that Mahboub Juma'a appeared in 103 international matches, and in this list it was mentioned that he appeared in 101, which is correct? --Mishary94 (talk) 05:54, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

@Sportshrejmann: @Mishary94: Hello! I don't know who put 103 matches (5 goals) in his football bio article, but whoever did it hadn't included a source for that, so I changed it based on RSSSF's sources (see here and here), as the principles of RSSSF's are vastly accepted and considered the most reliable when it comes to football statistics. Kind regards! Lorry Gundersen (talk) 06:45, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Jaba Kankava

Hello!

Jaba Kankava made his 100th international appearance in the match against Greece, but it's not yet "according to FIFA official documents and RSSSF", so do we add him on the list, or do we have to first wait either the next update of the FIFA Century Club list or an update from RSSSF?

By the way, you can see on his National-Football-Teams profile that he has 99 caps, because the match vs. Greece hasn't yet been added.

King regards!

Lorry Gundersen (talk) 00:39, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Hi!

It's because one of Kankava's caps came against Moldova's U21 squad - as shown here on RSSSF. One more cap and he's in! Felixsv7 (talk) 13:02, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

@Felixsv7: Hello!

First, thanks for the quick response.

Now, I think it's a bit complicated, as I learned it was his 100th cap from the commentator as I was watching that match, so I can assume this stat is coming probably from UEFA/FIFA stats (i.e. in the papers the commentator had in front of him) or at least from the stats that the Georgian FA had provided the commentators with, so I am concluding it is possible that that match was probably considered a full A-international by UEFA/FIFA and definitely is at least by the Georgian FA.

Also, in his NFT profile the match is listed against Moldova, and not against Moldova U-21 (same stands for SW: see here: it doesn't say Moldova U-21, but Moldova...), and not as non-FIFA one by the way, so it could be in the papers as vs. senior Moldova team, regardless if the selection had been only U-21 of age players (it's not forbidden a senior national selection to only have players with less than 21 years), and, as far as I know, RSSSF does count the matches if they are considered as A-level by the country's FA.

Finally, I must mention it would definitely be helpful/light-shedding if someone could provide us with a link to if the Georgian FA considers that match as top (A-) level, as, if they do, then RSSSF (based on their policies) has no reason to not include it with a note that FIFA hasn't yet recognized it, but the country's FA has.

P.S. In any case, we will surely know if FIFA recognizes it as A-level in their next update of the Century Club list.

Cheers!

Lorry Gundersen (talk) 14:57, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

As this page has been either relying on RSSSF or the FIFA document listed, if they do not view the Moldova match as one played between two international 'A' sides, we've not been including them in the list. The match that NFT lists is also unavailable on EU Football, which lends credence to the belief that Kankava hasn't yet got his century of appearances. As Georgia play in two days time, this is unlikely to be an issue for very long! Felixsv7 (talk) 15:18, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, RSSSF and FIFA documents count above the rest, and he will obviously (unless an accident or an injury occurs that makes him quit football) reach the feat, if not in two days time a bit later, as, even though at 35, he still has years to play ahead in top level... this match remains a "weird" case, and likely to have been accepted by FIFA or should have been by RSSSF (for the reason with the commentator I said earlier), but I guess, regarding FIFA, the mystery will definitely be solved in the next Century Club list update. Lorry Gundersen (talk) 15:29, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Article for Most capped players by national team

If there is one for Most goals,why not for Most Caps? 119.247.129.15 (talk) 13:31, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Ahmed Ibrahim Khalaf

Double check its location. I think you are confused with the homonymy. He was born on 25/02/1992 the other you considered present on the field was born on 22/04/1991. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.13.202.37 (talk) 10:33, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Displaying FIFA vs RSSSF

Hi all,

@84.64.139.105: has made a visual change to the table and I wanted to get clarification as to what people thought would be the best format to display the discrepancies between FIFA and RSSSF.

1)

Rank	Player	Nation	Confederation	FIFA caps	RSSSF caps	First cap	Last cap	Career	Ref.
1	Soh Chin Ann	Malaysia	AFC	195	219	19 November 1969	18 October 1984	14 years, 334 days
2	Bader Al-Mutawa	Kuwait	AFC	190		4 September 2003	1 February 2022	18 years, 150 days
3	Ahmed Hassan	Egypt	CAF	184		29 December 1995	22 May 2012	16 years, 145 days
	Cristiano Ronaldo	Portugal	UEFA	184		20 August 2003	14 November 2021	18 years, 86 days

2)

Rank	Player	Nation	Confederation	Caps	First cap	Last cap	Career span	Ref.
1	Soh Chin Ann	Malaysia	AFC	219	19 November 1969	18 October 1984	14 years, 334 days
2	Bader Al-Mutawa	Kuwait	AFC	190	4 September 2003	1 February 2022	18 years, 150 days
3	Ahmed Hassan	Egypt	CAF	184	29 December 1995	22 May 2012	16 years, 145 days
	Cristiano Ronaldo	Portugal	UEFA		20 August 2003	14 November 2021	18 years, 86 days

If we do decide to adopt the new format (1), then I don't think that we should have rowspan's between players with the same cap number (eg Khairul Amri, Marek Hamšík and Baha' Abdel-Rahman). Also, do people feel that the notes that are currently shown next to players' names in the right column, or should they be moved to either the FIFA or RSSSF column, or should they be deleted entirely?

Felixsv7 (talk) 16:38, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Notes

Just want to put my case here for 1) so people see it however I'll start by saying I'm very happy to revert back to 2) if wanted. It is simpler to follow and easier to edit which I understand is important for the readers.

I'm merely anticipating Bader-Al-Mutawa (re)claiming the top of the (FIFA) rankings and the constant editing we're already doing with Soh Chin Ann (195 or 219) will be added too further with Bader and his record if we keep the one cap ranking. They'll be two different people on top of two different lists and therefore I believe two lists are now required for the document.

I will explore the notion of adding the FIFA caps tally to the notes instead if preferred, as well as moving the notes into the caps column which I would personally approve of.

Felixsv7, can you provide further explanation on your disapproval of rowspan's for same capped players? No criticism here, just want some understanding of your reasoning. 84.64.139.105 (talk) 21:56, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Hello! Both formats are fine by me, as the same can be understood either with two columns (FIFA and RSSSF) or one with notes and there is no information loss or gain if choosing one instead of the other, and also the new format has been successful in the counterpart lists of two other languages. Also, if the new format is adopted, as adding columns may increase complexity and complexity doesn't help in understanding the content, in case there is such an issue, I would suggest the "Career" column to be scrapped (which indirectly would still be there, since it's how many days from the first cap till the last cap), like it is in the Chinese list, but I have no problem with the extra column, I am just saying that, if people have, the new format can be applied without increasing the number of columns, just by removing a column that can be produced by two existing ones. Kind regards, Lorry Gundersen (talk) 12:09, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Sure! My only actual issue was going to be if the rank was still going to be displayed in alphabetical order but you've already differentiated them into FIFA=RSSSF and FIFA#RSSSF therefore I withdraw my complaint (I've attached what I thought would happen below). Felixsv7 (talk) 13:03, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Okay thanks! It still not ideal and honestly, I would still like the look of having your example 2) as the way to go, however doing that means having "|colspan=2 align=center| (number)" on every single player not combined with rowspan, which I'm personally not a fan of. Two separate alphabetical ranks in the rank row does look poor I'll admit so it still needs working on. 84.64.139.105 (talk) 14:23, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Ah, another of the issues has emerged. When people move individuals, rather than requiring several rowspan changes to keep the table correct, having each individual as more of a complete unit when cutting and pasting would be easier for editors. Felixsv7 (talk) 17:28, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Yes indeed, I think this has changed my perception. Different rowspan numbers is confusing now I've begun editing with it. I'll look at it again. 84.64.139.105 (talk) 02:33, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

1)

Rank	Player	Nation	Confederation	FIFA caps	RSSSF caps	First cap	Last cap	Career	Ref.
53	Baihakki Khaizan	Singapore	AFC	143		4 August 2003	11 June 2021	17 years, 311 days
	Gary Medel	Chile	CONMEBOL			18 April 2007	1 February 2022	14 years, 289 days
	Thomas Ravelli	Sweden	UEFA			1 March 1981	11 October 1997	16 years, 224 days
	Javier Zanetti	Argentina	CONMEBOL			16 November 1994	16 July 2011	16 years, 242 days
	Marko Kristal	Estonia	UEFA	142	143	3 June 1992	20 April 2005	12 years, 321 days
	Michael Mifsud	Malta	UEFA			10 February 2000	11 November 2020	20 years, 275 days

2)

Rank	Player	Nation	Confederation	FIFA caps	RSSSF caps	First cap	Last cap	Career	Ref.
53	Baihakki Khaizan	Singapore	AFC	143		4 August 2003	11 June 2021	17 years, 311 days
	Marko Kristal	Estonia	UEFA	142	143	3 June 1992	20 April 2005	12 years, 321 days
	Gary Medel	Chile	CONMEBOL	143		18 April 2007	1 February 2022	14 years, 289 days
	Michael Mifsud	Malta	UEFA	142	143	10 February 2000	11 November 2020	20 years, 275 days
	Thomas Ravelli	Sweden	UEFA	143		1 March 1981	11 October 1997	16 years, 224 days
	Javier Zanetti	Argentina	CONMEBOL	143		16 November 1994	16 July 2011	16 years, 242 days

hello! thank you for your work on this article. i like how it looks (fifa caps and rsssf caps). i would like to ask you a question: i noticed that the ranking is arranged according to rsssf caps; should the ranking be arranged according to the fifa caps, taking into account the fact that fifa is the organization that manages and organizes this sport? i think fifa source is more important than rsssf source. have a nice day! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Quebecca (talk • contribs) 17:22, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Notes

Hi, thanks for your input! This has been discussed before however FIFA is not an organisation that focuses on statistics, unlike RSSSF. RSSSF are also used by FIFA when they update their centurions list every six months. The reason that we use RSSSF is that it is more reflective of what each country views their players' cap totals to be. Felixsv7 (talk) 17:28, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

thank you for reply! i understand your opinion, although i maintain my opinion that fifa source is more important than rsssf source. it is not a problem that we have different opinions. i noticed that there are many errors in the table; players with fewer caps are above players with more caps (ex: ahmed mubarak, position 5, has 180 rsssf caps and maynor figueroa, position 6, has 181 rsssf caps and the examples can go on). thank you for your work! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Quebecca (talk • contribs) 23:19, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

The rank is based on whichever cap number is highest between FIFA or RSSSF. It's based on a mix of both (Mubarak is 5th because of his 183 FIFA recognised caps.) You can just look at either the FIFA rankings or RSSSF rankings in their own order by clicking their respected column header. There are quite a lot of discrepancies sadly. FIFA don't provide a resource for all the matches they don't recognise which means RSSSF is heavily relied on for this information, where they have it. 84.64.139.105 (talk) 02:40, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

@84.64.139.105: The initial row should be rowspan'd as all the athletes that are level on caps are not placed ahead of one another. The rowspan that needs to be deleted are the ones in the RSSSF and FIFA columns. Felixsv7 (talk) 13:29, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

I understand your comment. I trialled this to see it if was easier to edit; which I believe it does; and using less bytes space. However I accept you point if it's deemed too inaccurate for the document. I disagree with the removal of the rowspan for both the cap columns. This would add 10,000 bytes as shown as well as an increase in editing (each players cap number). 84.64.139.105 (talk) 14:03, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Ah sorry, to clarify: I believe that the colspan for caps is the problematic issue, not the rowspan! Felixsv7 (talk) 14:56, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

References

Table

The sequence of players in the table is illogical, why not according to FIFA matches? --Mishary94 (talk) 23:16, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

Apologies for this late response. Ultimately because RSSSF recognises more games than FIFA do, plus with the rowspan/colspan capabilities, having RSSSF caps listed first makes the easiest and quickest sense for editing purposes. FIFA also uses RSSSF for their stats. Hope this answers your question. 90.241.129.236 (talk) 20:38, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

List too long?

I was wondering if we should trim the list to inlcude only the player with 150 caps, or something near that number, since the list is now really long Baronedimare (talk) 13:54, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

Hello! Not only the feat is about 100 international caps both by RSSSF and FIFA, but also, without meaning to sound disrespectful or offensive, I really don't see anything wrong with the list being "too long". Simply put, if you/one wish-es to see only the players with at least 150 caps, just don't/to not scroll down when you/(s)he see(s) the first player with fewer than 150 caps. Kind regards, Lorry Gundersen (talk) 18:38, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

I think the top 50 should be ranked, similar to the lists at List of most expensive association football transfers List of longest managerial reigns in association football, and the other 500+ separated into sections by confederation. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 18:48, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Keep the long list, respect to people who created it, and best hopes the list of international goals is eqaully long.--Maxaxa (talk) 09:40, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Balázs Dzsudzsák (Hungary)

Balázs Dzsudzsák now had his 109th (last) cap but according to the list he is still has 108. Barni9292 (talk) 19:38, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

You are correct, the list has now been rectified. Well spotted. 84.64.223.21 (talk) 20:18, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

What do the reliable sources tell us

We don't just blindly repeat what information stats websites tell us, we must go to multiple reliable sources to see what they say. UOL of Brazil, O Jogo of Portugal, Libero of Indonesia, SBS of Australia, AD of Netherlands, Foot11 of France, The Sun of Malaysia, Le Telegramme of France, Yahoo Sports of USA, Malay Mail of Malaysia, The Star of Malaysia, the AFC, all say the same thing. There is no "dispute". All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 18:45, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Hello! Do you even know what statistics are? Because none of these sites you are mentioning performs statistics. Kind regards, Lorry Gundersen (talk) 15:06, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Hello! Do you even know what a reliable source is? Because all of those sites I mentioned performs reliably. And some more: Sports Illustrated, RTL, A Bola, Goal, Gulf News via AP and AFP... you are promoting what is demonstrably a fringe theory and should be removed as soon as possible. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 17:05, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

I've already said my piece, the only thing I'll add is obviously all your 'sources' (which I give you great credit for researching and using to put your case across), are based purely on the FIFA Century Club document and that this document is the only one that matters for your argument. Yes, the RSSSF document does have a lot of errors and isn't corrected quickly enough, but all I ask, as an example, is please wait until the Bahrain & South Korea stats (just recently updated by RSSSF) are updated on the Century Club in the middle of January (expected quarterly FIFA Century Club update time). If they change from their FIFA numbers to the RSSSF numbers then that should tell you all that needs telling. 84.64.223.21 (talk) 23:36, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

They aren't my sources, they are the sources. We don't pick and choose which sources to use, we go with whatever the reliable sources tell us. It doesn't matter how, why or what reason they have for reporting FIFA stats and not any random stats organisation, the fact of the matter is that that's what they go with, that's what we need to go with. As it stands, you're discounting dozens of reliable sources to use a fringe organisation's reporting which you yourself describe as "hav[ing] a lot of errors". All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 00:43, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Hello! First, as explained to you elsewhere more than once, there are no such things as "FIFA stats", because FIFA is not a statistical organization, and the stats they publish are coming either from IFFHS (mainly, most times) or RSSSF (like in the case of FIFA's Century Club). Then you are calling a statistical source which is vastly used in Wikipedia (WP) a "random stats organisation"; well, simply put, since RSSSF has been deemed reliable and the community of WP hasn't decided to flag it as unreliable since then, and since WP is community-run, your opinion about RSSSF's reliability doesn't matter at all, unless a new discussion takes place and the opinion of the community regarding RSSSF's reliability changes. In addition, you are saying that you don't care about the reasons media outlets use FIFA's Century Club for their publications, so, to my understanding, by that you are also saying you don't care about the quality of the sources, but quantity; I would like to recommend searching Google with "statistics", "journalism" and relevant terms to learn more things, as, from what I know, there are many people who separate journalistic from statistical sources from whatever reasons (e.g. be it literature vs. science, money-making company-ies involved, i.e. serving an agenda, FIFA for instance, vs. voluntarily produced statistics without any gain other than the one football gets – e.g. having Cristiano Ronaldo on top in the front pages definitely sells more than having a Soh Chin Ann there, but that would be recentism, et c., et c.), but, anyway, if the majority of the community is under the same impression with you, this is the last time I am spending effort to contribute something here, i.e. if the majority of the viewers and editors only wishes to rejoice at having their hero on top no matter what, then that's fine by me (to me, they deserve then an article like the list of footballers with 500 or more goals, which, with the methodologies you used, managed to make useless and impractical, stuck without updates). So, as it stands, you are saying the FIFA's Century Club that FIFA publishes, which only names the players along with a total of matches, is reliable, but the RSSSF's "Players with a Century of Caps", which additionally not only includes details per match played for each player, but it's also where the totals of FIFA's Century Club come from (excluding some Olympic matches, without giving an explanation why some are included and some not, and some other matches that don't comply with FIFA's rules for an official match, e.g. playing against a non-FIFA member, there were more than allowed substitutes, et c.) is not reliable; you realize this makes no sense and is absurd, no? There are only two cases here: both sources can be considered reliable, or both can be considered unreliable. Kind regards, Lorry Gundersen (talk) 13:57, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

If 10 or 100 reliable sources say X player has Y caps, and one source says X player has Z caps, I'm going to go with the 10 or 100. That's how Wikipedia works, that's how research works, you don't pick the one source just because you like it. If FIFA use IFFHS and/or RFFFS and then still say X player has Y caps, and then 10, 100 sources report it as Y caps, I'm still going to go with this, because as explained to you, no / minimal sources are saying Z caps beyond IFFHS and RFFFS. I do care about the quality of the sources, that's why I chose a dozen reliable sources from several countries on several continents to back my point up. Soh Chin Ann having 219 caps is a fringe opinion and you still haven't demonstrated otherwise. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 17:50, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

I understand your argument ItsKesha. I do. I get the fringe theory opinion. I can't argue against the fact the majority of people will see 196 caps as the record as opposed to 219 caps. I can't agree with your opinion on RSSSF though. They are the reason a FIFA Century Club exists, and that document is all you and 'the' sources seem to care about. I will never take the media's word as more reliable than a stats organisation who have actually done the detailed research. The FIFA Century Club does have it's own errors too by the way. Does anyone know Henrik Larsson's 107th cap? Mohammed Al Deayea's 178th? Where are the Malawi players who clearly must have 100 caps or more appearances? There are more, some are the same errors RSSSF have because FIFA, as mentioned, rely on RSSSF for their cap stats. Look, I'm happy with swapping the FIFA and RSSSF columns but I'm absolutely not having RSSSF removed from the document. They are the most detailed source of international caps on the internet. 84.64.223.21 (talk) 11:43, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

I will never take the media's word as more reliable than a stats organisation who have actually done the detailed research - it's called Wikipedia, not Gundipedia. When you make your own website, you can make your own rules. Until then, this sentence means absolutely nothing, and flies in the fact of every Wikipedia guideline and policy. I'm absolutely not having RSSSF removed from the document - it's not your choice. If the FIFA document has factual errors, you must be able to prove this with reliable sources. I've already told you, if 10 or 100 reliable sources has Larsson on 106, and FIFA say 107, we go with 106! This is so basic and easy to understand! We don't blindly copy entire documents verbatim without checking for errors using other reliable sources! And we don't stubbornly refuse to acknowledge Wikipedia guidelines and rules just because we like something, you have offered absolutely no reason the RSSSF column should remain. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 14:44, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Apologies, I don't understand your Gundipedia reference, and I apologise again, you are right that it isn't my choice on whether it's removed. I take that comment back. I will however as you have gathered, fight for it's rightful place (my opinion) on here. I believe the citations on every single player showing their detailed records (something you call 'excessive') shows why RSSSF matters and why it should remain. Is your alternative just the FIFA Century Club and the odd article confirming the FIFA number? Who were the 196 caps played against?... Doesn't matter because FIFA say it is therefore it's fact. But I have a reference here from RSSSF showing the 196 caps in detail, should we use that as a source?... No forget that, it's just a random organisation that anyone could have made up. Your view seems to be that as long as 51% of people agree on something it's first past the post and we use that source and only that source. I do not agree at all with this but yes it's open for debate. Once again, I sadly feel the need to say this, there is NO alternative provided by FIFA showing their detailed records of every cap from every centurion player on their Century Club document. This is because THEY USE RSSSF! FIFA then deduct Olympic and non-full FIFA members to make there own figures. You can't just eradicate Guadeloupe, Martinique, Sint Maarten, Reunion, Zanzibar etc... from the records because FIFA have done so. There needs to be two lists. Good discussion, I hope we find a consensus. 84.64.223.21 (talk) 15:50, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

They're excessive because they are already sourced via reference number one (this). 500 sources aren't needed when one clearly suffices for what is currently being presented. My alternative isn't "just the FIFA Century Club" as I have already told you three times. And I've also already told you how this list should be referenced. I'll use your Henrik Larsson mention; if RFFFS are one of the multiple sources we can find to show that Henrik Larsson has 106 or 107, that's perfectly fine. But this shouldn't be an RFFFS or FIFA list, it should just be a list showing what the majority of reliable sources say. If FIFA's 107 is the minority, we don't use it! RFFFS can be a helpful guide, as can the FIFA list and whatever other lists there are, but we don't blindly follow what either says, we go with the majority! Using the original example, if two dozen sources say 195 for Chin Ann, and only RFFFS differ, we ignore them completely in the main list, however as I achieved in the List of footballers with 500 or more goals article, we can describe differing numbers and views at the top of the rankings, I never said to completely disregard it except in the main list as this goes against WP:FRINGE. Oh and certainly I never said if 51% of sources said something, what are you talking about, that's a completely different scenario entirely to anything I've proposed or mentioned thus far. I don't care if FIFA use RFFFS or NATO or IFFHS or UEFA or the FBI, it is completely irrelevant to the discussion here. WE GO WITH THE MAJORITY OF RELIABLE SOURCES, this is not difficult pal. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 17:25, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

We're struggling with each other here aren't we. We've told each other our arguments over again and not getting anywhere. Let's stay with Soh Chin Ann... If any media sources are using 195 caps then they are using FIFA's claim. If they use 219 caps, they are using RSSSF's claim. If they use 252 caps, they're using the FA of Malaysia's claim. I think the issue is you seem to count all sources (media and organisations) as one vote each. Whereas I'm treating FIFA, RSSSF and the FA of (insert national fa here) as the only true sources required for this document over any news media outlet, reliable or not. By all means use it as backup, but they won't be equal. A hypothetical here, but if 4 reliable news outlets type 198 caps for Soh Chin Ann, either by genuine claim or typing error. Are we going with that? "WE GO WITH THE MAJORITY OF RELIABLE SOURCES" Well that's that then, 4 out of 7 and a 57.143% majority. 207 it is right? I think not. Yahoo, Goal, Foot11, UOL etc... don't have a database of their own research on this matter. They're relaying what the FIFA Century Club is saying, just backing FIFA's claim as verbatim just because it's FIFA. FIFA have completely denounced IOC (Olympics) from their men's football records since 1952 to safeguard they're own world cup. The Olympics only became an official under 23 tournament in an agreement with FIFA in 1992. There is a 40 year difference of opinion on this. One I personally cannot side with FIFA on. Teams who never realistically had a chance at qualifying for a World Cup because of the qualifying rules (e.g. AFC, CONCACAF & CAF sides) would use their full sides in an Olympics. Perhaps I'm losing the battle with Wikipedia here and not yourself. I thank you for enlightening me of their procedures. It seems I could be on the wrong platform to offer stats. Hopefully we get more voices to chip in on the argument here. 84.64.223.21 (talk) 19:30, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

I don't think a reliable source counts as a vote, I actually think that over a dozen reliable source reporting the same statistic is more reliable than nobody covering another statistic. There is no such thing as a "true source", you clearly don't understand how sourcing actually works. This isn't a hypothetical scenario, I don't need to make up hypothetical scenarios to back my point up, the fact is over a dozen reliable sources have all reported the same statistic. This isn't about what you think of FIFA, nobody cares about that, nobody cares what my personal opinion is of whatever organisation there is, it is completely and utterly irrelevant to this discussion, and thankfully there is no Wikipedia policy that says if Larry Numbers doesn't like a source then we should all ignore that source forever! RSSSF is clearly in the minority regarding this stat and others, and therefore counts as a fringe opinion, as has been told at least three times now. So when you're ready kindly remove the entire column and we can move forward with actually making this article worthwhile. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 22:14, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

I wasn't backing my point up in the hypothetical, I was unearthing the flaw in your 'majority of reliable sources' ideology. Surely you see the difference between RSSSF and Goal/Yahoo/Foot11 etc... as credible sources. One is from the horses mouth and the others are just messengers. It truly boggles my mind that you (and wikipedia for that matter) classes a source which only names the players along with their cap total, more reliable and accurate, than another which thoroughly includes details of every individual cap they played as well as including those that don't count. As long as it in the majority of acceptance it can be less accurate, less detailed and not the original source content. You've lost me and we'll never agree. If majority is the criteria for Wikipedia then your absolutely correct and myself & Lorry are no longer welcome here. Go crazy with the document, I'm intrigued now to see how it looks. I wish you well. 84.64.223.21 (talk) 23:01, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

You literally said A hypothetical here, and then introduced a hypothetical scenario. The difference between RSSSF and Goal/Yahoo/Foot11/O Jogo/Sports Illustrated/BBC is that the former propose one statistic to virtually no response whatsoever from reliable mainstream media outlets, and the latter group collectively report a completely different statistic. Therefore, as the latter are reliable sources, this is what we go with. Again, as you are completely ignoring this point, this is what a fringe point of view is and should be removed. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 14:30, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

I agreed with your Fringe opinion 4 posts ago. I can't argue with that. If that's Wikipedia policy like you say then fine. It has to go. I'm in the wrong with Wikipedia but not with what I know, fringe it may be, is the primary source of where the statistics are coming from and what is the most detailed and yes, accurate source of what this document wishes to publish. I notice you have a separate list for RSSSF on the List of footballers with 500 or more goals article, I fear you'll have to do the same here. Needless in my opinion as I don't see how two separate lists is better than the two columns we currently have here, but if that's Wikipedia's rules then by all means do it. I applaud the top of the page information. That looks great. I concede that this article is woefully short on that stuff and I'd be happy to have something like that on here and even contribute. Take a look at the Deutsch version which is much more detailed. But that's where the media stuff should stay in my opinion and not be the deciding factor on whether someone has x or y caps and are at the top of a single definitive list. I understand your want to improve the article. We can all work together on that. I just can't let go of the most precise source we have on this being eradicated because it's fringe. I hope you understand that. Let's work something out. 84.64.223.21 (talk) 16:29, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

"Most precise" is original research on your behalf, you can't prove this to be true using reliable sources as has already been demonstrated with Soh Chin Ann. I've already told you the deciding factor on how many caps a player has - reliable sources! All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 17:28, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

You literally took part in this discussion already, what are you doing! What on earth is the issue with removing fringe theories? All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 22:32, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Apologies, I've only just seen this. I notice this was posted a day before my 'Confliction of sources' post. A post which answers this question and where you have answered clearly so hopefully this explains this. Confliction isn't even a word either. Silly me. 84.64.223.21 (talk) 16:16, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Top 50

@ItsKesha:

I'm sure that there was absolutely noone calling for this list to be restricted to a top 50 rather than a list of the men with 100 caps - as per the article title - unless this is still part of your restructuring, though a conversation about said restructure would be appreciated rather than implementing whole-sale changes independently. Felixsv7 (talk) 13:17, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

I am being bold, it doesn't matter if anybody is calling for it or not. A list of 600 is unwieldy and with more likely to follow will be even more unwieldy. As it stands it is also in violation of WP:NOTSTATS. I think a top 50 ranking is good, keeps in line with other lists such as List of most expensive association football transfers and List of longest managerial reigns in association football, and we can still keep the other players split by confederation. Per the tables MOS: For very long tables, manageability and maintenance of the page may be better served by breaking information up into several smaller tables instead of one extremely long one. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 13:43, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

That's not what the title of this page is. You are more than welcome to pitch a change to List of men's footballers with the most international caps but currently a top 50 is not what is required on this page. Great to be bold, but now build a consensus before making such a large change. Felixsv7 (talk) 13:53, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

Because "lists of players with more than 100 caps" sounds stupid. The MOS for tables backs my point, the policy regarding statistics backs my point. It is you who need to build consensus against policies and the MOS. Can you explain why you even disagree with the general proposal of splitting an unwieldy table? All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 13:58, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

It appears Felisv7, myself and Lorry Gundersen are a consensus against those policies for this particular article. It doesn't sound stupid to us. Perhaps you need to get a majority of reliable people to back your argument? Or don't you not feel you need that here and just yourself is the judge, jury and executioner on this? You can have the rules and regulations backing you up, but it doesn't appear the people who have been reading and editing the article are. 84.64.223.21 (talk) 14:08, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

The MOS uses the word "may" which would indicate that it comes down to users' discretion, which is why a consensus would need to be formed. The German version of the table features the same length table and it appears to be featured (though my German is nicht so good) therefore they've not found it too unwieldy and so I see no reason to split the table as it would only succeed in making it harder to compare players from different continents. Anyway, let's see what other people think. Felixsv7 (talk) 14:09, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

Imagine your argument hinging on the word "may". Couldn't be me. Also, why do you keep banging on about the German version being made a featured article (14 years ago, when it looked like this, surely you aren't arguing for an article to ever look like this monstrosity?) but you don't mention that the English version isn't a featured article? All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 14:38, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

Calm yourself, I've mentioned it twice, once initially and then again after you instantly created an RFC despite having no support thus far. My argument is that this is a List of men's footballers with 100 or more international caps and therefore should display all the men with over 100 caps. I've said my piece and look forward to seeing the result. Felixsv7 (talk) 14:44, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

So can you confirm if you think this article should look like the German article did in April 2008 or not, or will you retract that? Also, your "piece" is that you wouldn't be able to compare players, whatever that entails... this isn't a comparison website? It's not a stats website or an almanac either. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 15:01, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

Also, it would still list all the players with over 100 caps, I haven't proposed anything otherwise. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 15:01, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

...Apart from when you deleted all those RSSSF recognise with 100 caps because they are "unnecessary and unsourced" as well as delete all those with 144 caps or less because "a top 50 ranking is good." Nice of you to note that you plan to list them somewhere else though. Also, I could be wrong, but I don't think the German article attained it's featured star solely on the way it 'looked'. I'm fairly certain is was primarily for the information and stats it provided, as I'm sure you knew but didn't bring up as it went against your argument. Wikipedia policies on featured articles I'm sure were different then, but the fact is it still has the featured star today, despite all the 'errors' it must have according to those policies you've brought up, and that I've mentioned in the RFC. I hope you get someone on your side with this. Best wishes. 84.64.223.21 (talk) 17:10, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

The RSSSF has nothing to do with a top 50. Thanks for playing. It's already explained to you by several people why the RSSSF was removed as the primary source. The German example includes a grand total of two sources and instances of original research. But yes, this is the standard we should be striving for. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 17:56, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

Not sure how to respond to this jargon. My RSSSF and top 50 statements were separate as I'm sure you knew. You've combined them together and brought up an old point I agreed with you on at least 10 exchanges ago. Not sure of your motive with that but whatever. It seems you're the only one playing any game here. We'll let you have the ball for a bit before the majority come in and take it back. 84.64.223.21 (talk) 18:27, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

Well nobody deleted those with 144 caps so you are obviously confused, it's little wonder I didn't actually have a clue what you're attempting to say. Still nobody is able to explain why this German list is so good, nobody is able to explain why this list should remain excessively long and not split up into segments to make it easier to both read and edit. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 18:40, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

Well I'm sorry to inform you that it seems your suffering from amnesia, because apparently someone called ItsKesha did this before Felixsv7 reverted it. As for the German article, it's the same argument we've argued on here, aside from the fact it's obviously good for most as it's 'featured', which is surely regulated by other Wikipedia editors and no one has changed it because it has fringe opinion, original research etc... like you are doing here. Maybe you file a complaint there as well. Why should it not be too long? besides the MOS table policy you brought up which may or may not be better, hence why a consensus will be needed that is currently 3/1 against you at present. Why isn't the FIFA Century Club split up into segments to make it easier to read? It's answering one question. One table will suffice to answer this one question. 84.64.223.21 (talk) 19:07, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

I hate to break it you, but they very clearly weren't deleted, they were temporarily hidden while the article was being restructured. I don't know why the German article was made a featured article or whatever in the first place, but it clearly wouldn't pass today, and don't know if you're ware but this article we are currently discussing doesn't make the grade as a featured article either! Consensus isn't a vote, not sure why you think it is 3/1 when nobody has explained to me why the MOS and policies are remotely wrong. I don't know or care why the FIFA document is formatted the way it is, but the FIFA document isn't Wikipedia, don't know if you knew that? The FIFA document also doesn't have any sort features or templates, hmm very curious... 🙄 All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 19:44, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

A genuine thank you for breaking it to me. Nothing was noted to the viewers to show it was 'hidden'. Only thing I saw was that 34.605 bytes had disappeared. Disingenuously, I also thank you for telling me this article doesn't qualify for a 'featured star'. I of course knew this and I'm not bothered if it did. You're probably right that the German one shouldn't have one, but it does, so it's a slap in the face of the Wikipedia policies you deem to be right and proper. Perhaps sort that one out first before dismantling here. You're using the policies as gospel where I strongly believe they aren't essential for this article. Why are the Wikipedia policies wrong? Their not, but their not totally right either. A long list, when it answers the title of the article easily, accurately and perfectly readable to the viewer, is absolutely fine. It's probably why you want to change the title of the article to fit your policies and/or agenda. You're rewording a question because in your eyes in sounds stupid. It doesn't matter to you that it could be the question most people ask. I'll let you respond and hopefully other voices come in. 84.64.223.21 (talk) 21:06, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

I mean, the text was tagged with <!-- --->, so it was clearly noted that it was hidden and not removed. I deem the Wikipedia policies of 2022 to be right and proper on English Wiki, not those of April 2008 on German Wiki, so it seems you didn't know that this article didn't qualify for featured status as you are arguing against changes which would improve the article in both readability and editability. The proposed split list also answers the title of the article so again that's not any special rationale to stick with the current formatting. They aren't my policies, what an absolutely ludicrous thing to say, they are Wikipedia's policies, and I believe them to be correct and am trying to impose them to this article accordingly. I also don't want to change the name of the article, what on earth are you talking about? You keep inventing things to argue that haven't actually ever been said. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 21:51, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

RFC

I am requesting comments regarding the above discussion. The table on this list article currently spans to over 600 and counting. Is is a mess to edit and my proposal is to split it into several tables - a Top 50 ranking table similar to other lists in the project, and several tables per football confederation (AFC, CONMEBOL, etc). I believe my proposals are in accordance with the policy regarding stats and the tables MOS. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 14:07, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

From past experience, the reduction is inevitable, but hold the universal version as long as possible. This list is unique on the web. Many good lists on Wikipedia were destroyed, leaving top 50 or top 30 remnants which you can find elsewhere on the web. I can update the list if you give me sources. Maxaxa (talk) 05:04, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

6 months on... I'm still waiting for @ItsKesha's grand plan for the article. 84.65.184.226 (talk) 15:35, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

You can see my opinion on the matter in the conversation above. The list is the same length in German which is a featured article. Splitting into sub-tables would only succeed in making it harder to compare players. And the list is only difficult to edit if you are attempting to change the entire table, otherwise it is a copy-paste job. Felixsv7 (talk) 14:12, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

The German version being made a featured article occurred 14 years ago. What bearing does that have on anything? All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 14:18, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

"Featured articles are considered to be some of the best articles Wikipedia has to offer, as determined by Wikipedia's editors." So an article, according to yourself, failing on NON:STATS, MOS Tables, Fringe opinion and Original research is deemed in the top 0.1% of 'accuracy, neutrality, completeness, and style' articles on Wikipedia. Perhaps you should propose removing the 'featured' icon from that as well. 84.64.223.21 (talk) 14:27, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

On a serious note. As I've said, you have my blessing to see what you come up with at least. You've convinced me on a few things. I look forward to seeing your idea of the article. 84.64.223.21 (talk) 14:31, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

Confliction of sources

@ItsKesha

"I'd just like an polite explanation please. I personally see no difference between this and the RSSSF statistics section on the "List of footballers with 500 goals" article. Either have it on both or neither is my stance. I politely ask the question why?"

"There's thorough explanations on the talk page 👍"

"I've had a look, and nothing answers this specific question. You have a conflicting of sources. How can it be right on another article but wrong on this one. Don't give me a lazy response that isn't an answer please. Until you answer convincingly I will keep undoing."

Just providing the background to this discussion. I believe I was adding information that was valid to the edit I made. An edit I purposely copied from an article you've edited to your liking and nobody else's and you are now calling it 'vandalism' on here because it wasn't edited or accepted by you. You just do it anyway because "consensus isn't a vote" and you're "being bold". Don't hide behind your "Reliable sources!" jargon either. Even you can see it in front of you, but because it isn't written down or abiding by Wikipedia Policies, you don't accept it.

So I ask, why is an RSSSF statistics section and it's sources allowed on List of footballers with 500 or more goals but not here? 84.64.223.21 (talk) 22:52, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Because the numbers given by RSSSF for appearances are demonstrably a fringe theory as highlighted above, and which you agreed with. Whether there is a list elsewhere elsewhere or not is irrelevant, but the 500+ goals article demonstrates that there aren't any fringe theories, dozens of sources give dozens of numbers, of which RSSSF were one. But I also don't agree with there being an RSSSF table at that article either! All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 22:56, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Thank you. A thorough and understandable answer. The fact that there were so many sources with different numbers meaning fringe was no longer viable didn't cross my mind. I saw it as numerous fringe theories. I do still question how RSSSF's fringe opinion offers the same strength of argument as a newspapers fringe opinion when RSSSF is the one doing the research and one just reports it but that is something I don't think we'll agree on and we've discussed to death. Thank you again. 84.64.223.21 (talk) 23:15, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Which newspapers do you consider to present a fringe theory? All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 23:26, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

My point was about the 500+ goals article. It's not just newspapers but I personally treat them as a more unreliable source compared to statistical organisations and/or encyclopædia companies, as they on occasion have other narratives besides the information given (e.g. using Ronaldo's name as clickbait).

This should probably be on the other article, but if Guinness World Records are the only source saying Pele has the most career goals with 1279 goals, or Corriere dello Sport are the only newspaper reporting Erwin Helmchen as scoring 981 goals. These must be fringe opinions, and I don't agree with their equal strength of source material compared to RSSSF's fringe opinion that Erwin Helmchen has 987 goals, original source or not.

I recognise this article is different. FIFA have the sources backing them up here whereas IFFHS has the sources backing them there. IFFHS are the original source with the sources. RSSSF are the original source without the sources. I get the difference. I still don't believe it's the correct way of surveying accurate information. 84.64.223.21 (talk) 00:07, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

How you personally treat sources is irrelevant. GWR aren't the only source for 1279 for Pele. Corriere Dello Sport isn't even the only newspaper in that sentence within the article who say 981 for Helmchen. IFFHS doesn't "ha[ve] the sources backing them", it's just that the table only has one source and is currently incomplete. But in general nobody except RFFFS has their figures, hence they are fringe and should probably be deleted from the other article too. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 00:40, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Agreed, it is irrelevant. I keep bringing personal feelings about the stats into this and I apologise. You have explained your position and it answers my concern. 84.64.223.21 (talk) 16:35, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Peter Schmeichel

Peter Schmeichel has played 129 games but is not listed at 129 please correct this 77.213.101.236 (talk) 19:48, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

8 of those matches were Olympic and therefore not official for this list under FIFA rules. 90.240.164.211 (talk) 01:00, 27 October 2023 (UTC)