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

message: Arranging widely available facts into a simple order has no creative content, and is not copyrightable. Dominictimms 22:33, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We've been through this before, read the discussion above and elsewhere.  Chris cheese whine 22:51, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: This is not a copyright violation

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  What would be required to make this not a copyvio? 

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

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Removed copyvio, and started from scratch 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Looks good to me Kevin! GiantSnowman 18:36, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Improvement to article 

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

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  active players 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Deletion debate on related Category 

message: Shouldn't he be there instead of Robbie Keane? Spiderone 16:42, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, Shay Given Is on 100 caps not Robbie Keane who has 93ish caps. Gero13 (talk) 19:43, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Shay Given]] 

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

text: Djalma Santos has only 98 caps. Pelmeen10 (talk) 13:47, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ranking's gone wrong (again) 

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

message: 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)
replies: text: Fixed. The numbering is wrong anyway, but anybody can update according to . Pelmeen10 (talk) 14:25, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tables disagree 

message: 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)
replies: text: Added, although his article states 107 caps, the most recent fifa list  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)
thread_title:  Miroslav Karhan 

message: Preetam040 (talk) 18:22, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  new data added 

message: Quite remarkable the number of players whose international careers have lasted exactly this length of time... danno 21:06, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed. 69 players with the same international career length now reduced to one.... danno 18:15, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  10 years, 222 days 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Oleg Blokhin 

message: 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)
thread_title:  2001|10|6|2012|10|12}}  

message: 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)
thread_title:  Andreas Isakson 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Croatia 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Darijo Srna and Stipe Pletikosa 

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  List of footballers with 100 or more caps 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Darijo Srna 

message: 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)
thread_title: Totals

message: 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)
thread_title:  DO NOT USE WIKI-PAGES OF THE PLAYERS 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Jaime Penedo 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Croatia 

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  Position in ranking 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Celso Borges 

message: 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.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:42, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Iker Casillas 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Hossam Hassan's International Statistics 

message: 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)
replies: text: The 172 comes from his RSSSF page probably. ClubOranjeT 06:01, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: We should go with the 178 as it is directly from FIFA. Vaselineeeeeeee★★★ 03:11, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Official Number of  Mohamed Al-Deayea's International Appearances 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Iker Casillas again 

message: 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)
replies: text: Thanks for this. I will update it once I have the time. Babymissfortune 12:22, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  New data available  

message: Need archiving here. Dey subrata (talk) 11:23, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archiving references 

message: 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)
thread_title: More caps for Ahmed Mubarak and Bader Al-Mutawa

message: 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)
thread_title:  Can Somebody Add a Date of 100th Cap Column? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Soh Chin Ann photo in the list 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:    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)
replies: text:    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)
thread_title:  Missing Kuwait Players 

message: If there is one for Most goals,why not for Most Caps? 119.247.129.15 (talk) 13:31, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article for Most capped players by national team 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Ahmed Ibrahim Khalaf 

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  List too long? 

message: 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)
replies: text: You are correct, the list has now been rectified. Well spotted. 84.64.223.21 (talk) 20:18, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Balázs Dzsudzsák (Hungary) 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: "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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  What do the reliable sources tell us 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: ...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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: "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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Top 50 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: "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)

text: 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)
thread_title: RFC

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Peter Schmeichel