Talk:List of footballers with 100 or more Premier League goals

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

Football: England Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Football, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Association football on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FootballWikipedia:WikiProject FootballTemplate:WikiProject Footballfootball articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the English football task force (assessed as Low-importance). Lists This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

On 7 February 2023, it was proposed that this article be moved to List of Premier League top scorers. The result of the discussion was not moved.

frank lampard doesn't have that many premier league goals. It's 141. The 203 is the chelsea goals in all comps — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobajob999 (talk • contribs) 14:38, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Fixed, I fixed it yesterday, don't know why it took so long that no one noticed the mistake in four years!! Govvy (talk) 11:36, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi.
Nice article.
What I would appreciate is a column of goals per match, as in this article -
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_football_%28soccer%29_players_with_50_or_more_international_goals

Thanks

--Kvsh5 (talk) 07:20, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of Premier League players with 100 or more goals. 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.premierleague.com/en-gb/news/features/bent-poised-to-join-100-club.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:30, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

According to his page he only has 187 league goals, why is it over 200 here? Govvy (talk) 13:44, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nm, fixed it myself. Govvy (talk) 11:36, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why are we differentiating between "forward" and "striker" in the position column? To my mind they are the same thing..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:57, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. That whole column is problematic:

• The difference between "S" and "F" is nonsensical.
• Some of the position are highly tendentious, i.e. they are POV. Le Tissier as a midfielder? Rooney as a straight "S" when he has played and scored many games as a midfielder?
• They are all unsourced - and a single source calling any player a particular position would not be a valid source for their whole goal-scoring career - see Rooney for example.

I plan to delete the whole column unless anyone objects. --MrStoofer (talk) 12:22, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

He didn't score a league goal for Norwich City, but he played a few prem games for them, should you include Norwich in his list of clubs? Govvy (talk) 19:56, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Govvy I added Norwich to Kane and Chelsea to Lukaku - they played in the Premier League for those teams and the column label does not suggest it's only clubs they scored for. Harambe Walks (talk) 20:24, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Harambe Walks: The list is scored goals, listing a club they haven't scored for doesn't help at all in my opinion and shouldn't be included. Also by the same point, as it could be classed as miss-information and we really don't want to do that, so that edit really should be undone. Govvy (talk) 20:30, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Govvy Then in fairness we would have to deduct three appearances from Kane and ten from Lukaku because we would be saying he played 153 games for Spurs and that's misinformation in itself. Harambe Walks (talk) 17:14, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Harambe Walks:, hmm, see what other people think I'd say, Govvy (talk) 17:21, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think if a player appeared in any PL matches for one of his clubs, that club should be listed here, even if he didn't score for them. Zero is still a number, after all, and as User:Harambe Walks has pointed out, omitting that team from the list of clubs would have ramifications for the number of appearances made and hence the goals/games ratio. – PeeJay 23:26, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As people keep removing Norwich from Kane's record: no-one is claiming that Kane scored for Norwich BUT he did play 3 games for them. The Teams column shows all the teams played for, not scored for and the games figure includes them. Please discuss here and gain consensus to change otherwise people will keep reverting. Spike 'em (talk) 13:25, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As long as appearances and goals per PL game are included then all the teams should listed, the appearances number incl. his 3 appearances for Norwich TheRealGutripper (talk) 18:56, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As there is often no clear distinction between 'forwards' and 'strikers', and certainly not in the media, surely the "position" column needed scrapping. Unless someone wants to go through every article ever written about a given player, it's a safe assumption that reliable sources will have referred to them as both a striker and forward. 'Midfielder', too, can be unclear, as I'm sure players like Le Tissier and Giggs have been referred to as wingers, attackers or forwards. If someone wants to, they're welcome to make notes next to certain players noting that all (very) reliable sources refer to them as a midfielder of sorts rather than forward/striker, but otherwise this information isn't necessarily correct. The Raincloud Kid (talk) 13:52, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I made an overhaul edit of this article, but it was reverted. I wanted to post it here so that I can seek support for the change. Click here to see my proposed new version. Andre666 (talk) 17:43, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You should of posted here first! I am against 50 goals, that's a fairly easy milestone for most premier league strikers, and not nearly as covered enough in news as the 100 goal milestone, I am against having the bar set so low. Govvy (talk) 17:44, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It just seems like such a small list when it's 100 goals. I don't necessarily want it to be 50 specifically, but just a top 100 list which happens to be just over that for 50 goals. Can we not expand the list and use the formatting in my proposed edit for ease of use? Maybe top 50 (down to 74 goals)? Andre666 (talk) 17:48, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mind a little refinement and more sources, but 100 goals milestone list is written for a reason, I think you would need a few more editors to discuss this, because you're proposing a big change. Govvy (talk) 17:51, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that 100 goals is more list worthy than 50. Also personally not in favour of the "primary club" columns added in that edit. The additional table headings in that edit make the table a lot more confusing. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:54, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Who cares if the list is shorter when the threshold is 100 goals? 50 goals isn't that big a deal, whereas 100 is. We shouldn't change the criteria just because you think the list is too short. – PeeJay 17:58, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Alright mate, chill out. Just trying to make edits I think are useful. Andre666 (talk) 17:59, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps it might be a good idea to base your changes on something a little more concrete than your own opinions in future. – PeeJay 18:42, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BOLD, but okay. I'm sorry that your recent divorce/firing/eviction has made you so bitter. Have a nice day and enjoy the game tonight! Andre666 (talk) 08:25, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BOLD doesn’t say anything about making changes wholly based on your opinions. It says to be bold, yes, but you’ve got to combine that with a little editorial nous and make changes based on actual Wikipedia policies, not your own whims. – PeeJay 08:53, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A couple of points. First, I agree that 100 goals is a good threshold for notability. The all time list of English top tier goal scorers uses a threshold of 200. I'd rather see a 100 goal list for English top tier than 50 for the Premier League rebranding.

Second, I liked the idea behind the primary club column. Some of the players scored nearly all their goals for one club, with just a few elsewhere in their youth or twilight years, and some way of conveying the information would be helpful. I'd suggest putting the goals in parenthesis after the clubs, e.g. "Arsenal (96), Manchester United (48)" for Robin van Persie and "Norwich City (0), Tottenham Hotspur (108)" for Harry Kane.   Jts1882 | talk  06:16, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the idea of breaking down the number of goals each player scored for each of their respective clubs. Shouldn’t take up too much extra space and could be useful for readers. – PeeJay 08:25, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Given the ongoing edit war, should we enact this change, e.g. for Kane Tottenham Hotspur (113/157), Norwich City (0/3). It adds significant information using little addition space (except for Peter Crouch who needs and Appendix) and everyone gets what they want (showing a dominant club, all clubs getting a mention).   Jts1882 | talk  13:51, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree this would be better and also would be consistent with the method employed with the article for Goalkeepers with 100+ Clean Sheets TheRealGutripper (talk) 12:31, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I think that the article title is incorrect as it implies that it should include any Premier League player who has scored 100 or more goals in any competition. I'm no expert on English grammar, but I would have thought that the correct title should be List of players with 100 or more goals in the Premier League. Daemonickangaroo2018 (talk) 06:35, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. Taken literally, it's not even clear if it means goals scored while playing for a PL club or all goals scored by a player who can be categorised as a PL player. It doesn't restrict it to goals scored in the PL unless you take the contorted view that the player is only a PL player in PL games and is an FA Cup player when playing in the FA cup.

Personally I find lists just restricted to the PL a bit arbitary and/or unnotable. Alan Shearer scored 283 league goals and Matt Le Tissier 161 but only the ones after the reorganisation of the First Division into the Premier League are counted. Only seven of his contemporaries scored more than Le Tissier, yet he features at the bottom of the list. It also creates articial stats like Shearer being fastest to 100 PL goals. It's strictly true as he scored them quickly in the PL, while at his peak, but ignores the more meaningful fact that it took him 158 games to get his first 43 goals (in the First Divisions) and 258 games to reach 99 goals. Is is scoring rate in the period while the league was called the PL notable?   Jts1882 | talk  07:32, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Should the article title not be List of Premier League top scorers? Then the top scorers by season could be included in the article as well, as it is on the List of UEFA Champions League top scorers page. Felixsv7 (talk) 16:27, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I was wondering if we should have a maths cal input instead for accuracy. Govvy (talk) 17:49, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This has now been done Spike 'em (talk) 13:26, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

To me, having nationality listed before player name (and clubs played for) is wrong. I assume it happened when the flags were split out from the player name. Anyone object to me moving it?

Also, should they link to the national team played for, rather than the country itself? Spike 'em (talk) 00:44, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I personally think we don't need that column and it should be removed. Govvy (talk) 12:54, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I thought I'd start small and think about that entirely sensible view later! As per recent discussion at WT:FOOTY, I don't think flags/countries are that necessary either. Spike 'em (talk) 13:08, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

heh, I started that conversation, I do think flag icons provide useful information in certain areas. But this list is quite specific. Govvy (talk) 13:20, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I was to polite to mention that you seemed to have had a change of heart! Spike 'em (talk) 13:23, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Need to make sure that the player name doesn't rollover and it is on my screen. Govvy (talk) 13:37, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree the column on country and flags would be better after the player than before. But it should go immediately after the player. Putting it after the clubs makes it look like it is referring to the clubs.   Jts1882 | talk  14:42, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think I preferred it before the change, the flag before a name makes better sense to me, maybe the flag icon should be in the same field as the name? Or remove the whole column? Govvy (talk) 15:48, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I quite like the idea of the linked flag icon before the player name in the same column. But then there are some arguments that if you show the flag you need to show the country, which while they may make sense for primary information seem excessive for supplmentary information. I think having the country information available is useful and flag is a simple way of doing it.   Jts1882 | talk  17:07, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

alt code fixes that, specialist browsers can read it and tell you the country. It's kind of a stupid that some people seem to think you need the name of the country after the flag. Govvy (talk) 17:51, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I tried removing the flags, but was reverted. I think the flags in the middle of the table are distracting, but they should not be in the first column (or IMO used at all). I have re-reverted Spike 'em (talk) 11:22, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I still think that flags in the middle of the table are distracting and give false prominence to the national team. Spike 'em (talk) 09:32, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Spike 'em: I have reverted to an older version, it's better without the flag icons, and @Bobsterboy05: any changes need to be discussed on the talk page first. Govvy (talk) 17:22, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reverted flags again, needs discussion here before they get added again. Spike 'em (talk) 08:51, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just looking at other football records pages, "Nationality" rather than "National Team" is used - along with the flag of the nation for clarity. I'd say that the "Nationality" column should be included after the individual as that is who it relates to, but am perfectly happy with a flag before the individual and no nationality column if that's the consensus. As a vexillologist, I just prefer having flags! Felixsv7 (talk) 11:30, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So it appears as though there is no more discussion on this topic - shall we go with the flag before the person - linked to his national team - and delete the "National Team" column? This is how all other lists with footballers are done, where National Team is not of concern. Examples include: Champions League, La Liga and Bundesliga @Spike 'em:@Govvy: Felixsv7 (talk) 11:25, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I would favour that. The link to national team rather than nationality might be a question, but I assume all the players on this list have been capped. —  Jts1882 | talk  16:58, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No thanks, it looks odd and I really don't see the need for flag icons on this article. Govvy (talk) 17:14, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just using the precedent set by other football record tables (see above) and also feel that it will improve the aesthetic of the page. I mean currently it would be a two-to-one vote, unless anyone else would like to share their opinion? Felixsv7 (talk) 16:06, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rank	Player	Goals	Apps	Ratio	Years Active	Club(s)
1	Alan Shearer	260	441	0.59	1992-2006	Blackburn Rovers (112), Newcastle United (148)

Rank	Player	Nationality	Goals	Apps	Ratio	Years Active	Club(s)
1	Alan Shearer	England	260	441	0.59	1992-2006	Blackburn Rovers (112), Newcastle United (148)

By way of demonstration. Thoughts? Felixsv7 (talk) 10:57, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The second with the flag link to the national team if the player is capped (which can be assumed here). Moving the teams to the right is a good idea as now you can read the most relevant information from left to right, the player's name, the number of goals (the key stat for the page), the appearances and goals per game calculated from it, the time period, and the clubs where he played. —  Jts1882 | talk  11:33, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I still think the flag before the player name gives false prominence to the national team. This is meant to be a list detailing their exploits in the PL, so the teams they played for in that competition are more relevant than their national team. MOS:FLAG says not to add them just for adornment. Spike 'em (talk) 12:08, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the second looks better and as for the false prominence, this is the format used in other football records tables. Examples again: Premier League, Champions League, La Liga and Bundesliga. I am however having difficulty finding a way to link it to the national team without displaying the nation's name - which I believe would be overkill - hopefully someone smarter than me can figure out if this is possible Felixsv7 (talk) 13:15, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Use {{fbicon}} for flag icon linked to national teams. The whole flag template system is extremely confusing and doesn't get easier even when you've used it before. It would also be nice to have a unicode version for the flags (although I think Northern Ireland is missing its flag). —  Jts1882 | talk  14:09, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've put up a discussion on WT:Football and would be delighted to have your input just to see if we can get the matter settled one way or the other. Thanks again guys Felixsv7 (talk) 16:08, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

To summarise the debate on WT:Football, there seemed to be strong agreement for a reordering of the table to recognise the significance of the goals tally, however discussion broke down over whether the inclusion of flags was in line with MOS:FLAG. Option 3 appeared to have the most backing and I'd be willing to change the code to new version, but don't just want it to be immediately reverted! Thoughts? Felixsv7 (talk) 08:30, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed and there is no consensus to remove the flags. The argument that there was no consensus to add them is disingenuous as there was no consensus to remove them with this edit, after they had been part of the table for years. —  Jts1882 | talk  16:51, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Jts1882, and for posterity, the reason that I've reverted to the current version is that it pulls this article in line with similar articles of the same type, namely: Premier League, Champions League, La Liga and Bundesliga. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Felixsv7 (talk • contribs) 08:32, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

One correction, to your edit summary. I'd didn't say "consensus was previously achieved regarding flags", I said they were removed without obtaining consensus. The flags were in the article from its creation in 2011 until the last day of 2018 when they were removed without consensus. The burden on making the case for change is on those wanting to make the change. This discussion on flags has come up numerous times and consensus is never achieved. Until it is I think flags should remain as that is the status quo state of the article. —  Jts1882 | talk  09:16, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't, flags create roll-over, and alignment issues on my screen it makes the table look worse. Govvy (talk) 08:43, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for misconstruing your words Jts1882. Govvy why have you reverted it back to Option 1? There was nobody who agreed that this was the best form of table. Felixsv7 (talk) 09:37, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You don't have numerical data between prose, nationality is not truly important to the topic nature. Flag-icons in tables don't actually need you to write the name of the nation afterwards, people have been miss reading polices for ages. Rank is the first column, this should be followed by the prose of the players name, clubs they played for then the goals caps they scored. flag-icons shouldn't be on it's own, or in it's own cell. The fact that nationality is in it's own cell in the current table is the only current floor. There has been problems with specialist readers for those with WP:ACCESS issues with flag-icons which has come and drove a wedge in to the use of flag icons. Flag-icons when used have to come before a name, not after. Govvy (talk) 09:47, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Even better, as originally stated, I'm of the opinion that flags should go before the name without a nationality column. I feel that this is the best layout. The necessity to arrange a table with prose grouped together then numbers afterwards is not listed on the MOS:Table. As the goals is the most relevant statistic it should have the necessary prominence. Felixsv7 (talk) 22:12, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree with Felixsv7 that the format he's suggesting is visually most appealing. I also think the nationalities of players has a place, on this, and similar types of PL Wiki pages and should not be removed. TheRealGutripper (talk) 14:04, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Should we not explain further in lead that the list consists of every premier league game a player has played and their goal ratio for those games with notes to players like Harry Kane and Lukaku who have played for teams they haven't scored for? Govvy (talk) 11:32, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I added it as a footer to table, would probably be better before the table. Spike 'em (talk) 13:25, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This looks and reads terrible now, I need to put my glasses on even to read the football teams the players played for, WP:ACCESS violation. Govvy (talk) 19:12, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You need glasses anyway, just like me. Where is the problem? Now we have two rows for players with a lot of clubs or long surnames and one row for the others. I think that makes the table terrible. BundesBerti

@BundesBerti: Before the clubs where listed using HTML code of <small> and I needed to put my glasses on to that read heh. My eyes are okay, but not that great. Govvy (talk) 20:24, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm inclined to agree with the horrible table statement Felixsv7 (talk) 22:36, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Can we add some photo's side of the table? Like how we had it before all the changes? Govvy (talk) 11:10, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed - and if not then if WP:Gallery is being enforced for this page, is every single photo of a premier league player in Wikipedia due to be deleted? TheRealGutripper (talk) 10:44, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The players' years are split in some cases when they've left the Premier League and come back (Yorke, Drogba...). However I've been reverted for trying to apply this to all players. Should the years be split at all or is that just clutter? One I didn't add was that Defoe left the PL permanently in 2014 and returned the same year, that would look pedantic and confusing for non-experts. If I could, I would prefer it to just be years of first and last game, but I understand the point of consensus building. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C5:E187:5F00:251D:66D7:24C0:D966 (talk) 12:36, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Owen one you are changing doesn't have a split in the calendar year: "2001–2005, 2006–2011". I realise he played in Spain for a season presumably 2005-2006, but he didn't miss any calendar years. —  Jts1882 | talk  12:57, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Vertically or horizontally, that is the question.

I also liked @BundesBerti:'s change displaying the first and last year that the player appeared in the Premier League, therefore not messing with multiple stints in the league and creating a clearer format. The clubs used to be displayed horizontally until early July when they were switched, which I note was neither discussed nor reverted, however I believe that the former layout made the table significantly more legible and comparable but would appreciate input before changing it to have it reverted once again.

Cheers guys Felixsv7 (talk) 10:43, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

By way of example (and in the hopes of stirring some debate) I've demonstrated the two options below:

1)

List of footballers with 100 or more Premier League goals

Rank	Player	Goals	Apps	Ratio	Years	Premier League club(s)
1	Alan Shearer[a]	260	441	0.59	1992–2006	Blackburn Rovers (112/138) Newcastle United (148/303)
2	Wayne Rooney	208	491	0.42	2002–2018	Everton (25/98) Manchester United (183/393)
3	Andy Cole	187	414	0.45	1993–2008	Newcastle United (43/58) Manchester United (93/195) Blackburn Rovers (27/83) Fulham (12/31) Manchester City (9/22) Portsmouth (3/18) Sunderland (0/7)

2)

List of footballers with 100 or more Premier League goals

Rank	Player	Goals	Apps	Ratio	First	Last	Premier League club(s)
1	Alan Shearer[a]	260	441	0.59	1992	2006	Blackburn Rovers (112/138), Newcastle United (148/303)
2	Wayne Rooney	208	491	0.42	2002	2018	Everton (25/98), Manchester United (183/393)
3	Andy Cole	187	414	0.45	1993	2008	Newcastle United (43/58), Manchester United (93/195), Blackburn Rovers (27/83), Fulham (12/31), Manchester City (9/22), Portsmouth (3/18), Sunderland (0/7)

Felixsv7 (talk) 12:30, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It makes no sense when you split the years to first and last to me. I prefer how the table already is with the images beside it. Also when it gets changed, some browsers had issues with the changes you did. Govvy (talk) 15:01, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not fussed with how to display years but the vertical alignment for the Clubs column gives it unnecessary importance and ruins the ability to use the table for a comparison between players. Again, unfussed about the gallery but the focus of this page should be on the players and the current layout doesn't do this. We could make the table fill 80% of the page (horizontally aligned Clubs) and leave room for the Gallery on the right? This may also require nowrap'ing the player names. Felixsv7 (talk) 17:14, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed one edit which I reverted, the sort name field doesn't sort by player names, it sorting to the flag icon names, is there a way to ignore the flag icons on sorting? However I disagree on having a separate flag icon field. Govvy (talk) 19:37, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Drogba Chelsea.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:09, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've changed the image as this is clearly a copyvio. —  Jts1882 | talk  15:25, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jamie Vardy should not be in bold anymore due to Leicester being relegated.I understand it happened just today but a mistake is a mistake. FootballFan1017 (talk) 21:56, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think we can leave it until 1 July :) Red Devil (talk) 07:15, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I just noticed Ronaldo (cr7) appears to play for united from 2003-2022. Is it clear for readers that this was not a continous period of play? 85.167.106.122 (talk) 01:05, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's not clear at all, and it is misleading. The problem is how to indicate that in the table as currently structured. Lots of players played for multiple clubs, which makes it obvious their dates are for the whole span rather than any one club. Not many have had spells out of the PL before returning. Lukaku is another where it's misleading, giving the impression that he was at Man Utd until 2022, which is perhaps worse than the Ronaldo entry. One solution is to split their goal/appearance records into two entries on the list. "Ronaldo: Manchester United (84/186), Manchester United (19/40)" (which might need further explanation) and "Lukaku: Chelsea (0/10) ... Chelsea (8/26)". Then other players like Defoe and Keane would need their record split. An alternative is to add footnotes for players with two spells at a club. Or perhaps split spells with explanatory footnotes. The danger is that it gets overly complicated. —  Jts1882 | talk  08:11, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No, it doesn't. The table clearly says the dates of first and last goal. It's not reference to time played for a given club. Red Devil (talk) 08:46, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Should we not add a note that he did it over two different spells at Man United? Govvy (talk) 14:02, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cite error: There are <ref group=lower-alpha> tags or {{efn}} templates on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=lower-alpha}} template or {{notelist}} template (see the help page).