Talk:List of footballers with 500 or more goals/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Useful discussion of ambiguities

The BBC published an article today (https://www.bbc.com/sport/football/55620578) that discusses the challenges in producing a list like this one. I think the article is OK as it now stands, but I think it should state more clearly that comparing goals scored across many different leagues/competitions mostly turns into a philosophical discussion about what should count. Rks13 (talk) 19:20, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

I think it would be reasonable to point out that this is not a "philosophical list". In my opinion, this page only really intends to compare the number of goals scored. This is why it simply ranks player careers by number of goals scored. The list itself is not an implication of "who the best player is?". The fact it doesn't imply this, is no reason to invalidate the interest people might have in this list. There's a fundamental difference between the questions "who is the greatest of all time?" and "who scored the most goals?". If your suggesting that publishing this page is superficially trying to imply who the best footballer of all-time is, then perhaps you ought to know the difference between qualitative and quantitative analysis. The page makes no such claim of who the "best" is. This is just factual tally data, it doesn't belong in philosophical discussion.

This is merely quantitative totalling and ranking of players overall career stats. If we wanted to qualitatively discuss cases for "who is the best" then we could only ever surmise an ambiguous answer based on personal opinion. This is because there is such a vast range of variables that completely confound the notion of ever knowing, absolutely, who the best of all time is. This list is too preferential to career longevity, position and standard of opposition to even be useful for reference in the debate on "who is the best". I think people just find it interesting to know who scored the most. Restricting totals to international and club games control for further data deficiencies and possible outliers. It's significantly easier to find comparable data within these fields across different eras. Outliers like Josef Bican do exist through a product of location and standard of opposition, but that's just the harsh reality of this table. Quite like most things. Example, Brazilian Ronaldo retired with a better ratio than Robert Lewandowski currently has. There's plenty of world class players that sadly won't make this list. It is the way it is. Sometimes the recordbooks don't always paint the clearest picture. Aaron Thomas McKenna (talk) 06:38, 21 January 2021 (GMT)

The idea that you can count "goals scored" without arguing about which goals to include is naïve. Goals scored in what competitions? Which club matches count? How serious does a friendly match need to be to qualify as an "official match"? What's the lower age limit for club and international goals? Which leagues count toward the total? Do goals in the local old-guys beer league count? It quickly turns into "how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?". I'm not proposing to delete the article but it's silly to suggest that this list is anything more than illustrative. Rks13 (talk) 06:58, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

The only real talking point surronding which goals are included are the use of international goals at youth level. Having said that I'm happy that there is at least a plausible case for youth international games being at a high enough standard to be deemed professional. It is, thanks to the selection process, above club youth standards. Some youth games at club level will also be included in this eventually as u23 squads are now competing in national cups. I think as long as the method is consistent the list is valid. Opening the tallies to games outside of professionally or competitively recognized games could be extremely data deficient. Professional games are, historically, well recorded though deficiencies in data which are apparent with older players. The same issues we find with longevity lists. Some of the old timers are at a disadvantage there but it takes time for record-keeping to improve. Sadly, some of the old legends will have data missing from games which would be verifiable in the modern era. It's always going to have those problems as there's a distinct improvement in how we archive verifiable career stats. Football is still, historically, quite recent, but the lists validity can only improve now. Aaron Thomas McKenna (talk) 00:48, 22 January 2021 (GMT)

Edit the flag of Bican.

He was a player of Austria and Czechoslovakia (= Czech Rep. + Slovak Rep.), not the Czech Republic.95.103.177.108 (talk) 09:15, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

ITALICS USED

FIFA never recognised official any number of goals for Pelé, Puskás, Ronaldo or Messi. Why don't you use italics for them? FIFA has recognised only 805 goals for Josef Bican and 750 goals for Romario. Γεώργιος Τερζής 2 (talk) 00:46, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Several discussion threads deleted

A week ago most of the discussion threads on this page got deleted. That seems like a bad thing, and I think it's considered bad manners to delete other users' contributions to discussion pages. Given the continuing debate about what to include, I think the thread "Discussion of ambiguities" is even more relevant and should be put back into the talk page. I will cut and paste the deleted parts back into the page, unless someone has an objection or a suggestion for a better way to recover the deleted parts. Rks13 (talk) 06:45, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

I added back the section "Useful discussion of ambiguities", which I was involved with and which got deleted. I'm not sure whether the other sections that got deleted should be pasted back in. Rks13 (talk) 22:57, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

The top scorer of the German regional league! Hurrah!

Great! Are now second-rate footbalers elegible? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iv0live (talk • contribs) 01:33, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Iv0live, agreed. It shouldn't be included, a German regional league top scorer from over 50 years ago, with lack of sources (see comments on the section above; 'Page overhaul').Purijj (talk) 13:07, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

The "top level" can be dropped from the casting. Players do not score 500 goals in lower leagues. If they begin scoring too much, they move to upper leagues and stop scoring much. The real problem is that football before 1960 was a different game with over 5 goals per game on average. This produced careers with over 1 goal per game. Arrange the rank along the ratio and you get 19 (NINETEEN) top players who debuted before 1947. These players should be in a separate category, not because something is wrong with their leagues level or sources but because the goals per game ratio declined afterwards.--Maxaxax (talk) 02:37, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Maxaxax. Good points, it can be tricky finding a balance, as you can see from my previous comments, I'm not a fan of these random stats from regional players from over 50/60 years ago, though the page seems to have a good balance now, with indicators of what is and isn't included as FIFA verified stats. Though of course their has to be a line drawn somewhere (a limit). Purijj (talk) 12:19, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Also agreed. That entry either needs to go (check his talk page where I've raised the reasons why they're extremely unreliable), or incorporated into a separate list with unofficial figures from RSSSF. Feudonym (talk) 03:48, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Feudonym. Agreed, either remove it or create another list. Purijj (talk) 11:09, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Indeed, the DFB website just lists Helmchen's 29 German championship and cup goals, and there doesn't appear to be any source where verification of the regional league tally is possible, so would personally remove him from this list. Culloty82 (talk) 17:48, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Even in the Gauliga Sachsen from 1933-45, PSV Chemnitz and its successor club Chemnitz BC only played 200 games, so the stats seem frankly impossible Culloty82 (talk) 23:06, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Culloty82, agreed on all points. Purijj (talk) 11:09, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Quick note, PSV Chemnitz's successor club is Chemnitzer PSV. Chemnitzer BC was succeeded by Chemnitzer FC. Confusing I know, but I actually had to create the PSV article as Helmchen's page was even written incorrectly at first, which illustrates the unreliable source of his goals. Feudonym (talk) 00:01, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 23 February 2021

Gjorgoski Valentin 89.205.125.182 (talk) 09:34, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 08:41, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 February 2021

PELE SCORED 1279 CAREER GOALS!

HE'S NO.1. 89.242.178.91 (talk) 06:30, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:15, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

List criteria !!!

Since 1991, the IFFHS has compiled and published annually a list of the best scorers from around the world. They count, as in any professional footballer of all leagues, the official goals, that would be, all the goals of the national team of the major category and all the goals in league clubs and competitions for national and international cups. Goals made in friendly club matches, practice matches, preseasons or benefit matches never count.

So I’m asking now why our list is copying RSSSF and why we are counting goals scored for example in AUDI Cup like Lewandowski, goals scored in youth national teams. I’ve been chatting with Vladimir Kolos the author of the list. He is counting a lot of difficult goals scored in weird tournaments. Use to be our criteria for official goal was goal scored in league all divisions, goal in national cup in every level, international cups and national team. Why we changed that? Why we start adding a lot of friendly games goals. It’s not fair against some of the footballers and people which are following our website. I understand RSSSF is second biggest statistic foundation but we can use it as a source not just for copy and paste and sharing numbers which they can’t verified... Hulio87 (talk) 22:08, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Totally agree with you. The source for Helmchen (just an example) reports 615 goals scored. In those years they didn't play any european competitions and his team made only 13 goals in League Cup: so, 981+ targets aren't official ones (not all of them anyway). And I could say the same for many of them - as Milla (486 goals), Dixie Dean (425), Greaves (479), Lawton (less than 350).

--L0r4nd0 (talk) 09:56, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

It looks like Tommy Lawton's goals in wartime competitions are counted. So this list stands in contrast to the rest of Wikipedia articles EchetusXe 00:30, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Can you give me a link where those goals are reported? Because, except rsssf.com, I didn't find any. Thanks!

--L0r4nd0 (talk) 09:08, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

805+ GOALS OF BICAN

In 2000 RSSSF estimated the league goals of Bican to be 643. If someone adds 130 Cup goals, 15 Mitropa goals and 48 National teams and Selections (formed during and just after the WWII and the chaos the war caused), the tally was 836, not only 805. This was never announced by RSSSF (the last three figures for Bican were 805+, 804+, 802+), and is definetely a mistake of them. But I 'm not RSSSF and I don't know why that happened. Γεώργιος Τερζής 2 (talk) 01:17, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

You could give a look at his page in italian. The sources are: https://souteze.fotbal.cz/josef-bican-nastrilel-821-golu-v-oficialnich-zapasech/a13567, https://web.archive.org/web/20190715224221/https://arfsh.com/player.php%3Fid%3D4, https://web.archive.org/web/20180816092136/http://arfts.com/player.php?id=4, https://www.rapidarchiv.at/spiele/1932.html - and other seasons - and https://www.historical-lineups.com/mitropa-cup.html. The count for the stats was made according to the first source mainly (the FAČR) considered extremely accurated. So the numbers of goals it's almost certainly 820 (15 and not 16 in Mitropa Cup as it is reported in the source).

--L0r4nd0 (talk) 08:25, 22 February 2021 (UTC) --L0r4nd0 (talk) 08:25, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

When I'm writing something is extremely accurate. I don't need advices where to see and what. Γεώργιος Τερζής 2 (talk) 20:25, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Karim Benzema

Karim Benzema has reached 400 career goals last weekend. In my opinion he should be added to active player section. Hulio87 (talk) 23:52, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Klaas-Jan Huntelaar

Huntelaar should have 439 goals. At the moment he has 425 but active players section has missing his goals for other youth national teams. He scored another 14 goals in official matches.

Netherlands U17 - 3 goals Netherlands U18 - 1 goal Netherlands U19 - 8 goals Netherlands U20 - 2 goals Hulio87 (talk) 15:50, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Just to make sure we have complete record I will add amount of matches in brackets: Netherlands U17 - 3 goals (6 matches) Netherlands U18 - 1 goal (2 matches) Netherlands U19 - 8 goals (20 matches) Netherlands U20 - 2 goals (9 matches) Hulio87 (talk) 16:20, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 April 2021

messi had played 965 matches (768+22+10+142+18+5) Gourabm370 (talk) 02:02, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. WikiVirusC^(talk) 21:31, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Rank column

First thing I'd remove is the rank column. This will change from source to source even at the top spots. So there is no point putting someone on #34 for example. I'd say goals count is enough. -15:06, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Goals count is enough for what? But I agree with you, ranks are not needed actually, they only have symbolic value after all as you cannot compare players from different eras (an era most would agree is about 20 years), or even players from the same era if they play on different positions or if you can't place them from the same starting base in which many things count, including among others the social status and opportunities to becoming football players, and even the country someone comes from, and, also, in order to do a comparison as accurate as possible, of course weights should be introduced (which aren't on this list), i.e. weights according to league, weights according to opponent team dynamic, your team's power, the footballer's age (e.g. early 20s in years and above 35 years old scoring surely shouldn't count the same), et c., to be considered, so then 1 goal could count actually for less than 1 or for more than 1... in a nutshell, comparisons are extremely hard to be made and are very complicated because many factors contribute and, as I said, you cannot compare footballers from different football eras which is usually the case and that's why I am repeating specifically this factor [so, for instance, articles about who is better, Maradona or Messi, or who was better Maradona or Pele, et c., are pointless because they all played football in different eras (different conditions, different development of football, different statistics-gameplays et c.) and all have different background-starting points et c.] in case you are referring to comparisons, and, as this list is clearly only for information, I don't see why not rank column to be scrapped, but also it can stay just for that symbolic value, i.e. just for that neater outlook Nialarfatem (talk) 14:20, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Page overhaul

Looking at recent updates to the RSSSF site, I think this page needs total overhaul because the RSSSF page now states that Erwin Helmchen is the top goalscorer of all time with 981+ goals. I think the goals separation needs to be done in 2 sections: the official goals tally (top flight division, cups, international cups and senior national teams) and the total goals tally (where you can include goals in non-official competitions). — Preceding unsigned comment added by JustMeEdit (talk • contribs) 16:13, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

I updated the list reflecting the new official goal tallies.

Completly agree, seems really inconsistant. Josef Bican, Pelé and Erwin Helmchen have about 200+ more goals as it is including friendlies. None of these goals would be considered for any player in the post-1990s. Xenomorph1984 (talk) 21:45, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that two separate tallies on this page need to be made. One with only the official goals, i.e., league, domestic cups, international club competitions and all national team games and another like this one from RSSSF as this current "overhauled" list that we now have from RSSSF is not a true representation of official goals as per the description at the top of the page which reads "only those who were active at the highest level for most of their careers are considered" when now this is not the case. I was someone who was collecting evidence that Bican scored 821 official goals in his career, which I believe there is sufficient proof that he did. However, there's no way he scored more than 948. Who Erwin Helmchen is I am not aware. I don't think his record is credible otherwise the world would have heard of this before... ThomasCPoore (talk) 22:09, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

ThomasCPoore, agreed on all points. Most likely the page should be revered back to what it was before with Bican at the top of the list with +805/+530, and Ronaldo 2nd, as these recent stat increases of Bican, Puskás & Romário, along with the introduction of Erwin Helmchen (his page was only created yesterday!!!) seems very questionable in terms of credibility. Purijj (talk) 12:30, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Disagree as you don't know rules. There are already two lists from RSSSF, one with official goals and one with friendlies. RSSSF is clear: for Josef Bican 948 official goald and 1812 with friendlies. I included them in Wikipedia. Wikipedia cannot define what is official and what is not. This authority belongs to the statistics sources (RSSSF and IFFHS). FIFA has recognised 805 goals for Josef Bican including games, e.g., with the National team of Bohemia which nowdays doesn't exist. You cannot define the past with today's rules. The same is for all sports. Michael Jordan scored more 3 point shots after the shortage of the 3 point shot line but his stats remaimed the same. RSSSF and IFFHS have the authority to declare what is OFFICIAL and what is not not wikipedia. Γεώργιος Τερζής 2 (talk) 09:32, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Γεώργιος Τερζής 2, this page is not a copy and paste of stats from 'RSSSF', it's a accumulations of various sources (such as FIFA), or it used to, before other contributors shifted it be only 'RSSSF' to push certain stats (Like have a German Regional League player on the top of the list who played over 50 years ago, who has appeared to come from 'thin air' overnight) and the constant stat padding or Bican and Puskás, like I said, it should be revered back, as previously more sources were used and it simply was more impartial and accurate.Wikipedia pages requires multiple sources, not solely a single one. The Michale Jordan reference is complex irrelevant. Wikipedia doesn't define anything in terms of international statically tracking, this page is a list which USED to be from multiple sources, with a certain criteria, which is at the top of the page, nothing to do with 'Wikipedia CANNOT DEFINE what is official and what not' as the stats from these pages aren't used for anything official. It appears that you 'dont know rules'. Purijj (talk) 13:17, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

I don’t dispute Erwin Helmchen existence nor his goal scoring numbers. Hence I have left his numbers on the list on Wiki. Only the goals were predominantly scored in the German Regional Divisions before the German Football Association was even founded. This contradicts the statement at the top of the page about play highest level of football for most of their careers. At least Bican played in an official league and European Cups. ThomasCPoore (talk) 16:47, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

I suppose at the time the German Regional Divisions where the highest level of football for Germany, so technically it would count? Though the argument may become what is considered the highest level of professional football. Purijj (talk) 17:11, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Am not saying what is official and what isn’t official; only what is endorsed by the governing body of the global game of football FIFA and what the average person perceives to be accurate. ThomasCPoore (talk) 16:47, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

FIFA would be the best source then? And not RSSSF? Purijj (talk) 17:11, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

The RSSSF ‘new findings’ have greatly inflated Puskas & Bican goal tallies hence I have put their alternate numbers. All others have only altered minimally. ThomasCPoore (talk) 16:47, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Good way of doing it, though why is it now what only RSSSF and not FIFA, as not too long ago FIFA sources where used, then suddenly (since the 'new findings'), RSSSF has been the only source for info? Purijj (talk) 17:11, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

After having another look at the page, the legend at the top of the list, seems to create a good balance, as it states what is and isn't endorsed by FIFA etc.Purijj (talk) 20:21, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Purijj, I send you two answers in your talk page. I'll write only a few thinks: 1) How many official goals has FIFA recognised for Pele? None, only the tally of 1281. 2) How many goals has FIFA recognised for Gerd Müller? None 3) How many goals has FIFA recognised for Arthur Friedenreich? 1329 goals without proofs as they don't exist.. FIFA IS NOT A STATISTICS SOURCE. And that's why they refused to recognise the 91 goals of Messi. RSSSF gave the answer. FIFA did well. Ernst Willimowski scored 107 goals in official games in 1941. How many knew about it before? Γεώργιος Τερζής 2 (talk) 21:07, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Γεώργιος Τερζής 2, I've delete in from my talk page because i dont need your ramblings on my page, push an agenda (looks like a biased one in my option). 1, 2,3) whataboutism..... FIFA are inconsistent, and yes they aren't a STATISTICS COMPNAY, but they are the world football govering body, so there are of notoriety with it comes to these things, when it comes to using them as a STATISTICS SOURCE. It's not like they are some obscure website claiming a random stat. At any rate, ThomasCPoore has done a great job in editing the page (which im for one as fine with, as it's balanced), so no need to continue this back and forth. Purijj (talk) 22:20, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

FIFA cannot compete with RSSSF in research and statistics. FIFA is a stagnant organization blocking football from developing. The less FIFA sources influence Wikipedia, the better.--Maxaxax (talk) 01:36, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Maxaxax, that's absolutly true, agreed!. Purijj (talk) 12:20, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. Please, please, please let's have 2 lists. One unofficial list with stats from RSSSF, including friendlies, second div, etc. And another official list with number of goals matching the stats on their Wikipedia page, i.e. from official matches with verifiable sources, and not researchers at RSSSF who are finding random goals from random players, from their own "research". It makes a mockery of this page and is actually rather embarrassing to see such inaccurate and unreliable information on Wikipedia. The addition of Helmchen here is ridiculous. I've already discussed at length on his talk page how grossly inaccurate those numbers are Feudonym (talk) 03:34, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Feudonym, agreed. Purijj (talk) 18:06, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Apologies if I’m going over old ground here but it seems like the table reflects friendly goals for some players and not others. Players like Ronaldo and Messi do it have any club friendly goals to their tally. Surely it needs to be made consistent either way? Whiteabbeywords (talk) 11:48, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

I don't see what the complaint is, the page is using the data found from that particular source - official matches as shown by RSSSF. They list the parameters by which they define official goals at the top of the page and that is what has been copied. RSSSF is a recognised source and just because they have done further research and compiled more data which has bumped down Cristiano Ronaldo and Lionel Messi, people seem to be up in arms over it. Just leave the page as is. Felixsv7 (talk) 20:27, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Ok. Actually if there are a lot of talking about this list it's because many people are interested in finding the correct numbers. So - I mean no offence - this is not the list of footballers with more than 500 goals scored, but the RSSSF list of footballers with more than 500 goals scored: other sources (as the Czech Football Association) are not considered. And that's fair, but it's undeniable.

--L0r4nd0 (talk) 21:15, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

I am also against the overhaul suggested here, just because some people seem to not like it that C. Ronaldo and Messi were pushed down in the number after the latest RSSSF changes-additions, but I am also under the impression that RSSSF or/and IFFHS shouldn't be the only sources so players to be added in this list (i.e. the more to be considered the better), so I agree with the user L0r4nd0 above, as, even though those are the main most reliable sources for football stats, those many times not only fall into inaccuracies due to mistakes, but they also seem (from my experience) to deliberately hide or alter some truth without giving adequate explanation about the why. For instance, I had contacted via email RSSSF once (one of the curators for the specific list) long ago about why Blagoje Marjanović (wiki link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blagoje_Marjanovi%C4%87) and Aleksandar Tirnanić (wiki link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aleksandar_Tirnani%C4%87) weren't in the their 500 or more goals list and I was responded after an extremely short time (like a bot) with an inadequate response of why not and additional input of the type "how do I dare to question them" et c., even though I was very polite, and then later when I asked something regarding Mokhtar Dahari, who on two different RSSSF pages has two different stats, I never got an answer, and still both are different... so, yes, RSSSF is top to check for football stats, but they seem to make discounts on players, e.g. the Yugoslavian players, and I remember there was also a Polish player (from 70s-80s if I recall well) who had over 500 goals, but I forgot his name and can't find him anymore, and perhaps there are others who could be on the list, so, if such players cannot be added on the list because it's RSSSF only anymore (I'm fine with this by the way), they could be at least added (and that's what I suggest) in a new list with potential-future players to be added in the list, or players who would-could make it to the list, but still are not recognized by RSSSF Nialarfatem (talk) 13:34, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

It appears to be the same Russian individual compiling the pages for both Helmchen and Bican on RSSSF, so additional sources should be sought for further verification. , . Culloty82 (talk) 16:17, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Sourcing for this article

["https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/56396017 Pele congratulated Cristiano Ronaldo after the Portugal forward's hat-trick against Cagliari took him past the Brazilian legend's tally of goals scored in official matches. Ronaldo netted three times inside the opening 32 minutes to take his career total to 770 - three clear of Pele's tally of 767"]. Ronaldo's goals are recorded on the List of career achievements by Cristiano Ronaldo article at 770. Why is it 788 on this list? Are there better source we can use than this one page?--EchetusXe 12:32, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

I see from the Cristiano Ronaldo page that the discrepancy comes from 18 underage international goals, so he has scored 770 senior goals. Culloty82 (talk) 17:48, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

For club goals,it really should only be senior top-flight goals. No friendlies, no second division or below. Internationals should only be senior level, maybe the highest youth level too. Everything else is nonsense. ItsKesha (talk) 17:14, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Pele and Ronaldo are not football statisticians. They can write to each other whatever they want. This has nothing to do with the football statistics. Γεώργιος Τερζής 2 (talk) 17:00, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Totally incompatible list

This list is ridiculous. For example Tommy Lawton has 657 goals in this list but on his wiki-page (which is quite thorough) he has only 260 goals. I think rsssf is trolling somewhat, because these names came out nowhere last month: https://web.archive.org/web/20210104034934/http://www.rsssf.com/players/prolific.html 176.63.153.240 (talk) 21:37, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Another aspect: RSSSF is unreliable, they have a list for most appereances which has not been updated for 12 years! http://www.rsssf.com/players/duizend.html 176.63.153.240 (talk) 21:45, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Agreed on both points, though for whatever reasons it has now become the main source for this page. Purijj (talk) 21:33, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

There are also some IP users who constantly remove or modify other people's discussion here. I highly suspect they're related to RSSSF in some way. --fireattack (talk) 22:43, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

[User:Fireattack|fireattack]], agreed, seems like some people are just trying to push the use of RSSSF (and them mostly being IP users makes it quite suspicious). Purijj (talk) 13:28, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

The examples of not updated lists are ridiculous. Is RSSSF obliged by someone to do so? RSSSF is an independent statistical source. And these kind of questions should go to the official authorities of the sport (FIFA). But FIFA stated clearly that is not a statistical source when was asked to recognise the 91 goals of Messi in 2012. And we realise know that FIFA did the correct. And concerning the best scorers' list: FIFA has recognised 805 goals of Bican labelled him as the "master of marksmen" and 750 Romario's ONLY of the players with more than 700 goals. None other. And Ferenc Puskás is already dead for 15 years... But these are football statistics.... Γεώργιος Τερζής 2 (talk) 02:17, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Γεώργιος Τερζής 2, what would you suggest then?. Thanks :) Purijj (talk) 13:28, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

The statistical sources are only two: RSSSF and IFFHS. IFFHS is officially recognised by FIFA, and RSSSF is the biggest one, intenational, independent and they have a list of members that you can contact via mail. Don't forget that other sources as footballdatabase, transfermarkt, playmaker stats etc. are anonymous. Have in mind that "El Grafico" published a list (some years ago) of the greatest goalscorers as follows: 1) Romario 762 2) Bican 761 (...) 3) Pele 759 You can find it in the web. This list is BASED ON RSSSF STATS but you have to try a lot to find it (I did it some years ago). But this is a variant of a magazine. Not a statistics source, not official. Can you imagine this crazy thing: IFFHS awarded Bican as the greatest goalscorer of the 20th century, but nowdays they don't recognise all goals during the WWII (list TOP DIVISION GOALSCORERS : FERENC PUSKAS LEADS THE RANKING). And these goals are recognised by FIFA, UEFA, RSSSF and the national FA. IFFHS is from Germany and they say that occupied countries had not top division leagues (only Germany had...). Can you trust a list of them? So, if you want to have a list the only real source is RSSSF (nobody's perfect). Γεώργιος Τερζής 2 (talk) 00:51, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Pardon me, but I'm Italian, so my english could not be perfect. I have a question: it's true, you can contact via mail the RSSSF page author(s), but he(they) can't (or maybe they don't want) share all his(their) documents from which he(they) takes the data. So my question is: why RSSSF is the main/only source wikipedia uses as reliable? If you check online or elsewhere there are no documents (not even one) that recognize the numbers RSSSF awards to Helmchen, Lenstra, Milla, many Hungarian and Northern Irish players. Helmchen passed from 260 to more than 981 goals in 22 seasons (about 45 goals each season). But he's totally unknown to anybody excluding RSSSF. Is that possible? Only RSSSF knows the truth and has got the statistics and data. Only them and the others are wrong. Just one, famous example: according to the Football Czech Republich Federation, Bican scored 821 goals (after a personal research I can say there's just a mistake for Mitropa Cup goals - 15 and not 16 as they award him - so probably the correct number is 820); they are an official Federation and are quite certain. But RSSSF says the real number is higher than 948. How? RSSSF can have a list and they could just be wrong. Wkipedia could use other sources and many of them disagree with RSSSF.

--L0r4nd0 (talk) 10:19, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

You have to search a lot to find data for some players. -Erwin Helmchen : Historical lineups and you will see the numbers of every year, and mostly TOP DIVISION GOALS. - Ferenc Deák : I find a source with 746+ goals, three at least years ago but without more information. For Abe Lenstra check Dutch wikipedia. The figures mentioned there are not that new. And I'm personally sure that he has scored more than 710. -Roger Milla:Football-the-story.com : Roger Milla 486 goals with details. Γεώργιος Τερζής 2 (talk) 02:28, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. I looked at the source about Helmchen and the goals he scored are 615 (counting the sum by year, in body text is written 596...). He didn't play a match with the National team or european competitions, in German Cup (called Tschammerpokal in those years) PSV Chemnitz played 8 matches, scoring 13 goals. Even if Helmchen made all of them, he arrives at 628. How's it possible the number 981 (+)?

L0r4nd0 (talk) 08:16, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Sources in the web about Helmchen are very rare. And they do not include a big part of his career. More information are found in other sources like books or old newspapers. This is the way goals from Arthur Friedenreich were found (not the 1329, they were never found). Γεώργιος Τερζής 2 (talk) 16:52, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Hello! To what was said before, regarding the sources that haven't yet been digitalized, which is the case for many old players, I must add there are scientific ways to determine if they are real or fake, ways that estimate the age of a paper within a range (with some deviation). Also, regarding the proofs that are on the World Wide Web, there are ways to exclude the troll sources... Nialarfatem (talk) 01:33, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

World War II

The top four players (as of 08/05 2021) played during WWII (1939-1945) at which time most fit and able men were called up for national service;

1. Erwin Helmchen 1924–1951, 2. Josef Bican 1930–1957, 3. Ferenc Puskás 1943–1967 and 4. Ferenc Deák 1939–1959

It feels like this is a factor which should be highlighted as part of the list. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.99.136.141 (talk) 16:47, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

One goal is one goal any time it is scored. Numbers are numbers and don't change. These are real statistics. Γεώργιος Τερζής 2 (talk) 16:44, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Hello! There are many factors one could highlight regarding why some players had an advantage over the rest, e.g. two leagues in Brazil (because of the state leagues) and probably this stands for some of the oldest in period played players as well, e.g. for Helmchen, or the fact of the existence of only attacking formations during the time the Hungarians in the list played, the many cups during a season played for the UK players in the list (3 or 4 or even more back in the days), some tournaments that seem to have been deemed as official by RSSSF as the FAs involved have also done so, but FIFA does not count these as official matches, and others, but the why is not the purpose or aim of this list, it had never been. The aim is simply to gather the most prolific scorers in official matches by plainly placing their total goals (a "clear" number if it is possible, or + otherwise) and their total amount of matches played (so the ratio to also be included). Of course, a goal is one goal any time it is scored, but one could argue forever over the conditions a goal is scored, which, for instance, basically are totally different as per football era (which I consider around 20 years), the kind of the goal, the age of the scorer, the league-tournament scored, the how good the team is, the how good the opponent team is et c., et c., e.g. is it scoring a goal with a shot from 20 meters the same with scoring from a penalty? Is it scoring a penalty now the same with scoring a penalty before 50 years? The physical skill of the penalty-kicker was the same with the one of the penalty-kicker now? Same question regarding the goalkeeper... Was the field a factor? For instance, at the time Pele played a player had to make the perfect control since there was no grass to help you in the control, like it is today... Did the ball play any role? A different ball could mean harder or easier to score. That's why I think that if one wishes to seek fairness to the maximum, (s)he has to make such a list every twenty years: top goalscorers of 1869–1889, top goalscorers of 1889–1909, top goalscorers of 1909–1929, and so on... it really is, and for good reasons in my opinion (KISS principle), i.e. it also should be, only a concern of how many goals in how many matches, and not the why... Nialarfatem (talk) 07:31, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Alves Magno

RSSSF counts 483+ goals for Alves Magno who is still active. He is omitted in the list of active players. I am not smart enough to add him myself with all those flags. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.55.5.251 (talk) 01:15, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

His Wikipedia page, which is far more reliable and correct as it actually lists all goals scored by him per season and competition, lists him having scored 222 goals. How on Earth did he manage to more than double his goals tally? Where did these 261+ goals come from? Just because RSSSF says so you blindly believe them? Feudonym (talk) 03:44, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Feudonym, good point. The same logic can be used for a lot of the top stats on this page. Looks like the page has shifted to become a list of RSSSF stats as the primary source. Purijj (talk) 10:04, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Exactly - this is why I propose splitting the list up into two, one with RSSSF stats and one with verifiable stats from Wikipedia pages. Feudonym (talk) 19:07, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Someone should edit Magno Alves page Wikipedia page to update his data with all seasons from 2011 to 2021, because he does have more than 400 goals, especially considering he still scores on official competitions on Brazilian federal state level. Some of the more reliable sources are zerozero.pt and CBF. Wertherhunt

Hello! Even though I haven't included his stats after 2011 in his "Career statistics", I have updated his Infobox until now (in which his state league numbers were also included, because they were missing before), I have followed his course in football ever since (and still following), mainly from websites and Brasileirão Série D live games from elevensports, and also made career (goals and appearances) summations as of 19 June 2021. According to those summations I made, he does have more than 400 goals, but not 500, it's 417 goals in 912 official appearances. Though, the numbers of his early career (his four first clubs, which is about 3 years) are missing from those summations and most likely numbers in matches from some tournaments too (matches that FAs, e.g. Brazilian FA if it was for a tournament with a Brazilian club, deem as official, so RSSSF as well), and for this I have to admit that the 483+ goals in 986 matches make perfectly sense (I mean that including 3 years career and some tournament matches missing, 74 more games sounds logical, as well as 66+ goals in 74 matches, since he was a prolific goalscorer in his early years and of course there are matches with hat-tricks or 2 goals), and of course I am neither a statistician and nor work in a stats' organization, and I don't have access everywhere as well (there are DBs - databases - that require subscription that may include more details about his matches and include matches not included in free DBs). That said, if RSSSF's list includes him with 500 or more goals in their list's next updates, since it's one of the sources followed here, we will of course have to include him in this list as well. By the way, even though without a club at the moment, Magno Alves still plays football at 45 and there are no news about him considering retiring any time soon. Kind regards! Nialarfatem (talk) 22:37, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

References

A modest proposal

It looks like many people, myself included, are not satisfied with this page. In its current state, it does not fulfill its role as an encyclopedia entry. I propose:

• (1) A section discussing the different criteria for inclusion, the difficulty of maintaining a list given the absence of statistics for some periods
• (2) Inclusion of at least one other list, it looks like IFFHS (this would allow for the [warranted] single source template to be removed)
• (3) Renaming the ranking section to RSSSF ranking Dhalamh (talk) 09:56, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

I completely agree with you! This page should have more sources of information, it would really enrich it. No written work (either a Wikipedia article or something more serious) should have just one reference; and by leaving the list from the RSSSF we (hopefully) won't piss off the guys who are defending to death these statistics. I think it's the best thing to do, in this way everyone wins: the article will have more references, all the people that are not satisfied with this page (including myself) will be, and the guys who like RSSSF will also have their numbers for everyone to see. Sharky4 (talk) 04:34, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. We should have an actual "top flight goals" ranking (excluding club friendlies, youth teams and lower league goals). That's how everyone counts official goals. --GaiusAD (talk) 14:09, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Here’s my proposal for the list of the goals that I would include in the “top flight” ranking along with some examples (let me know what you think) :

• Highest tier national leagues and the highest tier regional/state leagues if they play it separately or if it’s the highest available league tier in the country
  • ✅ Premier League, Campeonato Paulista
  • ❌ Ligue 2, Regionalliga West
• Highest tier national cups, league cups and super cups
  • ✅ Copa del Rey, EFL Cup, Supercoppa Italiana
  • ❌ Copa Federación, EFL Trophy
• Continental club competitions
  • ✅ Copa Libertadores, AFC Cup, UEFA Super Cup, Intertoto Cup (defunct), Mitropa Cup (defunct)
• Worldwide club competitions
  • ✅ FIFA Club World Cup, Intercontinental Cup (defunct)
  • ❌ Club friendlies and invitational tournaments/cups are NOT included
  • ❌ International Champions Cup, MLS All-Star Game, Trofeo Santiago Bernabéu
• International
  • ✅ National team friendlies, World Cup qualifiers, UEFA European Championship, EAFF Championship, Summer olympics (before 1992), FIFA Confederations Cup (defunct)
  • ❌ Youth team international goals are NOT included
  • ❌ Summer Olympics (since 1992), FIFA U-20 World Cup

Examples :

• Cristiano Ronaldo’s top flight goals total is 783 (18 additional goals with Portugal youth teams not included in the total)
• Lionel Messi’s top flight goals total is 745 (11 additional goals with Barcelona’s reserve teams in the lower-tier Spanish divisions and 16 goals with Argentina youth teams not included in the total)

--GaiusAD (talk) 23:02, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Agree 1000% with GaiusAD's suggestions above. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 23:25, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Just added the data from IFFHS, maybe someone could rewrite the introduction section.--GaiusAD (talk) 15:27, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Even though I disagree that people only count the goals in top flight only (I am positive many people watch, e.g., the English 2nd league, the Spanish 2nd league or the Italian 2nd league, et c.), I totally agree with the addition of the list of goalscorers in only top level along with the one of RSSSF's, because top level is of the most importance. However, it should be highlighted this list does not reflect the career of the players in it, because, e.g., cup matches against non-1st league opponents are left out and of course the stats in 2nd league (for instance, in such a ranking, the numbers of Buffon or Del Piero in Serie B with Juventus would have been left out, if they were in the list), as well as the goals with non-senior national teams... Nialarfatem (talk) 18:01, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Actually all national/league/super cup goals are included, whatever the division in which the opponents play in. --GaiusAD (talk) 20:30, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Then it definitely is wrong that IFFHS names their listing as top-level only... Nialarfatem (talk) 20:49, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

But why? It's about top-level competitions, not top-level opponents. A team might get relegated to the second-tier domestic league but qualify for the Champions League/Europa League, a goal scored against such a team in the UCL/UEL would definitely qualify as "top-level". --GaiusAD (talk) 21:06, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, I see what you mean. It's about top-level competitions, and not matches against top-level clubs, which is what I thought it was. I think the latter (matches against top-level opponents) would make more sense if we want to find out the goalscorers in top-level only, because, like it is now, goals against, e.g., a 4th tier club (common in a Brazilian state league, which is considered a top level league, or in a cup) are counted, and these affect the ranking a lot, because we usually see two or more goals from prolific scorers versus "weak" opponents. Nialarfatem (talk) 01:07, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Hello! I have added content in the intro regarding FIFA's position, because people bug you about what FIFA claim on other similar lists, but they seem to not care when CR7 is on top ;-) If there is any objection to the content added, please tell. Kind regards! Nialarfatem (talk) 21:44, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks to the people who added the IFFHS information! Definitely the article looks better now. Sharky4 (talk) 20:14, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, it's better like this... by the way, it has been like this in the Greek countepart since forever... however, we should point out that both rankings are correct, since they are made on different criteria, and, also, that if FIFA ever (because it's likely they never do) publish a list with prolific scorers, it makes more sense to be an all levels top scorers' list rather than a top-level competitions' only one... Nialarfatem (talk) 21:44, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

All the writing you have included is original research and just badly written. That is clearly a valid explanation for removing it, and your reasoning for inserting it back in is nonsense especially when you yourself made no attempt to BRD. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 23:54, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

Hello! I consider the content I added not an original research, and perfectly explained and backed from the sources added. Also, that content makes perfectly sense to me, but if the community (majority vote), meaning the majority of people editing this list or at least them who participate in its talk page, also thinks the content added is nonsense or/and original research, and so should be removed, then of course I have no problem at all to be removed. If you are the only one who thinks it is nonsense and original reasearch, then I am sorry, but you will have to bear with it staying. By the way, you can't just remove something with "gibberish" as the reason for removal. Who made you the ultimate judge of everything? Besides, I consider "gibberish", apart from an inadequate reasoning, also offensive... Nialarfatem (talk) 00:43, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Yammering on and on and on about what is and isn't included in the lists, and why, and by who, and when. It's all gibberish! Trim it down to the necessities because it's boring and unreadable at the moment. Oh and it definitely is original research: statements like "haven't officially until now recognized any of the two lists" and "it's possible they never publish any such list" and "before additions and updates took place in RSSSF's list within the year of 2021 that brought him down to the 2nd position". Where's your sources for all this? Oh. Badly written, poorly sourced. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 10:34, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Hello!

"haven't officially until now recognized any of the two lists" - It's senseless to ask sources for this. It's something obvious from actually the lack of sources, from the fact FIFA haven't ever released any list with prolific scorers.

"it's possible they never publish any such list" - There is a reference on the content to support that.

"before additions and updates took place in RSSSF's list within the year of 2021 that brought him down to the 2nd position" - Fine, give me five minutes and I will add a reference for an older version of RSSSF's list where they have Bican on top with 805 goals.

Thank you for your feedback. Much appreciated!

Kind regards!

Nialarfatem (talk) 11:18, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

P.S. It's amusing to accuse me of not following BRD, when you also yourself didn't. Nialarfatem (talk) 00:43, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

You made the bold edit, I reverted it, you then need to discuss it. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 10:34, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Please get third party sources before spamming archived reports and writing about them changing their stats; if you don't know the reason why and there's no known explanation, it's literally not worth mentioning. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 11:56, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Hello!

"it's boring and unreadable at the moment" - Regardless of the notability stupidity that prevails in this place, an article on an encyclopedia doesn't have to look neat, and it doesn't have to be unboring, but it has to cover all aspects. An encyclopedia is not a magazine. It's all the knowledge surrounding an event or an entity.

Best wishes!

Nialarfatem (talk) 12:23, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Regional league merge with National league problem?

Is there any explanation as to why Brazil's both Pele's and Romario's goals from both (National and Regional) leagues represent in one league? These are both separate competitions, and they gain an advantage of their goal tally to be higher with both competitions combined. This can lead people to believe that they played in the same competition as European counterparts. Like if we combined La Liga and Champions League, would that make any sense? I think regional league should be separated from national league, as it would make consistent in criteria and fair to other players.

Presumably just because only three in the list played in regional Brazilian leagues. If you want to make a note in the table highlighting more specifically which players played in regional leagues, go ahead, but an extra column is silly as it only applies to 14% of them. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 10:55, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Hello!

The column Leagues includes all leagues, like the column Cups includes all cups and of course like the column Continental includes numbers from all top-level continental competitions, which makes perfectly sense, and I don't think the bother is needed for this, but, the way I see it, matches against non-top-level opponents shouldn't be included because these affect a lot the tallies since prolific scorers scored-score a lot vs. weaker opponents, and most such matches are coming from state leagues and cup matches, i.e. there should be a sorting of matches vs. top-level opponents and matches vs. non-top-level opponents, and the latter be left out. Only then the list would be top-level only.

Kind regards!

Nialarfatem (talk) 12:14, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

The issue with the title

Hello!

Some time ago the title was "List of men's footballers with 500 or more goals", then it changed to the one it is right now (without including "men's") and it included "Men" instead as a sub-section title on the rankings' section, to which it should return, if people don't like "men's" on the title, as I don't see "men's" somewhere in it right now. That said, someone could put a woman footballer with over 500 goals in official matches in the list, as the way it is right now allows it, just saying...

Kind regards!

Nialarfatem (talk) 12:34, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Hello again!

I must add someone had added women in the list not long before, because of the title allowing it. Specifically, (s)he had added Italian players, e.g. Patrizia Panico, Elisabetta Vignotto, Carolina Morace, et c., and, by the way, speaking of women prolific scorers, it is a good time to remember Lily Parr...

Cheers!

Nialarfatem (talk) 21:09, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Why has the primary source changed

This page was based primary on RSSSF, which is clearly the more serious of the two statistics associations. They give accurate account of the goals by competition, have been collecting this data for ages, and they keep documentation in his archive so they can guarantee everything is truthful. I feel like Ronaldo fanboys have changed the whole reference on this site only for the bias of the actual source. Please revert back to the most serious fashion of the previous version

Not only that, but the number of matches has disappeared and the goal average as well, all interesting information, only because it reduces the relevance of CR7 being in the top position. I don't know who is the moderator of this site, but it used to protect it against vandalism with iron hand. Pity he or she finally gave up and succumb to the interest of fanboys

BTW, IFFHS seems to have a way to present data that is always suspiciously favorable to Ronaldo, like defining a decade as 01-10 (https://external-preview.redd.it/rK9Jry3_YstxZpCGChT0G2odhxlMQu0UBpdZdA5ox1k.jpg?auto=webp&s=ad1c9d9e052438c0c8299d8e01af53ca435cbc59) or defining World's Top Goal Scorer of the Year as the top international goals scorer exclusively, during Ronaldo's prime, and then changing it to the expected criteria of "all goals on all competitions" (http://www.rsssf.com/miscellaneous/iffhs-various.html), which would have made Messi sweep Cristiano

Neither IFFHS or RSSSF is perfect, that's why the article has being overhauled with numerous third party sources from various countries, to avoid possible bias. And by the way, there was no year 0. So the first decade was 1-10. So accordingly, the most recent complete decade was 2011-2020. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 18:29, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Hello!

Indeed, the decades count from 1 (not 0), so a 2010-2019 decade, even though is a decade - 10 years in a row, is wrong to be used for comparisons, 2011-2020 is the correct one, and of course that's why the 21st century starts in 2001, and not in 2000.

On another matter, RSSSF's ranking is not an alternative to IFFHS's, and neither is IFFHS's to RSSSF's. IFFHS's is only about top-level competitions, but RSSSF's include the official goals in all official matches, non top-level competitions also included, and it's the only one that includes the whole official career of the players. None is better than the other, and of course both are correct. Merging them makes no sense at all, and I cannot come up with a rationale for merging them. The merging (inclusion of the players' goal tally in RSSSF's in a new column in IFFHS's list) "broke" the ranking RSSSF's had, since players are omitted. Besides, RSSSF's includes as well the appearances so to include the goals per appearance ratio, which is the secondary factor for their ranking, i.e. if two players have the same number of goals then the one with a better ratio is in a better (smaller) position. Can you make it like it was before, in two separate lists?

Kind regards!

Nialarfatem (talk) 19:51, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Hello!

In addition, in case you really want to have just one table, a thing I don't understand at all (two separate tables makes more sense and was fine), it would make more sense to add the IFFHS's list data next to RSSSF's table, so to not ruin the rankings, and also to not ruin the appearances in RSSSF's list, which play a vital role in the ranking, but I think a merging isn't needed at all and restoring the article to its former two-separate lists version would be enough.

On a side note, the sources you have added are fine. The article lacked information relative to the story, and now it doesn't.

Kind regards!

Nialarfatem (talk) 22:47, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Most of the sources I've found use stats which correlate with those of IFFHS. Most of them tend to agree that, for example, that Ronaldo has the record possibly, and Pele has around 765 goals, and Jones has either 646 or 647. The RFFFS stats wildly differentiate on almost every player. It's not really an "IFFHS" list as such (hence why I changed the title of the table), and there will be notes inserted into the table highlighting an assortment of tallies from other sources (specifically for Bican, Pele, Romario and Puskas. But IFFHS have all 23 players in one place - which no other major source does bar RFFFS - and it is reliable, so I think it's worth using their order while also explaining why it may or may not be wholly accurate.
And regarding the RFFFS table, it is mentioned a lot by other sources to the point that I thought it was worth noting the RFFFS figures specifically in the lead table, and having the independent table underneath showing other players that their research has found who have scored 500 goals. Therefore without over-amplifying the data of players like Helmchem and Deak which is, though reliable and of interest, faulty for the purposes of Wikipedia as was discussed in another section above. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 23:14, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Hello!

It's possible IFFHS's list to have left out players who have 500 or more goals in top-level competitions, because the top-level league they played wasn't professional, i.e. seems to me their list isn't only about numbers on top-level competitions, but instead about professional top-level competitions, and this is totally wrong, because it leaves out more than two football eras. I can't imagine a prolific scorers list, where players like Ferenc Deák, Abe Lenstra, Ernst Wilimowski, Ferenc Bene, Gyula Zsengellér, Túlio Maravilha, Fritz Walter, Jimmy Greaves, Sándor Kocsis (one of the few players to have a goalscoring ratio bigger than 1 in more than 40 international matches, he and Gerd Müller are the most famous ones for this), Zico, Nándor Hidegkuti, József Takács, Hans Krankl and Gunnar Nordahl are all left out. I actually consider it a "football crime" these names to be missing from the prolific scorers. RFFFS's list, even though it has many issues and a lot of its data is ambiguous, it's way more complete than IFFHS's ranking, crediting footballers of all eras and levels.

P.S. RFFFS is more reliable than IFFHS. The latter mentioned is directly affiliated with FIFA, and that itself is a good enough reason to lose its credibility.

Kind regards!

Nialarfatem (talk) 23:58, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

You're more than welcome to try and create consensus a new mate. But bear in mind all the reliable sources in the article tend to agree approximately with the IFFHS numbers, and that this article, and the stats therein, aren't based on personal thoughts and feelings. But as I mentioned in my previous comment, it's worth highlighting those players who may have possibly scored 500 (your Deaks, your Helmchens, your Lenstras), even if most sources don't agree. History isn't being completely denied, it's just impossible to quantify. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 10:55, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

First of all, there is an official definition of FIFA for official matches. If I recall correctly, goals in any tournament recognized by FIFA + any national team match (including U21,U18.. and friendlies). The problem really comes at what "professional" means. By "professional" criteria, you should probably account a lot of goals on second or even third tier domestic leagues, as it is not rare to see a 16 years old earning more than a minimum wage. Secondly, RSSFS at least breaks down the data in their notes by competition etc... so you can at least know the criteria. The amount of detail is huge, whereas IFFHS just exposes a table with no references to matches in a website that looks like a clumpsy set of pages — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:C50E:3802:B600:1D37:6963:B00E:9FAF (talk) 21:25, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

It's preferrable a source that does not have a strict criteria on what professional goals mean. Things like current "Includes national league (top divisions) and regional league (taken into account only those having the strength comparable to national league)." are purely subjective. Since when is the strength of a league a criteria to account or not goals? Should we remove Ali Daei from the national teams top scorers lists because he plays against Yemen? Or let's ponder Cristiano since he has to face Luxemburg and Andorra while Messi is playing against important selections all the time? Or let's remove Maradona, he was not even in shape when nowadays we get atheletes with 10% fat in their bodies.

Obfuscating data

There's no reason whatever to include half of the RSSSF data in the IFFHS table, and the other half separatedly. It's unreadable and illogical. List of countries by life expectancy. It is already the standard in Wikipedia to make a different list for each source.--LoorNabs (talk) 11:15, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

There's no reason to include any of the RFFFS data in the first place seeing as it's invalid to Wikipedia's use of statistics by including friendlies, but some sources do make mention of their stats in regards to the top players i.e. Bican, Ronaldo, Pelé. And if you're arguing about using separate tables because of readability, I'd hardly use that article when it quite clearly contains far more information by a factor of about 10. This is a list of 20+ footballers who've scored some goals, adding one column blatantly doesn't make it unreadable. Having two tables with no reason why beyond "it used to be like this" when the lead already explains why the RSSSF statistics aren't widely regarded as the "real" numbers. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 11:45, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

1. If you want to argue the removal of the RSSSF data, that's another topic entirely. We are arguing about nonsensically merging the data.
2. How long it stood like that is actually relevant. When there is a disagreement, it's Wikipedia policy to temporarily keep it as it had been for the longest time.
3. It is absolutely more unreadable. You have to move up and down to reconstruct the list mentally, instead of simply having the list separatedly.
4. Logically speaking, there's no reason whatever to place the data there, as the methodology is different.
5. In terms of Wiki standards, a different methodology and source means a different list.--LoorNabs (talk) 11:55, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

I'm not arguing for the removal. What on earth made you think I was suggesting that? How long it stood like that isn't relevant when the article was atrociously sourced as it was, but please can you find me that policy you mention? You don't have to move up and down anywhere as neither table has a ranking, because as explained in the lead, it's unclear who even has the most goals. In terms of Wiki standards, RFFFS methodology isn't even acceptable in the first place and so to give it credence and prominence would be an error, however as the lead states, some sources do refer to their data and it is of interest, if not of any legitimacy for the most part. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 12:06, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

You admitted that you're merging them because it "shouldn't be so prominently reported by having a completely separate table." So you pretty much admit you're merging it to purposefuly obfuscate the data. That's a problem. If you believe the data shouldn't be on Wikipedia, then argue for its removal. Obfuscation is not an option.

Both RSSSF and IFFHS are reputable organizations. The logical way to do things is having two lists and detailing each methodology in the paragraph preceding the list. RSSSF has a broader methodology that takes more elements into account. If those extra elements make it "weaker", that's a personal opinion. It's far more neutral and encyclopedic to explain the methodology than quote mining news articles to try and erode its credibility.LoorNabs (talk) 12:21, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

The data isn't being obfuscated by including RFFFS numbers as the lead explains in great detail. And I mean, the column is very clearly titled as "RFFFS". I'm not arguing that any such data shouldn't be included on Wikipedia, again, what has made you say this when it was me that originally moved the data into the foremost table? And can you find me the Wikipedia policy you mentioned about "temporarily keeping it as it had been for the longest time" - thanks. "It's neutral to include the data with original research, rather than using sources from 10 countries from 3 continents which explains in great detail why their methodology is flawed". What are you, Greek? All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 12:35, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

1. Wikipedia:Don't revert due solely to "no consensus". Ultimately, if it comes down to requesting arbitration, what I described is what usually happens, so I am fine with requesting arbitration.
2. "There's no reason to include any of the RFFFS data in the first place", "shouldn't be so prominently reported by having a completely separate table". You said this. You admit you're obfuscating the data because you don't think it deserves to be here.
3. Original research refers to our own research. RSSSF is a reputable organization and doesn't qualify as own research. It qualifies as a source.
4. Regarding how many organizations use the same methodology: I don't see the issue. The methodology is narrower, therefore simpler. It's not a surprise that it's more popular, since it's easier to compile.
5. RSSSF offers a deeper perspective with more elements. Whether it makes it "weaker" (in terms of who "deserves" to hold the record) is of little consequence. The data is correct regardless of your subjective valuation.LoorNabs (talk) 13:00, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

That essay A) isn't policy, and B) isn't what happened here, seeing as I was doing BRD to somebody who it then appeared was vandalising the page. I'm obfuscating data by... arguing for its' inclusion in the foremost table as an alternate figure despite my objections to its' worth, and discussing it in great detail in the lead? "Original research refers to our own research... the methodology is narrow, therefore simple. It's not a surprise that it's more popular. RFFFS offers a deeper perspective with more elements". So you're saying it's your own original research why you're arguing against all the changes that have been made to the page? RFFFS does indeed qualify as a source, which is why it has a column in the foremost table, a column that the inclusion of is qualified in the lead. Have you read the lead, by the way? Every question you have is basically answered there already. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 13:21, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

1. The essay touches on multiple policies.
2. You already admitted you are butchering the table because you don't think it deserves to be readable. I don't know why you're now pretending you're doing the data a favor by adding it to the "foremost table". There's no need for a "foremost table." There are two different methodologies by two reputable organizations, so the logical conclusion is to have two tables.
3. It's not my research.
4. The lead isn't being discussed here.LoorNabs (talk) 13:42, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

The essay touches on no relevant policies because I was reverting because of the WP:BRD policy, as I explained in my last message. /// I admitted to "butchering the table" (read: improving the table) based on the general consensus of reliable sources that generally state that the RSSSF data isn't correct, while also acknowledging that the information exists. It's not my fault you don't trust reliable sources from 10 countries. /// If that wasn't your own research, you can find me a source which says that the IFFHS methodology is narrow, and then you can find me a source which says that the IFFHS data is more popular because of this, and then you can find me a source which says that the RFFFS offers a "deeper perspective". Agreed? /// There is a need for a foremost table, because, as I've explained already to you, all reliable sources indicate that the information in the foremost table is generally accurate, and a lot of reliable sources acknowledge the existence of RFFFS data while also saying it maybe isn't wholly accurate. As is already explained. In the lead. Which I've asked you to read. And I am asking you again. To read. The lead. Please. All these questions and comments are already addressed in the lead. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 13:54, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

The problem is that you're trying to veer the discussion away from "two different methodologies, two different sources, two different tables" to "read these paragraphs where I quote mined some news articles". RSSSF is a reputable organization and it doesn't need defending, so I wont' waste a second on it.

I would go further and say you're misconstructing what these "sources from 10 countries" actually say regarding RSSSF. They don't say anything that RSSSF doesn't already explain on their own research.

Regarding "narrow" and "broad" ("deeper"), that is self-evident. RSSSF takes into account more elements. It's not a subjective appreciation.LoorNabs (talk) 14:08, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

"The problem is that you're using 50 sources rather than just two, this is bad actually". That's you, that is. I'm not veering the subject "away" from anything except to what is representative in the wider media landscape, hence what is written in the lead. /// I haven't "quote mined" anything. You're more than welcome to find sources which back up whatever nonsense it is that you want the article to say. but there aren't just two different sources, there's dozens and dozens cited in the article. That's why I've written the lead the way it is, and this isn't WP:OWN on my part, because I've invited you to help improve the article by finding additional sources. But you haven't and I know for a fact you won't. And can you kindly point out where I've "misconstructing" [sic] what the sources actually say, please? /// The only source which identifies the RFFFS data as the correct data for the purposes of this article is RFFFS. You say it's "self-evident" that the RFFFS data is "deeper" and yet A) you haven't a source to back up this, so it's original research, and B) not one solitary sources I've found in my research actually cares, other than those referenced in the lead. The vast majority of sources, as I've already told you, use data which correlate along the same lines as the data produced and published by the IFFHS. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 14:37, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

I agree with LoorNabs (talk). This page needs 2 tables according to the 2 major sources: IFFHS and RFFFS. IFFHS - top-level competitions and RFFFS - all levels competitions. Those 2 football organizations have different methodologies and both are right. Thank you! --Liviulord (talk) 14:58, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

"both are right" is clearly original research when literally no major source agrees with this. Unless you have a source, that is, which would be more than welcomed Liviulord? All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 15:47, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

I think I've reached a better compromise - the full RSSSF list is now on its' own article, where it hasn't been "obfuscated" by being merged into the primary list, while also not also being overly prominent. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 18:17, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Hi Liviulord you seem to have a problem with the compromise proposed above, can you explain why? And if you're going to accuse somebody of vandalism, try not to copy and paste it from your own page next time as you did here, OK? Thanks. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 12:08, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Hi ItsKesha. You dont respect the name of the page: „List of footballers with 500 or more goals”. 1 - IFFHS source is a ranked table, not alphabetical like yours. 2 - RSSSF ia a major source and you create a top 10 table (there are 51 players, not 10). 3 - All users told you already you have a problem with vandalism and they are right. 4 - If you want to modify something important, talk with other users on this talk page. Liviulord (talk) 12:20, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

The first word of the name of article is List, Liviulord. Not lists. List. So, who is it that isn't respecting the name of the page? It isn't an "IFFHS" list. It's a list of footballers with 500 or more goals. The article already explains that RSSSF statistics are in a minority of one, every other major source has figures either exactly the same as, or very close to, the general list published by, yes, IFFHS. /// But different sources have different figures - IFFHS say 720 for Bican and he's ranked 6th, FIFA say 805 so he should be 1st according to them. There's a sentence in the article which says that CNN, BBC et al figure that 805 includes friendlies. So is it 805 or 768? Pele has 765 according to IFFHS, but 767 according to La Gazzetta, L'Equipe, etc. But Cristiano Ronaldo didn't acknowledge the accomplishment until he'd scored an extra few more, as he and other sources say military goals count. Sky Sports, Diario AS and Deustche Walle all said 757 for Pele. IFFHS say Muller has 634, yet every major source says he is one of eight players to have scored over 700. /// This is all covered in great detail in the lead, but I know for a fact that, like the other people I've tried discussing this with, you simply haven't read the article. Because, it clearly summarises that there's no definitive answer for how many goals these players have scored. You can't say Bican is definitely 6th, because he might be 2nd, 3rd, or 1st. You can not say if Pele is 2nd, 3rd, or 4th. Therefore, you can't rank them by whatever the IFFHS says, it's absolute nonsense, they aren't the sole source of this information, they aren't the sole arbiter of what's right and wrong. /// And the article also covers the anomalous statistics of the RSSSF, which clearly evocates that their information shouldn't be covered in great detail - but still, they're mentioned, a top 10 was displayed, a full list of the 51 was very clearly linked to at the RFFFS page. I don't understand your problem with that as a compromise. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 13:04, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Image caption

Please read MOS:CAPSUCCINCT, Nialarfatem. As it says, "Succinct captions have more power than verbose ones. More than three lines of text in a caption may be distracting; instead, further information can be provided in the article body". You've added needless information that is already in the article about which organisations consider who the top scorer, and therefore the caption saying he is "widely believed" is factually accurate and succinct, whereas saying "believed to be the top goalscorer of all time by most of the known football media outlets (not by football statistics organizations or FIFA)" is not succinct and not even factually accurate. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 17:53, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Hello ItsKesha!

It may be succinct, but it does not stand factually, because without mentioning that the same weight is given, for instance, both to what Marca and RSSSF claims, which is wrong, so I suggest instead scrapping it or making it only for top-level competitions, which is a thing supported by IFFHS...

Cheers!

Nialarfatem (talk) 18:20, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Is Ronaldo widely believed to be the top goalscorer of all time? Yes, yes he is. The 50+ sources included in the article demonstrate this, not just Marca. There are three that say otherwise. Therefore, saying he is "widely believed" is an entirely accurate summation of the points made in the article about Ronaldo i.e. factually correct and succinct. Rambling on in a caption about sources and statistics, it's just overkill. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 19:03, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Date of birth

@ItsKesha: Why do you feel that date of birth is a relevant statistic for the table? I was also aligning the Years played section with the table above.

a)

Rank	Player	Birth	Years	Goals	Matches	Ratio
1	Erwin Helmchen	1907	1924–1951	982+	575	1.71

b}

Rank	Player	Goals	Matches	Ratio	Years
1	Erwin Helmchen	982+	575	1.71	1924–1951

Just thought that I'd bring it up rather than falling foul of 3RR Felixsv7 (talk) 15:44, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Apologies if your edit got caught in my reversion, I agree completely. That was a poor edit on my behalf. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 18:39, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

No worries bud, have a good one Felixsv7 (talk) 18:44, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

"IFFHS list"

The lead table isn't an "IFFHS" list, it's a standard list of players who have scored 500 goals, players and figures which much of the media agree with. The list will be amended in due course to recognise all the differing figures that different media outlets put forth. There should be no ranking either, as it's impossible to say who has scored X amount of goals and if that's more than Y amount of goals scored by Player Z. Bican could be 6th, he could be 1st, he might be 3rd or 2nd, same for Pele, same for Romario, same for Ronaldo. It's a list of players with 500 or more goals, not a list of players with the most goals. Trying to nail down specific rankings is confusing and impossible as the lead states, and has been carefully worded and written with all of this in mind. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 16:24, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Liviulord the talk page has already been used for this discussion. Care to explain exactly what your disagreement is with? All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 10:43, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Live updates

The sections with the tables needs additional sources other than the IFFHS and RFFFS. Live updates for active players are useless without additional sources, as the two aforementioned sources don't perform live updates and are not kept up to date. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 21:52, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Thoughts Liviulord? All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 21:52, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

In my opinion, live updates are more accurate. All my warmest wishes, Liviulord (talk) 22:10, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

That doesn't come close to answering the proposition, Liviulord. Live updates are worthless without a consistent additional source. And please stop stealing my signature or I'll have to view it as harassment. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 22:12, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Stealing your signature? I have the freedom to use any words I want. You don`t invent this words: „All my warmest wishes”. And you do not own copyright to them. My signature is Liviulord and yours is ItsKesha. You have a problem with me? If you will continue to harass me, I will report you. If you want to talk kindly, I will gladly answer you. Liviulord (talk) 22:23, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Yes, stealing my signature. Don't play dumb mate, we both know what you're doing. No, I don't have a "probmel" (sic) with you, I have a "probmel" (sic) with people who vandalise pages and make unsourced edits and make zero attempt at having a civilised debate. And I certainly haven't harassed you, I've warned you as to your vandalising edits and sourceless edits. And you certainly haven't provided a source to say Lewandowski has 512 goals. And now here we are, you escalating things for no reason because you've received some pushback on your edits. And please use :: to paragraph correctly when responding. Definitely a coincidence that you're can't paragraph properly on these talk pages, I'm sure. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 22:34, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Please, speak nicely to me! I realize you don't know what vandalism means. 1 - I respect the IFFHS source (https://www.iffhs.com/posts/980) with a ranked table by number of goals in top-level competitions and you reverted my entire work, putting an alphabetical table that don't respect the source. 2 - I made a live update of the table with lewandowski goal against koln and you reverted my work because you don't like live updates. It is obvious that you cannot leave the table as it was on 1 March 2021, when the IFFHS source was posted because it would be out of date. 3 - With this reverts, you make zero attempt at having civilised debate. 4 - I have the freedom to use any words I want. You don't invent this words: „All my warmest wishes”. And you do not own copyright to them. 5 - What kind of language is this: „Don't play dumb mate, we both know what you're doing”? I don't play any dumb, I am honest with you. Thank you! Liviulord (talk) 07:31, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

The IFFHS isn't the only source in the world. I've already explained my reasons for changing how the table is displayed on this talk page and even invited your discussion but you haven't responded. You made a live update without any source other than the Bayern Munich website which doesn't report him scoring 512 goals, hence your edits were reverted. I've tried having several civilised debates but you have harassed me on multiple occasions. Again, please stop playing dumb, you know what you're doing in copying my signature, I've asked you nicely to stop. And for the last time please use :: to paragraph correctly when responding. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 10:26, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

1 - Yes, you are right. The IFFHS is not the only source in the world, but is a major one. They posted a ranked table sorted by number of goals, RSSSF also posted a ranked table sorted by number of goals. Another websites or newspapers also use a hierarchy according to the goals scored, because it's about numbers, records and competition. In my opinion, ranked tables are the most efficient and clear, users understand exactly the numbers and the hierarchy. 2 - Regarding live updates, they are more accurate. It is obvious that you cannot leave the table as it was on 1 March 2021, when the IFFHS source was posted because it would be out of date. And if you do not agree with the live updates, what do you suggest? You cannot leave the table as it was on 1 March 2021, but in the same time you don't agree the live updates. What is your effective proposal? Thank you and have a nice day! Liviulord (talk) 10:59, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Yes, they posted a ranked table, but this isn't an IFFHS list, this article isn't about the IFFHS. It's a "list of footballers with 500 or more goals". As an example of how flawed the current table is, the IFFHS has Bican on 720 goals, yet FIFA has him on 805, several other reliable sources have different figures around the 760-770 range, it's why having a ranking on the table is complete nonsense, and choosing one source is simply not a good solution! As I already explained in the section on this page which you were invited to discuss this. And I clearly didn't say I disagreed with live updates, I said "Live updates for active players are useless without additional sources" (literally the second sentence of this entire discussion). If the inline source is not up to date, you need additional sources. Both the above are why I tagged the section with {{One source section|date=August 2021}}. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 11:41, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

My opinion: 1 - ranked tables sorted by number of goals according to the major sources (two for the moment: IFFHS and RSSSF; and maybe more in the future); 2 - live updates of the tables with or without sources; 3 - a section in article for each major source (IFFHS - top level and RSSSF - all levels), how it was here (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_footballers_with_500_or_more_goals&oldid=1039640853). I understand your point of view, but I would like to read the opinions of other users who work at this page and find out their ideas. We think differently, but that doesn't mean we have to have a conflict. We can understand each other. How we can invite them in this conversation? Thank you and have a nice day! Liviulord (talk) 13:52, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

But there aren't two "major sources". At present there's over 50 used in the article, the vast majority of which disagree with the IFFHS assessment that Bican scored 720 and Muller scored 634. Having a ranking is daft when it's demonstrably incorrect at present. And the 50+ sources, as well as Wikipedia/Project policy, definitely all disagree with the RFFFS numbers. You simply can't make unsourced edits, otherwise it's original research, a clear violation of policy. The tables need additional sources which are continuously updated, which neither the IFFHS or RFFFS sources are. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 14:20, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

You know my opinion and I know your opinion. I would like to read the opinions of other users who work at this page and find out their ideas. How we can invite them in this conversation? You have any idea? Thank you! Liviulord (talk) 15:12, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

@Liviulord: I completely agree with @ItsKesha: it is a matter of reliable sources. Wikipedia goes with what the majority of the most reliable sources say, not one single source above all others. Doing so would be biased in favor of that one source. ––𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲 talk 15:52, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

The most recent

About the caption. Lewandowski scored his 500th goal in January 2021, while Suarez in May 2021. SojerPL (talk) 22:34, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Suarez was March, Lewandowski was May. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 23:51, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Glen Ferguson

If IFFHS is about top level, why Glen Ferguson is in? He scored zero goals at any level higher than the North Irish league. The north Dutch league of Abe Lenstra was definitely stronger.--Maxaxax (talk) 15:52, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

I understand what you're saying about Norn Iron, afterall there was the issue in the 90's of players from tinpot leagues winning the European Golden Boot until they changed the formulas. But the Dutch league was amateur until the 1950's and not played at a national level, which basically wipes out much of Lenstra's output. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 01:40, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Update?

Hello everyone, I am a new member of wikipedia! And one of the pages I am very interested in, is the list of footballers with 500 goals or more (especially the list without all the youth goals). Therefore, I probably don't know all the inns and outs, but can anyone expain me why now (21 september 2021) Ronaldo isn't on 789 goals and Messi isn't on 751 goals??

And the Lewandowski number (511 goals in the first list) is also a bit of a mystery for me. If you started counting from his Lech Poznan days - it should be 521 goals. Right?

But, probably I am missing something!! Hope someone can fill me in.

Thanks already!

probably the upgrade is the first day of new month. 79.32.40.122 (talk) 06:17, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia relies on reliable sources, and as per the discussions above this one, nobody has provided a reliable source for any "live updates" to be performed with reliability. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 08:57, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Isn't https://www.footballdatabase.eu/en/ enough for the source? JustMeEdit (talk) 13:05, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Dunno. It says Pele scored 336 goals, Josef Bican scored 9 goals, and Glenn Ferguson scored 5 goals. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 15:01, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for answering! It's still a bit of a mystery, but ok.. Last Sunday Ronaldo scored a goal. And before and after that goal - Ronaldo was in this list on 785 goals. Does that mean that goal doesn't count as an official goal? In other words; when is a goal an offical goal with a reliable source?

Have a good weekend everyone!