Talk:Premier League Golden Boot

Table order

Chronological tables should be written in order from oldest to newest. See MOS:WORKS. – PeeJay 12:52, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

This isn't a list of works by anybody's imagination. It looks bloody ridiculous in your oldest first format, any normal reader expects the most recent winner of an award to be listed at the top. If you cannot find a guideline that fits the actual situation, then per Wikipedia convention, leave it in the format it was created in, unless or until you have consensus to change it. MickMacNee (talk) 16:04, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Apparently I can't show you a guideline at this time (although I'm sure one exists), but I can show you precedent. And lots of it. Would you like examples? How about this article's brother, List of Premier League seasons? Or what about any club's list of seasons? List of Manchester United F.C. seasons, List of Aston Villa F.C. seasons and List of Chelsea F.C. seasons all start with the oldest entry at the top and the most recent at the bottom. Even if there is no guideline on this, there is certainly an argument for consistency. – PeeJay 16:37, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Or featured lists FWA Footballer of the Year, PFA Young Player of the Year, List of FA Vase winners, etc etc. I must not be a "normal reader" because personally I'd always expect to see such a list in chronological order, not reverse chronological order.... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:04, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and the relevant WP policy is here, which states that chronological lists should be in "oldest to newest" order -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:05, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

This discussion has moved over to the project. And for what it's worth, lists are always in chronological order. Just as you'd expect to find them in encyclopedias, annuals, etc. The great thing is we have "sortability" so if you really want to list them in reverse chronological order (i.e. in reverse to the lead), then you can! The Rambling Man (talk) 17:07, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

True enough - if I opened this year's edition of the Nationwide Football Annual and found that they'd put the list of FA Cup winners in reverse order, I'd think it looked "bloody ridiculous" -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:10, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Mick, I'm interested to know why you think chronological ordering would look "bloody ridiculous"? Forget our guidelines, what's wrong with starting with the Golden Boot of the first Prem season, and working in chronological order? The Rambling Man (talk) 17:13, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

I think it is wholly stupid, that's why. In my opinion, the average reader clicking this article is likely going to be most interested in who won it last. Who won it in 1992 is likely to be way down the list of 'I wonder what' questions in most readers minds, when they see this article. Oldest first format merely means most people simply end up wearing out their spacebar quicker, for zero benefit. Trying to make Wikipedia look like its competitors is simply a daft ideal. Most likely, paper based references don't do it this way because their editions won't hit the shelves the minute the latest winner is known, and the obvious pain in the ass of forcing most readers to 'scroll down' is hardly an issue for printed books either. I think it is a wholly backward way of looking at how best to present such information, if this is the only reason for writing such a convention. Still, creating FOOTY articles, it's been a joy, as ever. MickMacNee (talk) 18:08, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

I'd agree with you if weren't for the fact that our lists now have far more comprehensive leads, and tend to have the "first", "most recent" and other (somehow more significant) recipients. Then, the lists goes on in chronological order (per our guidelines) and even then, can be sorted in reverse order with a single click. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:10, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

As I created the article with both of those features already in it, you can be rest assured I already know this.... MickMacNee (talk) 18:17, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Actually, no, you didn't include the first winner in the lead, perhaps an oversight, and perhaps why you'd prefer the list in reverse chronological order. Still, we have our guidelines, and we seem to have a consensus that the current ordering is preferable. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:26, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Header order

Considering this is a list of Golden Boot winners, shouldn't the order of the columns "Club" and "Winner" in the header be reversed to look like this:

Season	Winner	Club	Goals	Games	Rate

Just my opinion since the winner, as the most relevant information, should be placed more to the left. Digirami (talk) 22:14, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

My thinking was that the number of goals etc is more relevantly placed beside the name of the players. MickMacNee (talk) 23:48, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

No doubt you'll take this personally, but please don't - I actually agree with Digirami. I think the player's name should be placed to the left of the club name. – PeeJay 00:03, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, the individuals are far more relevant than the club. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:26, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

References

English top scorer?

Why do we need a list of the English top scorers? They don't get a special award just because they are English and scored a lot of goals. This article is called "Premier League Golden Boot", so it should be about the Premier League Golden Boot, not some list of players who are only included because they are from the same country as the competition is played in. – PeeJay 20:20, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

While it may be tangential, it is clearly not unrelated. The top scoring Englishman in the English Premier League is always noted by the press, even if he doesn't get an 'award', because the EPL is where 99% of England national team players play. If it doesn't belong here, suggest another article, I am open to alternatives. But seeing as it is only recently that the list has diverged from simply being a reprint of the list of Golden Boot winners, this seems as good a place as any, if not ideal. I don't think it's worth its own article, but if necessary, there would be ample sources out there to show it could have one based on its own notability. MickMacNee (talk) 20:27, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Bottom line is that it's your opinion that this is related to the Golden Boot award. Personally, I love it, because I get to see two of my club's players "in lights", but it's really pushing it to suggest it should be included in an article about the Golden Boot. At most I'd expect a line or two about English players not making the grade. While English players have a minority stake in the Premier League, this is original research. Make an standalone article by all means. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:31, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

My opinion aside, this should be more than a two/three editor debate. Please, as I suggested on PeeJay2k3's talk page, let's gather opinion from WP:FOOTBALL and other circles. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:39, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

(e/c)Maybe I am a little put off by taking the extra time to create whole new articles on football because all I get for doing so is shit basically. I am thinking that a few years ago, a sub optimal situation of having a tangential section in another article might have been tolerated for more than a few hours before effectively deleting it, in the spirit of NOTFINISHED. It's a bit premature to be even discussing what should and should not be in a Golden Boot article anyway, it is 'start class', and itself has only existed for 24 hours 10 minutes! MickMacNee (talk) 20:40, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough. We can all be accused of being a little trigger-happy these days, with Undo and Revert and Twinkle and all that gubbins. The disputed content it definitely useful, but we should discuss the best place for it. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:43, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Nah, it's pure OR. Not every useful titbit belongs in an encyclopedia; this isn't the almanac that anyone can edit. Furthermore it's off-topic; the article is about an award, not a statistic. if this were a list of top scorers in the Premier League by nationality then fair enough, although I'd imagine that wouldn't survive forever. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:10, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, that is what I just said. It could be useful somewhere, it probably doesn't belong here. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:28, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

It's Original Research that the media takes notice of the top scoring Englishman in the English Premier League? Sorry, that's pure nonsense. Wikipedia is not an almanac, but it's also not blind to the outside world. We are taking about an encyclopoedia that until two days ago, didn't even acknowledge there was even a Premier League Golden Boot award. Anyone thinking that this crappy site is even remotely finished right now, and that any further sensible additions are OR/stats, and simply not required, is not here to build an encyclopoedia. Christ, we have shit like list of US Presidents who are left handed. And yes, OSE and all that, but come on, this is hardly an abscure topic. If people are simply going to act like this, nobody is going to add to football topics at all. It's alreay the worst topic area to work in out of the entire site in my experience. MickMacNee (talk) 11:37, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry you feel that way; I rather think the opposite, that WP:FOOTY is practically the model WikiProject. "The media" takes notice of almost every little statistic related to British sportspersons, but arguing that trivia like being the highest-scoring Englishman in the EPL should be aggregated in its own articles would require that this subject received significant non-trivial coverage in itself (as opposed to simply being attached to descriptions people). I don't think that it has done. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:03, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Nobody has put it into its own article yet, so worrying about the presence or absence of "significant non-trivial coverage" is an irrelevance, because that does not govern what this is at present, a section in an article, but not necessarily the right article, as I've already said. Wikipedia's football coverage is so far behind complete, that the logical article that this table could comfortably go in, is years away from being created. But to take the position that this info is a characteristic that is simply just another piece of oft-recorded stat-trivia, that Wikipedia would never ever collate anywhere, isn't remotely believable, certainly not from people who claim to know about football. If people are a bit rusty on what Wikipedia is and is not, just read the first lines of the Five pillars. If people think Wikipedia is 'not an almanac' full stop, they are sorely mistaken. And this sort of info easily makes it into the category of what a completed, comprehensive, general encyclopoedia would incorporate from specialist football almanacs, by any reasonable definition. MickMacNee (talk) 14:11, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Not really: it's just a typical example of cherry-picking statistics. It would seem that one reason why it took until the other day for Wikipedia to contain such information because nobody cared enough to add it. But now we're just gainsaying, and I'd rather spend my time more productively than continuing to argue over it for now. Let's see what others think. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 14:53, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Again, your logic is flawed. Neither topic was covered until a couple of days ago. And I am the creator of both. I've got thousands of edits and hundreds of articles under my belt, in various topics. You want to suggest that on Monday I am capable of correctly identifying and fixing a gap in Wikipedia's coverage, yet the very next day you want to characterise me as an editor who inserts random bollocks nobody is interested in, who wouldn't know valid info fit for Wikipedia if he tripped over it. With reasoning like that, why should anybody believe you when you say it is just any old random stat? MickMacNee (talk) 17:21, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Sigh. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 18:00, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes? Your point is what exactly? This bullshit is exactly why I do not consider the FOOTY project a "model project", and rather see it as a project dominated by editors hell-bent on aggravating people into a rage for simply not agreeing with their opinions about their topic, even though they know full well when they are and when they are not dealing with dumb n00bs, who simply might not know policy. I have seen the same shit for three years now, from the same tiny clique, while I see nothing that even compares from other projects. It is frankly pathetic. MickMacNee (talk) 18:39, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I think you've just adequately explained my point. I'll wait to see what other input we get on this. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 18:46, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Another pointless and aggravating comment in the same veign as the last one. So my reply is the same as yours, 'you are merely illustrating my point'. MickMacNee (talk) 18:51, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Lead section

Is it just me, or is the lead section way too long now? Its length has reduced the "Recipients" section to barely nothing, such that it might as well not exist, which leads me to suggest that the lead should be re-condensed and any details should be put into relevant sections in the main body of the article (as it was before, except more detailed thanks to Bloom6132's fine work). – PeeJay 23:06, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

@PeeJay2K3: Yeah, it's a bit on the long side. I've eliminated the "Recipients" section, as I haven't found a source for the "Golden Boot winner—Premier League champion" correlation. But I'm not too keen on splitting the lead, as I don't think separating the first two paragraphs (used for a new lead) from the last two (used for a new separate section) will result in sections that are thorough and comprehensive enough. I'm planning to take this to FLC very soon – maybe a solution will be proposed there (if necessary). Cheers! —Bloom6132 (talk) 16:51, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Golden Boot Landmark Award

Is there a section listing the "Premier League Golden Boot Landmark Award"?

If not, is it worth adding to this article?

SG73 (talk) 14:48, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

No, it's not necessary and isn't worth adding to this featured list, which covers only the award given out at the very end of the season. The landmark awards are pure trivia, extremely insignificant and rarely predict who'll win the actual award. The Golden Boot award at the end is the real prize. —Bloom6132 (talk) 14:56, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree it shouldn't be added to this section. I don't agree that it's pure trivia though. I think it should recorded somewhere, not sure where. I'm a Wiki novice and no idea how to to do anything other than minor changes. I only asked on this page, as people have been linking the "landmark awards" to it. An award is actually given to the player. If this award is trivial, so is the player/manager of the month in my opinion. SG73 (talk) 15:56, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Didn't the "Landmark Award" used to be part of this article? As a related award, I can't think of any article other than this one that it would be suited for, so I think it should be included here. – PeeJay 16:20, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it did use to be part of this article – when it wasn't a featured list. Now that it is featured, let's leave well enough alone. This FL deals with only the year-end award, so if you want one about the "Landmark Award", it'll have to be in a new article. —Bloom6132 (talk) 16:24, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Whose idea was it to remove the info in the first place? Surely it wasn't an impediment to the article being promoted? After all, just because an article reaches Featured status, that doesn't mean it's a perfect article by any means. The info should be re-added to this article. – PeeJay 17:09, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

There's a reason why the PL Player of the Season and Player of the Month awards are kept in separate lists. Sure, there both related, but they aren't similar. The same should apply here to the Landmark Awards vs. the actual year-end one. As for this list's featured status, you could've participated in the FLC when it was opened (for over a month). Consensus (which included comments from two WP:FOOTBALL members who are also admins) has concluded that this is the most optimal format. —Bloom6132 (talk) 18:11, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

I didn't participate in the FLC because I am too heavily involved with the article itself. As for the other editors' opinions (their admin status is irrelevant), were they presented with a version of the article that included the Landmark Award info? – PeeJay 19:09, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Being involved in an article doesn't preclude your participation in the FLC. I've seen it done several times, and involved reviewers simply get around by not casting a support vote. I mean no offence when I say this, but none of the edits you made were responsible in taking this from a simple, unsourced list to an FL. IMO, that is enough to claim minimal involvement. And no, reviewers were not presented with the Landmark Award info, because that would have lead to a failed FLC. Unsourced info is an automatic failing condition. —Bloom6132 (talk) 19:28, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

The sources would have been easy to find if you'd been bothered to look for them, so I don't see how you can say it would have definitely led to a failed FLC. If sourcing was the only issue, which I can now clearly see that it was, the info should be re-added. – PeeJay 19:37, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

"If you'd been bothered to look for them" – excuse me? I actually searched endlessly for sources, and (quite predictably) found only recent winners. Don't take it out on me just because you weren't able to get credit for this FLC, OK? And you still haven't addressed my valid point of keeping this list separate just like the PL Player of the Season and Month lists. —Bloom6132 (talk) 19:45, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Because I wasn't able to take credit? I have no interest in taking credit for other people's work, nor is my entire experience of Wikipedia defined by the number of articles I help get to Featured status, so I suggest you apologise for that assumption. And obviously you didn't search endlessly or you'd still be looking now. How many did you find sources for? I'll see if I can find the rest. – PeeJay 20:21, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

You're expecting me to apologize?! You're the one who blatantly lied by falsely claiming I hadn't "bothered to look for the [sources]." So I'm not retracting my statement until you apologize. And once again, you haven't addressed why we can't keep the Landmark Award list separate from the Golden Boot list just like the PL Player of the Season and Month lists. —Bloom6132 (talk) 20:47, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Your WP:IDONTLIKEIT and WP:ICANTHEARYOU attitude here isn't making the situation any better. —Bloom6132 (talk) 20:50, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

2015-16 Golden Boot

A lot of sources are reporting that Harry Kane has won this year's Golden Boot; however, there is still one game left to play in the league, and although it is MASSIVELY unlikely that anyone from Manchester United or Bournemouth will score 15 goals in tonight's game, Kane's victory is still not 100% certain. 99.9%, maybe, but not 100%. Please do not add his name to this article until after tonight's game. – PeeJay 14:23, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

PeeJay, this is a very poor use of your time. Please see WP:VNT (and WP:THETRUTH). Reliable sources are saying he won. If you can cite one that supports what you're saying, you can add that in there as well, for the few hours in which it would still be relevant. Drop the stick and walk away. I promise we'll all give you a huge apology if someone else pips Kane to it. --BDD (talk) 15:12, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

If the sources reporting Kane as the winner are wrong (which for the time being, they are), then they can hardly be considered reliable. Even the Premier League itself isn't reporting Kane as the winner since they don't know what will happen in tonight's game. I don't expect any apologies, I just expect that everyone should stick to the facts, and the fact is that Harry Kane has not yet won the Golden Boot for this season. – PeeJay 15:42, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Premier League Golden Boot. 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/fapl.rac?command=forwardOnly&nextPage=enSeasons
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141008220608/http://www.skysports.com/interactive/top_tens_story/0%2C25722%2C11065_6134449%2C00.html to http://www.skysports.com/interactive/top_tens_story/0%2C25722%2C11065_6134449%2C00.html

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:21, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Premier League Golden Boot. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120421110805/http://www.premierleague.com/en-gb/about/history.html to http://www.premierleague.com/en-gb/about/history.html

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:13, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Premier League Golden Boot. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140203102409/http://espnfc.com/feature/_/id/844596?cc=4716s to http://espnfc.com/feature/_/id/844596?cc=4716

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:48, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Premier League Golden Boot. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131203012653/http://www.arsenal.com/news/news-archive/golden-shoe-fits-for-thierry-henry to http://www.arsenal.com/news/news-archive/golden-shoe-fits-for-thierry-henry
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131203014426/http://www.arsenal.com/news/news-archive/van-persie-wins-premier-league-golden-boot to http://www.arsenal.com/news/news-archive/van-persie-wins-premier-league-golden-boot
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131226103543/http://www.premierleague.com/en-gb/news/news/2012-13/may/robin-van-persie-wins-barclays-golden-boot.html to http://www.premierleague.com/en-gb/news/news/2012-13/may/robin-van-persie-wins-barclays-golden-boot.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131203014426/http://www.arsenal.com/news/news-archive/van-persie-wins-premier-league-golden-boot to http://www.arsenal.com/news/news-archive/van-persie-wins-premier-league-golden-boot

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:25, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Rate

The Rate column seems to be the goals divided by the games, i.e., it neglects whether the player was subbed on or subbed off in games, which, in most cases, they won't be, but if Rate involved minutes played, rather than games played, could conceivably lead to a different order (when clicking on the column header). The award itself is for goals credited to players, not goals per game or goals per minute played, so Rate is a purely wikipedian construction, and so we can make it what we like. I just think that goals per minute (or minutes per goal, to be more comprehendible) would be more informative. It does rely on being able to abstract that information, though, which I'm not. Nick Barnett (talk) 18:10, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Most sources generally refer to "goals per game" and similar ratio's. You do sometimes see "minutes per goal" but rarely in comparisons between players over a season. A rare version of the second is this Premier League comparison which results in interesting things like Adam le Fondre being in the top 3. Similar this effort from FourFourTwo) and [https://talksport.com/football/249924/25-strikers-best-minutes-goal-ratio-premier-league-history-170627244479/ this one from Talksport. The problem is, they're often not tackling a single season and it changes year on year when a player on the list who is still active continues to play. Koncorde (talk) 20:03, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: rejected by Mandarax (talk) 16:41, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
Article appeared on DYK on 28 May 2010, making it ineligible for another DYK.

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that Jimmy Floyd Hasselbaink and Dwight Yorke were the first foreign players to win the Premier League Golden Boot in 1999? Source:

Created/expanded by MickMacNee (talk). Nominated by ShadowBallX (talk) at 21:40, 3 January 2021 (UTC).

• Sorry, but this article is ineligible for DYK, as it has appeared at DYK before, on 10 May 2010 (WP:DYKRULES, rule 1d therefore forbids it from appearing again at DYK). In addition, all DYK nominations have to be either created, 5x expanded, or promoted to GA in the 7 days before nominating, none of which apply here. As it's a featured list, it is eligible for Wikipedia:Today's featured list, but closing this nomination as it will never be eligible for DYK again, having appeared here previously. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:43, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

References

PL Record holders for most goals in a season

Hi Mohamed.Gamal88 and Bloom6132,

I noticed some edit warring going on and am hoping a resolution can be reached here, on this article’s talk page. A possible solution could be to clarify how Mo Salah with less overall goals (32) than Alan Shearer and Andy Cole (34) can still hold a PL Record for most goals in season. I attempted to do that with my most recent edit to the article. Please see if this is to both your satisfactions.

theraefactor (talk) 09:33, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

I do appreciate the attempts at resolution. However, the fact remains – 34 goals is higher than 32 goals. Salah could have easily scored 34 goals in the 36 games he played (or even in the maximum 38 games he could have played), but did not. Therefore, he does not have the record for scoring the second-highest number of goals in a single-season. It is quite clear that Mohamed.Gamal88 has a bias for Salah (stating on his userpage that Salah is his favourite player). However, we cannot change facts to suit our personal views per WP:NPOV, which "is non-negotiable". —Bloom6132 (talk) 12:11, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Ok, sounds good.

Maybe in future instead of engaging in an edit war, alert the user (in this case Mohamed.Gamal88) that he violated the following policies: WP:1RR/WP:WAR and WP:NPOV, he should feel free to detail his concerns on the article talk page rather than continue to edit the article. You could also warn him that continuation of these behaviors will lead to a WP:BLOCKREQUEST. You have a lot more experience with editing than I do, and a firmer grasp of the policies and procedures. So, I don't mean to overstep with my suggestions.

Thanks for hearing me out, theraefactor (talk) 17:15, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

I looked up records held by players on the official premier league website that Mohamed.Gambal89 cited () and this is what it displays:

Most PL goals in a season*

34 - Andrew Cole (Newcastle United; 1993/94 - 42 matches)

34 - Alan Shearer (Blackburn Rovers; 1994/95 - 42 matches)

32 - Mohamed Salah (Liverpool; 2017/18 - 38 matches)

So, they technically also give it to Mo Salah for a 38 game season length. Not sure if that changes things. -- theraefactor (talk) 18:27, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

@Theraefactor: I've tried to resolve this by removing indication of who has the record for most goals in a season. Such a distinction was not indicated in the table when this list was promoted to featured list back in 2014, so I don't think removing it will take anything important away. —Bloom6132 (talk) 01:05, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

it's already mentioned in the article 4 years ago , only no body added it to the list

Andy Cole and Shearer – with 34 goals in 1993–94 and 1994–95, respectively – scored the most goals to win the Golden Boot when the Premier League was a 42-game season, Mohamed Salah with 32 goals in 2017–18 holds the record for the current 38-game season,

and I'm really don't want editing war but Mr. Bloom6132 has wrong point of view by saying '34 goals is higher than 32 goals' it's different formula 42 games season and 38 games season which we play from mid 90' until now

and i already put many sources to support my point of view,

that's literally the official Premier League site and

can you please show us sources support you ? Mohamed Gamal (talk) 01:14, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Your Liverpool F.C. "source" to verify a new "record" for one of its own players is about as reliable as Pravda is for human rights. Next time, Salah should score 34 goals if he really wants to tie the record. Perfectly doable in 36 games. —Bloom6132 (talk) 01:31, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

@Bloom6132

First of all is the official Premier League site reliable enough for you or should I ask them to sent you a private message with a copy of the records book !!

2 : Liverpool F.C. "source" is same reliable as Premier League they are not fourth tier club established yesterday ! that's great club Founded in 1892 before your grandfather been born !

3 : I'm not going to try to explain to you again how PL Records work and the difference between 42 games season records and 38 games season records because you clearly have no clue !

4 : you either been biased against Salah and Liverpool or was just WRONG and don't have the guts to admit that .

5 : Wikipedia is all about SOURCES and you didn't provide a single source to support your edits while my sources is from the official site  !

End of discussion.

Thank you for looking to the source and trying to resolve the situation. @Theraefactor Mohamed Gamal (talk) 02:16, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

"should I ask them to sent you a private message with a copy of the records book" – sure, be my guest. Also, you should brush up on WP policy. Specifically, WP:BURDEN (which falls on you, not me). I'm permitted (and indeed compelled) to remove any material that is "challenged or likely to be challenged". Especially since this is a featured list. —Bloom6132 (talk) 02:57, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

The idea that Salah holds the record for the most goals in a 38-game Premier League season is not likely to be challenged. This fact was widely reported at the time, and it makes sense to do so here since the Premier League is likely never to go back up to a 42-game season. Yes, Cole and Shearer scored more goals in a single Premier League season regardless of the number of games, but Salah's record is more relevant to the Premier League as it exists now. – PeeJay 10:38, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Would suggest the solution is to mirror the PL's record page by including the 3 "record" holders in their own little list if it's considered significant enough to be included.

The defence of the article being a Featured List isn't a defence, nor is the argument about challenging content. That seems an attempt to frame additions as being somehow controversial - rather than sourced improvements about which there is a dispute over how it should be best represented. Koncorde (talk) 19:06, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

There is no reason not to mention that the "top scorer" is different from different amount of league games. What troubles me a lot more - why do we mention statistics for the amount of games that the players played in - and the ratio of goals to games? Where is this sourced too? Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:03, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

The ratio is simple arithmetic, and the number of appearances is usually put alongside the number of goals for this exact reason (a general sense of the player's goals per game ratio, if not a specific number). – PeeJay 11:31, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

I mean, sure... But where are we sourcing the amount of games played in the season? this source for instance doesn't mention Sherringham playing 41 games. It's also a bit of a false economy, as players could easily play five minutes and have the same weight as a full match. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:37, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

I have no significant issue with the goal ratio, aside from the fact it's rarely used for this purpose to compare across decades and so on, so is a purely cosmetic choice. If we actually haven't sourced apeparances in the list however that is a bit of a concern as it indicates WP:OR. Koncorde (talk) 19:06, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

References

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

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

• Teddy Sheringham finger snipped.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:53, 22 August 2022 (UTC)