Talk:Cristiano Ronaldo

'one of the best' vs. 'the best'

The article originally lists Ronaldo as 'one of the greatest of all time', while Messi's article lists him as 'the greatest of all time', despite the pair being heated career rivals. The pair share many of the same awards and trophies, with the amount being hotly contested every year. Ronaldo's article also provides a multitude of references from journalists, pundits, and peers that also consider him as the greatest of all time. It seems quite opinionated to not list them as the same. ```PsychopathicAssassin 17:03, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Exactly! but don't expect much from this editors, because they prefer the page to reflect their own opinions, while ignoring countless of opinions all around. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.111.233.230 (talk) 03:45, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Good job editors. Cristiano Ronaldo is also widely considered as the greatest of all time, and the edit obviously was needed to be made(sorry if my English lacks).

EDIT: I guess some Messi fan didn't like the edit (Swig8998), and decided to change it back. Wikipedia has proven to be a joke - every day someone else comes, and does whatever he wants with NO EXPLANATION (???) u can edit and say - "one of the best", but it doesn't change THE FACT that Cristiano Ronaldo is in fact widely considered as the best of all time, it only makes Wikipedia look bad, and amateur! good job Messi fan (Swig8998). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.111.233.230 (talk) 04:01, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

To state someone is “widely considered to be the best” would need to be backed up by sources that match such a claim. A former teammate, manager or a half dozen pundits stating he is is not “widely considered”. Messi is different in that there is a plethora of sources that claim he is the greatest. Tellso HL (talk) 19:17, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

It's like kindergarten here, everyone comes and do whatever he wants. Ronaldo is widely considered to be the greatest, it's obvious to so many people that every couple of days another one come and change it back to "considered the best", and a lot asked before here on talk page. a lot of people hate Ronaldo personally (like they know him in person lol), and get angry seeing the edit, then come and change it cause they personally don't agree and everyone with a 4 day old account can edit as he please, so Wikipedia don't reflect reality as it supposed to do. there are way more than enough sources to make the claim, and people brought up tens of them earlier and got ignored by editors who just don't agree, and don't care if there are countless millions of people that as a FACT - thinking Ronaldo is the best player of all time. I give up at this point, since the whole edit manage system here is hilariously unprofessional. another Messi fan/Ronaldo hater (Tellso HL) takes control of Ronaldo's page like it's his personal page - what a joke. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.111.233.230 (talk) 19:27, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

If it’s “obvious” that he’s “widely” considered the best then source it, and not base it on the view of just a couple of teammates, his former manager, and a couple of pundits. The Messi article has a wikiquote page littered with views that say he’s the greatest, and not just a half dozen views. “Some” do think Cristiano is the greatest, but then that would need specified. For me, Cristiano isn’t the best Ronaldo, that mantle belongs to the Brazilian. Tellso HL (talk) 18:15, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Both athletes are consistently compared to one another, with only specific, personal choices ruling you in favor of each individual. However, the fact that they are compared to one another consistently, share an incredibly similar career trajectory (in terms of trophies/personal accolades won), and have many people believe they are the best ever to play, This sentiment has to be translated to their articles. Wikipedia is a neutral source, and must be showcased as one. PsychopathicAssassin (talk) 08:58, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

They are indeed often compared to each other, but that alone doesn’t mean equivalence, neither does five world player of the year awards each. The way it is currently written—“one of”–I think is inaccurate as some do think Cristiano is “the” best, so “one of” underplays it, but “widely regarded as the best” would also be inaccurate as he isn’t. How do you word “some” though?, would you have to specify who they are? Or perhaps we could put a reference next to the word some which when clicked on would show the half dozen or so that think he is. Messi’s claim as the greatest is a very common view among a wide variety of people in the game–and not just biased teammates, former coaches of his etc. To use a music comparison, Messi is to The Beatles what Ronaldo is to The Stones, one is just more critically acclaimed than the other, with Messi ranking higher in most people lists as evidenced by the volume of sources. Tellso HL (talk) 15:50, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Comparisons are often the underlying standard bearer when discussing equivalence. Ronaldo's article, however, differs from Messi's as it does provide references from a plethora of sources, with opinions from journalists, fans, peers, and coaches, to support that claim. It would be correct in saying those four distinct groups of the footballing community stretches far and wide, and constitutes enough support in order for Ronaldo to be considered “the best”. It is not incorrect in saying that many people, worldwide, in those four categories, consider Ronaldo “the best”. To also use a musical comparison, Messi is to 2Pac what Ronaldo is to The Notorious B.I.G., with rankings higher dependent on personal preference, but both are accepted as the greatest. Whatever your preference may be, Wikipedia is a neutral platform, and must be presented as one. Their article openings must be equal. PsychopathicAssassin (talk) 17:54, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

First off, cease edit warring and vandalizing the article. Content doesn’t change until any consensus is reached. Everything you have just stated is your own opinion, including the statement my “preference”. I’ve requested sources to back up your claim, none have been forthcoming. I’ve checked–I presume you have also–there isn’t the plethora of sources to back up any claim of “widely considered the greatest”, hence he isn’t. Tellso HL (talk) 18:48, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Everything I have stated lacks any opinion. I didn't imply or detail any “preference” from you or myself, but conversely, you have implied yours in the closing end of your argument. What I have done is detail what the core principle of Wikipedia is - a neutral encyclopedia. The sources you have also requested can be easily accessed on the article. PsychopathicAssassin (talk) 19:52, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

You are putting forward your own belief as opposed to putting forward anything backed up by sources. If a multitude of sources back up the claim that “Cristiano is widely regarded as the greatest”, that’s fine whether I agree with it or not. My personal viewpoint–I’ve stated above he’s not the best Ronaldo, that mantle belongs to the Brazilian–is irrelevant. I’ve looked for such evidence myself, and it isn’t there. I do think “one of” is inaccurate though as I also stated previously. I’d change it to some, and source that. Tellso HL (talk) 16:52, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Again, my belief has not been proposed, nor indicated. Again, sources can easily be accessed on the article itself, a multitude of which back up the claim that “Cristiano is widely regarded as the greatest”. I also agree that all personal viewpoints are irrelevant when contributing to a neutral encyclopedia, and I refrain from stating mine. The edits I have proposed work to detail a widely accepted view of the player, not one influenced by any personal opinion. PsychopathicAssassin (talk) 16:59, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Have you even bothered to look at the sources in the article? What, his former coach Jose Mourinho? his current coach Zinedine Zidane? his agent Jorge Mendes? Two current teammates and two former teammates? A Four Four Two magazine article that has him at #5 all time? An article that says he should be in the debate among the greatest? And this constitutes “widely regarded as the greatest”? Give me a break. Tellso HL (talk) 17:10, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

The sources in the article all represent the four pillars of the footballing community. Coaches, peers, journalists, and fans, all with a degree of respectability, in agreement of the same opinion on Ronaldo's standing within the game. It is quite evident, regardless of your personal opinion of the sources, that the sentiment from the community must be reflected onto the Wikipedia article. PsychopathicAssassin (talk) 22:45, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

First source in article says Cristiano is the fifth best player, so he is the 5th best then?. As for his agent, he’s not going to say my client–who earns me a shed load of money–is not quite as good as x now is he? His former coach, current coach, two current/former teammates, also carry inherent bias. Even if they weren’t biased and we take what they say at face value, that’s a very small number of people. Nothing validates your personal claim he’s widely considered the greatest. Tellso HL (talk) 11:47, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Clutching at straws, really. Ronaldo isn’t widely perceived as the best ever—of course, his agent would beg to differ. Tellso HL is right, it’s a small amount of people. The difference between asserting Messi is the best ever and Ronaldo being the best ever, is with Messi the citations are there; whereas, Ronaldo has had, at the most, FIVE citations saying he’s the best or close to it. Swig8998 (talk) 15:28, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Plus, there’s a strong argument that Ronaldo isn’t even the best player of his generation. So what makes you guys think he’s got a solid argument for being the best ever? Please. Swig8998 (talk) 15:32, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

@Swig8998 Wikipedia isn't a platform to list citations, but there are many neutral sources on the article that does support the argument for Ronaldo being the considered the greatest player in history. Hell, the mere edit war being conducted on this matter support that claim. However, as you and @Tellso HL have requested additional sources (free from "bias"), here are a few:

```PsychopathicAssassin 17:03, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Responding to the above post by PsychopathicAssassin (you didn’t sign your post so I’d added your username). First off, your sources are terrible. Goal.com, tabloids Daily Express and Daily Mail, and a blog (which also doesn’t state he’s the best btw). Besides that thank you for confirming my point. In your Daily Express source, it states “There aren’t too many around who can say with conviction that Cristiano Ronaldo is the best player ever. Except me, that is.”. A journalist going against the grain, against the commonly held view. Precisely. It is not a widely held view he is the best. Indeed, as I said above, some do think he’s the best. Yes it’s not a common view, but some do think it. The first source on this very article has him as the fifth best player, and YET, still, despite this fact, a Wikipedia contributor tried to have him written as “widely regarded as the best” in the sentence that precedes it. Utter nonsense. The content should be verified by the sources not be contradicted by them. Tellso HL (talk) 16:52, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

I don't think either, him or Messi, are the greatest of all time. But i do think both articles should have the same lead. That means, that they are viewed by some as one of the best of all time. Kante4 (talk) 17:01, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

’One of’ the best is clearly inaccurate as they are in the debate as the greatest of all time. The problem with making their claim exactly the same is it doesn’t match the commonly held view. To make them equal on here isn’t being neutral (while it may seem as though it is), it’s not reflecting the world outside Wikipedia. Who garners more acclaim The Beatles or The Stones? It isn’t parity, likewise it isn’t with Messi and Cristiano Ronaldo. If 100 people say one is the best, and six say the other is, we don’t then give both the same standing. The journalist linked above stated his view on Cristiano being the best is not a common one (“there aren’t too many”), it’s a minority view. The views on Messi are widespread. Tellso HL (talk) 17:13, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

References

Get a life already Tellso HL - there are several sources claiming Ronaldo as the greatest, but u decided to completely ignore them and only talk about sources who claims he is "one of" because it's convenient to you but u don't fool nobody. Messi, Maradona, and Pele also have sources claiming they are just "one of", but those sources are clearly not the point - the point are the sources claiming the player as the greatest + millions over millions fans around the world claiming it as well = "regarded By many as the greatest". Ronaldo has the legitimate sources and millions of fans claiming he's the greatest, and Wikipedia just can't ignore those facts. End of story! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Es031989 (talk • contribs) 09:48, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Please edit it,.as greatest of all time.

Parv Neema (talk) 05:29, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 March 2018

Sylvester17 (talk) 21:49, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

change 33 total goals scored this season to 37

 Done. Kante4 (talk) 08:51, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Lead image

Picking the right lead image has proven out to be a tough nut to crack. Therefore, I'm initiating a discussion in order to reach consensus. Here are some pictures we should discuss using for Ronaldo:

• 
• File:REAL MADRID VS CELTA DE VIGO (31740825913) (cropped).jpg
• 
• 

Number three, and there should be very little doubt about it. All of the others are poor choices for an infobox image -- in particular number two and four. An infobox image should preferably contain some form of a portrait, with the individual's head horizontally angled, and ideally geared toward the viewer. This and this are other good options. Reberp (talk) 07:06, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Reberp, I really like the two options you provided, ([1] and [2]), but I think the second one you provided is better because it is brighter, but you also have to make sure they are free to use. Matthewishere0 (talk) 14:57, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Neither of those can be used, they're not free. The best of the four options proposed above is the first one as it best fits the criteria of what an infobox image should be and best represents what Ronaldo looks like now (the third is fine, but he doesn't have a shaved head any more). – PeeJay 18:39, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

In my opinion, something like hairstyle is relatively ephemeral. Especially since he's been donning messier and curlier blonde highlights for some time now. Hurrygane (talk) 17:12, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Number one is my choice aswell. Kante4 (talk) 18:44, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

I'd choose number three due to its recency (2017 > 2015) and seemingly higher resolution/acutance. Hurrygane (talk) 16:55, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Agreed with @Hurrygane:. When it comes to images, the more recent it is, the better. Majority of our readers will remember the image of Cristiano Ronaldo on the field in 2017 rather then the one in 2015 or earlier. On the other hand, as new images will be put out (for 2019 or 2020 games), we will need to come here and discuss the same thing all over again.--Biografer (talk) 17:21, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Whichever one we pick, both should go in the article somewhere and neither should be replaced for the other on a whim, lest we descend into another edit war. – PeeJay 07:22, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

This bias toward Ronaldo is getting tiresome and must end

Calling for an end to the blatant bias toward Ronaldo by two editors inserting material that is not only not backed up by sources, it contradicts it. First example of bias: Revision at 08:54, 28 March 2018 by PsychopathicAssassin wrote, ..“After winning his first Ballon d'Or by a record-high vote count at age 23, the public debate regarding his qualities as a player moved beyond his status in contemporary football to the possibility that he was the greatest player in history.” ...and the source he used for this sentence of his?... this, that has Ronaldo ranked as the seventh best player. Source contradicting his edit. Next example of bias: The first source in the article has Cristiano as the fifth best player, and yet, despite this, Revision at 05:11, 28 March 2018‎ by Es031989 (talk) inserts him as “widely regarded as the greatest”, contradicting the source with his own bias, and also chimes in with his own opinion about “millions” (this too is also contradicted by the source below).

So the first source has him ranked seventh, which contradicts the insertion of material of “the greatest”, second source has him ranked fifth, which contradicts the insertion of material as “the greatest”, and, we also have another source that PsychopathicAssassin used which only served to contradict his claim that Cristiano is “widely regarded as the greatest”, as the Daily Express journalist stated, “There aren’t too many around who can say with conviction that Cristiano Ronaldo is the best player ever. Except me, that is.”. Exactly. It’s a minority view, not “widely regarded as the greatest” as these blatently biased wiki contributors are inserting. Inserting false material and contradicting the sources is blatant vandalism. Tellso HL (talk) 13:57, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Absolutely some do, and it was me who advocated the change to that as one of underplayed it. Like that journalist stated though a view of him being regarded as the greatest is not a widely held one. The two sources that have him 7th, and 5th, that’s a common sight. The problem is the biased fanboys who insert original material with no connection to the source; this by PsychopathicAssassin ..“After winning his first Ballon d'Or by a record-high vote count at age 23, the public debate regarding his qualities as a player moved beyond his status in contemporary football to the possibility that he was the greatest player in history.” ..which he came up with and used a source that said no such thing, and had him seventh. The deception doesn’t get any clearer. Same user also dug up a blog as if that’s a reliable source. Tellso HL (talk) 04:01, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

U can keep saying about everyone who do not agree with u "biased", but u don't really fool no one, and it's easily plain to see you are an angry Messi fan who just can't deal with the fact of millions worlwide thinking Ronaldo is the greatest - well, whatever is written in Wikipedia, it doesn't change facts of reality. Grow up and find something constructive and actually meaningful to do with your time rather than spend every day fighting the inevitable. Protection level changed once and u didn't learn, now it's been changed again and it's time to stop the editing once and for all - let's see if u can show some maturity and not start edit warring again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.12.229.117 (talk) 11:02, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Did you really need to post this? The fact is, there are sources that claim Ronaldo is the best player ever, and there are sources that say Messi is the best ever. The two do not affect each other. – PeeJay 11:20, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Another source to prove that the statement "regarded by many as the greatest of all time" is obligatory - http://www.espn.com/soccer/uefa-champions-league/story/3442369/gianluigi-buffon-incredible-cristiano-ronaldo-like-pele-diego-maradona — Preceding unsigned comment added by Es031989 (talk • contribs) 17:03, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

RfC about statement in the lead section

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Should the sentence in the lead section describing Ronaldo's standing be something other than "Often considered the best player in the world and widely regarded as one of the greatest of all time"? Nzd (talk) 20:58, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Note I have rephrased the question slightly to make the survey easier to answer/count. Nzd (talk) 02:16, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Survey

• No This again. Keep it and let the canielle fight. (Summoned by bot) L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 19:27, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
• Yes - Not a shred of a doubt "regarded by many as the greatest of all time" is an accurate version. millions of people across the globe prove that it's actually a fact! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.111.233.230 (talk) 12:57, 12 April 2018
• No – I would prefer to tone it down a bit, but reviewing previous discussions it looks to me this isn't a realistic option. I would be opposed to removing "one of". There are enough other players who are widely regarded to be the best that if we say this, we need to explain why there is more than one who is the best, and that would just be too much for the lead. I think leaving it as-is is the best option. Kendall-K1 (talk) 01:20, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
• Yes - the acclamation should be removed as it does not conform to neutral point of view requirements. A section discussing how the subject compares with other players objectively would be appropriate.--Rpclod (talk) 15:46, 19 April 2018 (UTC)(Summoned by bot)
• No - The current text is fine. –Davey2010<sup>Talk</sup> 14:31, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
• No - The sentence should read as 'Often considered the best player in the world and widely regarded as one of the greatest of all time' O'Flannery (talk) 15:20, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
• Yes - no doubt Cristiano Ronaldo is already considered widely as one of the candidates for the best player ever. anyway the survey can't reflect reality while most people do not participate in it, and anyway - it's an undeniable fact that Ronaldo considered by many as the best player ever so any other statement would be false and won't reflect reality. Es031989 (talk) 11:02, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
• No (or remove the sentence altogether from this and other articles) - I came here to fix templates originally, and I have no particular interest in any particular player, for or against, but I think the any wording claiming he is widely considered the single greatest of all time is overstating what the sources actually say. Yes, some journalists refer to him as such, but a many of them of them seem to be writing for papers in areas where he plays or has played, and many other journalists consider him to be #5, #7, etc., and "widely" implies a worldwide consensus. It needs more than just individual journalists claiming that they consider him the greatest of all time, it would actually need multiple reliable sources claiming that he is "widely" considered the greatest of all time (anything else would be WP:SYNTH). There are also plenty of sources in the article that state that he isn't widely considered the single greatest (such as [3] which states "THERE aren’t too many around who can say with conviction that Cristiano Ronaldo is the best player EVER."). Meanwhile, he is widely considered to be on pretty much every list of greatest players. I would say either keep it as is; remove it altogether from this and the Lionel Messi, Pelé, Diego Maradona, etc. articles; or change it to the wording used on the Messi article, which says "regarded by many as the greatest of all time", or the Maradona article, which says "Many in the sport, including football writers, players, and fans, regard Maradona as the greatest football player of all time" (which, again, don't imply worldwide consensus). --Ahecht (TALK
  PAGE) 13:50, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
• Yes - it should say: "Often considered the best player in the world and regarded by many as the greatest of all time." 89.39.107.191 (talk) 18:05, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

• Can someone explain why this IPs !vote^ is (or was) being rollbacked ?, IPs can comment here too ?. ... –Davey2010<sup>Talk</sup> 19:11, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

He/she was removing two "No" votes before (see here). Kante4 (talk) 19:15, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

That was a mistake from me. Didn't mean to remove those two comments. 89.39.107.191 (talk) 19:21, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Five times? Seems odd to me, but ok... (Maybe i should have used an edit summary aswell (but an IP removing comment looks fishy)) Kante4 (talk) 19:23, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Was the YES vote and comment by 89.39.107.191 submitted well after the request for votes had ended? If so, should this be removed from this section? O'Flannery (talk) 13:36, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

• I've opened this RfC in an attempt to quell the long-standing and disruptive edit wars that have been a bane of this article for too long. Although I would consider myself an uninvolved party, my understanding of the history is that there has been a consensus for a certain wording ("Often considered the best player in the world and widely regarded as one of the greatest of all time"), but there has been increasing pressure to change the wording to remove "one of" from that statement. My observation is that this has been done by a minority without consensus, so I am asking for input from interested and outside parties to a) evaluate the talk page history to confirm current consensus and b) evaluate sources currently included and any new ones proffered through this RfC. As I have stated before, I would prefer more neutral wording and consistency across all of the relevant articles (Messi, et al), but I will be abstaining from the survey. Nzd (talk) 20:58, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
• I don't think it's our place to reflect these ephemeral things anyway. Just leave the article to state at what level the player has been and how long, letting that speak for itself. WHOEVER IT IS. Britmax (talk) 14:47, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

I would support the removal of the statement from this and the Messi article per this reasoning (although there would probably need to be consensus to do so on both articles). At the very least, this would set stable versions and the POV-pushers on both 'sides' would need to build consensus for a change either way. Nzd (talk) 11:12, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Can not agree more. Kante4 (talk) 12:09, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

I think the sentence should remain as 'Often considered the best player in the world and widely regarded as one of the greatest of all time' as there simply are not enough credible sources to back up the claim 'widely regarded as the greatest of all time'. This is evident simply by looking at the sources already being used. If it was such a widely held view then the quality and number of sources would be easy to find. As it is, the same few editors are repeatedly attempting to make a claim which is simply not true, and can not be supported with many credible sources. Reading back over the last six months you will see the same arguments being made as to why 'widely ragarded as the greatest' is incorrect, and the C Ronaldo fans repeatedly ignoring them. A lack of objectivity, and a blind fanaticism is making this page an absurd joke.O'Flannery (talk) 20:06, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

• Editors need to remember that taking multiple individual journalists claiming he is the greatest of all time, and then extrapolating to claim he is "widely considered the greatest of all time", is a violation of WP:SYNTH. You can claim that many consider him the greatest of all time, but you can't claim that that is the widespread belief when there are plenty of sources to contradict that claim. --Ahecht (TALK
  PAGE) 13:54, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Why is no-one doing anything with the same bullshit post?

Ive just reverted the same bullshit post as no-one else on here seems bothered. The user Es031989 (talk) ignores the talk page, ignores the fact the material hes repeatedly inserting is not backed up by the source it is placed beside. Why the hell isnt anyone else reverting his bullshit? Nobody is interested. Post away. "Ronaldo played for 18,000 clubs and scored two trillion goals". You can add anything unchecked. I reverted his bullshit four times and got done for the three revert rule, despite the fact what he was posting was vandalism. Tellso HL (talk) 14:04, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Have you not read the arguments about this? Britmax (talk) 14:52, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

This specifically is the bullshit I’m referring to (as above). First bullshit exhibit..bullshitter posts: “After winning his first Ballon d'Or by a record-high vote count at age 23, the public debate regarding his qualities as a player moved beyond his status in contemporary football to the possibility that he was the greatest player in history.” ...and the source he used for this sentence of his?... this, that has Ronaldo ranked as the seventh best player, also mentions nothing about being “the greatest player in history”. Next bullshit exhibit: The first source in this very article has Cristiano as the fifth best player, and yet, Revision at 05:11, 28 March 2018‎ by Es031989 (talk) inserts him as “widely regarded as the greatest”. He’s inserting claims contradicted by sources, and has done so repeatedly without anyone doing anything. He also added his opinion about “millions” thinking like he did, no source backing this up of course, and his own opinion is also contradicted by this source, with a journalist stating “There aren’t too many around who can say with conviction that Cristiano Ronaldo is the best player ever. Except me, that is.”. When the first source ranks C.Ronaldo seventh, the next source ranks him fifth, the next source, a journalist, states his view about him being the best is a minority one, how on Earth does this equate to “widely considered the greatest”? It doesn’t because it’s bullshit. The bullshitter has stayed away from the talk page as he won’t face up to this bullshit, just repeatedly posts his bullshit on the article itself. Tellso HL (talk) 15:15, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a place for your public and childish outbursts, Tellso HL. As I have repeatedly said, the wide public opinion is that many believe Ronaldo and Messi to be the two best players of all time. However you may list them is your public opinion, but if you were capable of conducting a poll that would be able to rank the two individuals (on a worldwide scale), the likelihood would be that you would receive an incredibly close number. The way the article is structured now, with both being the same, reflects that. PsychopathicAssassin (talk) 16:25, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Instead of avoiding the actual subject, care to justify your last post on the article? Inserting “many” (regard him as the greatest), when there is no source for that, and the first source in the article contradicts such a claim by only ranking him fifth. Inserting this....

“However, after winning his first Ballon d'Or by a record-high vote count at age 23, the public debate regarding his qualities as a player moved beyond his status in contemporary football to the possibility that he was the greatest player in history.

...when there is no mention of this bullshit anywhere in the source, and again, only has him ranked seventh. I’ve reverted the bullshit three times, so it’s up to others on here to revert it (if they give a damn about any accuracy). Tellso HL (talk) 15:45, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

I Would use the word "bullshit" less if I were you. It does not make for a collegiate atmosphere. Britmax (talk) 18:02, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

totally agree with Tellso HL. The same users (obviously simply fans of C Ronaldo) are again changing the sentence to something which is simply not true, and can not be backed up by many credible sources. This was even discussed back in August 2017, a consensus was even reached that 'regarded as the greatest of all time' was simply not accurate, and 'regarded as one of the greatest of all time' was preferred. How these same users are allowed to keep coming back and vandalising the page, with no regard for actual sources is beyond me. Someone really should step in and sort this nonsense out.O'Flannery (talk) 15:36, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Possible 30-500 protection (until 29 April 2018)

I have had a look at the details of the two editors - the ones who have been edit warring this article over the last seven days - and both of them have not made 500 edits. Tellso HL has been on Wikipedia for 30 days and made only 123 edits, while Reberp for 16 months but only 153 edits. As things stand, 30-500 protection is good enough to prevent the two users listed from editing. I am not 100% certain if Black Kite has seen the account details (length of time on Wikipedia and the edit count) between these editors before fully protecting this page. Thanks, Iggy (Swan) 15:56, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Fully protected edit request on 1 April 2018

Add *{{cite web |url=https://www.theglobeandmail.com/sports/soccer/ubcs-star-studded-stereotype-study-the-sociology-of-cristiano-ronaldo/article23786125/ |title=UBC’s star-studded stereotype study: the sociology of Cristiano Ronaldo |work=The Globe and Mail |last=Ebner |first=David |quote=[Ronaldo] is, some have argued of late, the best to have ever played the game. |location=Kelowna, British Columbia, Canada |date=2 April 2015 <!--updated 25 March 2017--> |accessdate=1 April 2018}} at the end of the first note. Hurrygane (talk) 18:35, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

 Done. Hurrygane (talk) 21:37, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Should the UEFA Super Cup 2016 be included in Cristiano Ronaldo's list of honours

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I firmly believe that under the Cristiano Ronaldo's honour heading the 2016 UEFA Super Cup should be included. Although, he may not have been part of the squad that won the trophy on the night. According to the official regulations of the UEFA Super Cup 2015-2018 cycle, the winning team are awarded forty gold medals. As Cristiano Ronaldo was a member of the squad that helped Real Madrid secure a place in the UEFA Super Cup he would have been awarded one of the forty gold medals available. SEE HERE ARTICLE 9 FOR FULL GUIDELINES → http://www.uefa.com/MultimediaFiles/Download/Regulations/uefaorg/Regulations/02/35/94/42/2359442_DOWNLOAD.pdf In addition to this, on the official Real Madrid website there is a page about Ronaldo including his statistics and honours he has achieved throughout his career. If you scroll right to the bottom you can see the total number of trophies he has won including three UEFA Super Cup trophies won at Madrid. These include the years 2014, 2016 and 2017. Although, it doesn't mention the years he won it, these are the only years he could have won those titles as he did not win any at Manchester United and Real Madrid have only participated in three finals since Ronaldo's arrival in which they won all three. SEE WEBSITE HERE → http://www.realmadrid.com/en/football/squad/cristiano-ronaldo-dos-santos — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ibrahimhoque01 (talk • contribs) 20:03, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

We had a lenghty discussion before. TL DR: He should not. Kante4 (talk) 20:11, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Fuck's sake, some people just can't let stuff go! It's not just that he wasn't in the squad on the night, he wasn't named in the official 25-man squad for the game and didn't travel to Norway. If Real Madrid say Ronaldo won it, they're wrong and are just trying to blow smoke up the arse of their best player. – PeeJay 20:23, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Omg! Do u really wanna tell me u exclude an award of the team he played in? So you'll need to delete Messi's 2006 champions league as he was not a part of it too. You are so biased this is so amateur what's going on here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.12.226.37 (talk) 22:37, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

You should probably try avoiding straw man arguments. Messi is listed as a winner of the 2005-06 Champions League because he was part of the official squad that Barcelona submitted to UEFA for the tournament. Ronaldo was not part of the squad Real Madrid submitted to UEFA for the 2016 Super Cup. – PeeJay 23:03, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Honestly it makes zero difference what u decide to include, because officially 2016 Uefa super cup is and will be included in his career achievements. anyway u can tell yourself it's not included if it makes u feel better lol (it doesn't matter anyway). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Es031989 (talk • contribs) 01:52, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Anyone who includes it in his achievements is wrong. Why would you include it? He wasn't in the squad. If Ronaldo is considered a winner of the 2016 Super Cup, why not all of Real Madrid's youth players too? Because they weren't included in the squad, that's why. – PeeJay 11:29, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Template error

On the bottom of this page, I have noticed that there appears to be the words "Template:Navboxes" where the Awards template are supposed to be there - I am not sure how this is the case.

Thanks, Iggy (Swan) 18:08, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Ok, works here but not on the article. Iggy (Swan) 18:09, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Can't get my head around it! Mattythewhite (talk) 22:46, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

There's the answer. Iggy (Swan) 13:20, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

This page had exceeded the Post-expand include size, which is a limit on the amount of stuff in an article that can be produced by templates. When this limit is exceed, any templates over the limit will not be displayed. For this article, that is mostly driven by the HUGE (700+) number of references that are calling {{cite web}} and {{cite news}}. Even after trimming the "‎Honours and achievements" section, the Post-expand include size is 1,990,829 out of the allowed 2,097,152 bytes, so only small amount of extra templates will push this page over the limit again and cause templates at the end of the article, such as {{reflist}} and {{navboxes}}, to not display. I replaced the calls to {{reflist}} with direct calls to <references /> to reduce the template load a bit and ensure that references show up even if the limit is exceeded in the future, but we should really think about splitting out other parts of this article as to ensure that we aren't as close to hitting the limit in the future. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 15:05, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Category:Pages where template include size is exceeded - This page shows how many pages have the post-expand include size, there are a few articles in there. Iggy (Swan) 15:31, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

I really don't believe that removing the club and individual awards is the appropriate way to reduce the size of the page. It's understandable that most people vising the page would expect to find Ronaldo's club achievements on here. May I suggest it would be better to do what I've seen in several sports-person articles, to instead split out into new articles the details of the season reports in Club Career, and the Outside Football content. His notoriety is primarly for his football and achievements, which should take priority on this page. Formulaonewiki (talk) 17:13, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

@Formulaonewiki: All those club achievements are on the linked List of career achievements by Cristiano Ronaldo page. Perhaps we should do what they do on the pages for most major actors and remove ALL records/awards and just have that section be a link to the list page. See Meryl Streep#Awards and nominations for an example. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 17:18, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

It would have been better if you started a discussion about that before removing that much info. Just my two cents... Kante4 (talk) 17:22, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

I appreciate the need to reduce the article size, but I am opposed to the removal of team honours. I don't think I'm being controversial in saying that honours won with a club or a national team are the most pertinent of a player's career. Mattythewhite (talk) 17:27, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

@Kante4 and Mattythewhite:The article was literally broken, with a large number of citations that weren't displaying because the Wikipedia parser refused to expand the {{cite web}} template. If you want to change which content is removed, feel free, but make sure that you preview the page and check that there isn't a red message at the top that says "Warning: Template include size is too large. Some templates will not be included." Frankly, if there's going to be disagreement about which awards and honors to include, I would just move them ALL to the subpage. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 18:14, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

@Ahecht: I agree. But I think it will only be a poor representation of Ronaldo's achievements to try and put a summary of whatever is deemed the 'most important' ones, and so agree that like with major actors we should just have a separate article for ALL the honours and achievements/records. I reverted the edit because I think it's more important we reach consensus before making such a major content change to the page. It would be interesting to see if other footballer articles are approaching a similar issue (I'm thinking a direct comparison in terms of ridiculous number of achievements and references etc.: Lionel Messi), and so I think it's important we reach a consensus as this will hopefully set a precedent for similar situations in the future. Formulaonewiki (talk) 19:00, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

@Formulaonewiki: It's fine that you reverted me, but please read WP:BRD before calling a good-faith bold edit "effective vandalism". --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 20:19, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Edit-warring conclusion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

It's actually became amusing to see how much effort people who can't adjust to reality put into this warring. it's like going to Wikipedia's "sky" page, edit that "the sky is usually white", and expect that the sky outside would actually turn white lol. Feel free to write and edit to your version as u wish, but it's only just another site after all and reality stays the same. Hundreds of millions of football fans around the world consider Cristiano Ronaldo as the greatest if not at least a candidate to be the greatest - and that's a fact no words can change, and these whole warring only making Wikipedia looks bad by taking sides instead of reflecting real life. I may not take part in this warring in the future, but obviously this warring is far from over while so much don't agree with the current statement that some editors with more power in this site than others decided on. 84.111.232.165 (talk) 17:25, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

In my case its because I don't consider whoever is currently "Greatest Evvah!?! at anything to be worthy of encyclopedic note, as it is a subject for pub conversations and not objectively verifiable. We can leave that sort of thing to the sports papers. And the word "you" has three letters. Britmax (talk) 18:44, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

I actually agree with u, but as we can see editors decided to ignore the fact that it's not an encyclopedic statement and it's now became a popularity decision among the editors for what players get the statement included, and what players not. the professional thing to do would be either adding the statement to all the players who deserve it (which is at least 5 players if not even 9-10 different players along football's history), or either delete that "the best" statement for any player (but i don't expect much professionality after i saw how Wikipedia's editing works). 84.111.232.165 (talk) 18:51, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

It appears that 84.111.232.165 is Es031989, who is currently blocked.O'Flannery (talk) 20:20, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Only one of the greatest?

How is Ronaldo considered to be only one of the greatest? It's Wikipedia fgs are u serious people? Lol. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.13.2.208 (talk) 11:32, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

How is this still a topic of discussion? Just drop the stick already! – PeeJay 11:44, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes. This is an encyclopedia, not Myplayerisgreat.com. And the word "you" has three letters. Britmax (talk) 12:16, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

"This is an encyclopedia, not Myplayerisgreat.com" - Ok!, then remove the statement from other players this is not a popularity site (oh wait a minute - yes it is)... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.111.232.165 (talk) 06:07, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

You clearly have a quite unhealthy obsession with Cristiano Ronaldo, given that your edit history (in all of your guises) shows no activity on any other pages. Your opinion is clearly biased, and I feel we should pay you no further heed. Thanks for coming. – PeeJay 15:47, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

A polite question, and/or a doubt: so, if we say Ronaldo is the greatest of all time, we are sticking to the encyclopedic truth, but if we say any other player is (ESPECIALLY this one!) we are nothing than biased fanboys? Interesting to know, and FYI I am also Portuguese. Regards to all --Quite A Character (talk) 11:05, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Messi's article doesn't say he is the greatest of all time, nor does it have the "widely considered the greatest of all time" language that kept being pushed here. Instead, it says "regarded by many as the greatest of all time", which is not nearly as strong a statement. Feel free to discuss on that talk page if you feel the language should be changed. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 14:24, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Both should have the same opening, everything else is subjective. So, good as it is. Kante4 (talk) 14:26, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

I agree with you both, they both should have the same opening. "One of the greatest" is appropriate because their numbers attest to that, "THE greatest" is simple and absolute rubbish, no matter who the player (in no matter what sport) is. --Quite A Character (talk) 15:40, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Name

If Ronaldo is his middle name, why is it used throughout the article as if it were his last name? 173.90.65.191 (talk) 04:42, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Because that's what most reliable sources do. Besides, it would look pretty ridiculous if we referred to him as Cristiano Ronaldo every single time. – PeeJay 06:35, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Reliable sources refer to people by their middle names?! Huh? Subsequent references to him by his first name or last name would suffice.

In this case, yes they do. No one ever refers to Cristiano Ronaldo by his last names, never. – PeeJay 11:47, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Blocking users

I said when I dropped the protection from full to semi-protected, that I would use blocks if necessary to prevent future edit-warring, especially if that user had been part of the edit-war that caused the full protection in the first place. I have therefore blocked User:Es031989 for again changing the "regarded by some/many" line to their preference, followed by telling other users to "get a life". That's not acceptable. Hopefully no more blocks will be necessary. thanks, Black Kite (talk) 14:17, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

• I was wrong. User:Reberp blocked for one week. A third edit-warring block suggests that the next one may be indefinite. Black Kite (talk) 16:37, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
  • 84.111.232.165, is also Es031989, they are still commenting on here.O'Flannery (talk) 20:22, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
    • You are correct. That has been dealt with. Black Kite (talk) 22:17, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
      • Despite the addition of the hidden comment to prevent that line being changed, User:PsychopathicAssassin has changed it again, and I have therefore blocked them as well. Black Kite (talk) 09:26, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
        • Es031989 now blocked indefinitely for resuming the edit-war. The concept of consensus clearly doesn't appear to be getting through to some. Black Kite (talk) 17:04, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Well... it doesn't change a thing anyway (some think he's the greatest, some not). the only thing your'e doing by choosing sides is maintain the illusion that there's something definite as "the greatest of all time". it's a matter of personal opinion, therefore there's no answer for this useless debate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.111.232.165 (talk) 19:40, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not claiming that either player actually is the greatest of all time, we're just reporting that varying numbers of sources have given the player that title. – PeeJay 22:44, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Well... then here are another fresh new sources about Cristiano Ronaldo as the title "the greatest of all time": https://www.express.co.uk/sport/football/975174/Cristiano-Ronaldo-Real-Madrid-news-Lionel-Messi-Barcelona-World-Cup-2018 http://www.goal.com/en/news/even-best-ever-ronaldo-has-weaknesses-alexander-arnold/1xmq5hezghu6213kn8rp12n12o and those are just 2 new, there are way more meaning there is a consensus about Cristiano Ronaldo as well.84.111.232.165 (talk) 03:29, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Playmaker?

There is a disagreement regarding the understanding of the term 'playmaking'. In my opinion, two reliable sources alone should be enough to prove the quality of one's playmaking abilities, and Ronaldo's such abilities are well documented. In a vote conducted by the IFFHS, 91 members of the jury voted for the World's Best Playmaker 2017. Ronaldo finished eleventh in the voting, six points ahead of Mesut Özil. Additionally, Bleacher Report named him one of Manchester United's 'top playmakers of all time' in 2012: "It is unusual for a winger to be the playmaker in a team, but Cristiano Ronaldo is no usual player, and he was a playmaker for Manchester United." Hurrygane (talk) 17:41, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 May 2018

He scored 15 penalties, the last one against Juventus. check this page (European Cup and UEFA Champions League records and statistics) for the source and for other records. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.140.10.87 (talk) 22:44, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

 Done. Hurrygane (talk) 21:37, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Records

Should the "Records" section be excluded from the "Honours and achievements" section? Would save us a lot of space, since a number of those records are arguably unnecessary. Moreover, the records are already comperehensively listed at List of career achievements by Cristiano Ronaldo#Records. Hurrygane (talk) 18:20, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Good suggestion, agreed, should be similar to Messi's page. Working on it now. Purijj (talk) 14:50, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

 Done. Purijj (talk) 17:24, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Peer review request

I've submitted a peer review request, so if anyone with experience can review the page and see what is needed to be done to get it to Good article status. Purijj (talk) 19:22, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

One of the greatest?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Ronaldo is considered by countless people around the world as maybe the greatest. Is this really the most popular web "encyclopedia"? I really expected more than a site claims to be a worldwide encyclopedia. The fact we even debating on this lead readers to think someone here has strong interest to fight against presenting this fact as it obviously need to be on the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.12.241.40 (talk) 13:36, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

And "countless" people consider Messi, or Pelé, or the Brazilian Ronaldo, or Maradona to be the greatest. As an encyclopedia, we have to present a worldwide view, as you said, not just a Portuguese/Spanish view. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 15:22, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Ok...so change the statement at the two Ronaldo's page to meet that "worldwide view" u are talking about as required from an encyclopedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.12.255.172 (talk) 14:18, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

~Is IP address 176.12.255.172 the same person as IP address 176.12.241.40? O'Flannery (talk) 00:04, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

• Yes, and almost certainly 176.13.2.208 (see above) as well. Closing. Black Kite (talk) 00:09, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Semi-protected edit request on 20 June 2018

Change international goals from 84 to 85 following the goal against morocco, and note that he now has the most international goals of any European player. D1tzl (talk) 12:54, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

After the game is completed, it will be done. Kante4 (talk) 12:59, 20 June 2018 (UTC)