Talk:Cristiano Ronaldo/Archive 13

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

→

Archive 19

"Often considered the best player in the world and widely regarded as one of the greatest of all time"

I think this sentence should be removed from Wikipedia because it is simply wrong and not correct. You cannot say that Ronaldo is "widely regarded as one of the greatest of all time". It is just not correct. I can agree that Ronaldo is an extremely good player, but it is basically only Manchester United fans and Real Madrid fans who say that he "is the best of all time" just because they feel obligated to say it and if you look at the sources used to justify that this sentence is here, it is basically just Madrid coaches and a very subjective article from the US who "hails him as the greatest ever". Real Madrid coaches HAVE to say that is the best, otherwise they will almost be sacked immediately. I am not a Ronaldo hater, nor a Barcelona fan, I am just a neutral football fan who thinks it is so so wrong to call Ronaldo "one of the greatest of all times and "often considered the best player in the world". I therefore, genuinely think that this sentence should be removed from Wikipedia because it is wrong and not correct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Erik0609 (talk • contribs) 23:20, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

In my opinion it shouldn't be removed from the introduction. Ronaldo has received four Ballon d'Ors so far, a feat only matched by Lionel Messi. Hurrygane (talk) 12:54, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

@Erik0609 Believe it or not, that sentence used to read 'regarded by many as the greatest of all time'. The sentence as it is now is a compromise and I agree that it is still problematic. O'Flannery (talk) 00:12, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Love him or hate him, he is one of the best ever. Kante4 (talk) 13:01, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Plus we have sources to back that up. – PeeJay 13:58, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Kante4, I agree with that, he is one of the greatest ever. PeeJay, I noticed that one of the sources has a broken link (the Ancelotti article for note 1) and I couldn't find a link to replace it, maybe you can? O'Flannery (talk) 14:10, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

I agree that the sentence is still a bit over the top, but like Flannery said: it's a compromise. 'One of the greatest' can be justified if you interpret the sentence as a reference to let say 20 people or so, you can read similar statements in the articles of Franz Beckenbauer, Johan Cruyff, Eusebio, George Best, Alfredo di Stefano, Michel Platini etc. Please note that the sentence states that he's one of the greatest, not the greatest (as you said in your comment). Max Eisenhardt (talk) 21:28, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

"One of" the greatest is not accurate though. It's not a compromise it's inaccurate. The sources that follow do not say "one of", they say "best". I believe 'regarded by "some" as the greatest of all time' is the best solution as that's exactly what some believe. "Widely" I wouldn't go with as the claim is nowhere near as broad as that of Messi. A search will show this. Me personally I don't think he's the best Ronaldo. The Brazilian in his prime remains the greatest striker I've seen. What we cannot deny are the numbers, and as smug as he is the numbers for Cristiano are ridiculous. Some do believe he's the best, and with four Balon D'Or (and a record equalling fifth highly likely on the way following his decisive performances in securing another CL title), their claim has to be respected. Irish GAA DC (talk) 17:23, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Personal Life - Tax Evasion Court Trial

Cristiano Ronaldo is currently on trial. This is obviously not an allegation - this is a fact. It is heavily reported on.

This is an encyclopedia, not a fan-site. There is no reason to be inconsistent with other wiki pages and only report good news about Ronaldo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pumpumpump (talk • contribs) 09:09, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Personal Life - Rape Allegations

Why are the recent allegations documented thoroughly in Der Spiegel not noted, when these are more detailed and credible than those raised in the Sun (which are mentioned)?

It seems remiss not to mention these, given an out of court settlement has been evidenced. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7D:CBC:7400:9C1E:3CA2:6150:E5B2 (talk) 09:42, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Read more: http://metro.co.uk/2014/05/06/is-cristiano-ronaldo-the-greatest-footballer-of-all-time-4718859/#ixzz4ky8QdP8I

Just to let know this has been added to Football Leaks, possibly violating BPL policy. SLBedit (talk) 18:57, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Der Spiegel is a reputable source - according to Wikipedia itself. These are not allegations made by wikipedia, these are allegations raised and being reported as a matter of public record. There is no reason to ignore negative stories relating to Ronaldo, this is an encyclopedia, not a fan-site. Look at, for example, Johnny Depp or Bill Murray's wiki pages under Personal. No reason not to be consistent.

A tabloid making an unfounded rape claim has no place in an encyclopaedia. It is a clear violation of BLP. Irish GAA DC (talk) 21:43, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

It's been reported internationally, so WP can mention it. Stop censoring. Malick78 (talk) 22:37, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Oh, and of course he was arrested in 2005 for a rape in London. Charges dropped. Can we see a pattern? Read this. Malick78 (talk) 22:39, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

"Ronaldo came to the attention of Manchester United manager Alex Ferguson in August 2003, when Sporting defeated United 3–1 at the inauguration of the Estádio José Alvalade in Lisbon."

Sentence should be rephrased. As pointed out by Bleacher Report's Sam Pilger, United had originally planned to sign Ronaldo and then loan him back to Sporting for a year. After the preseason game they wanted him in Manchester immediately. Hurrygane (talk) 21:24, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

SAF warned Man United players about Cristiano prior to the particular match. Hurrygane (talk) 21:24, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 October 2017

Invalid link: http://www.spiegel.de/international/zeitgeist/der-spiegel-football-leaks-exclusive-cristiano-ronaldo-rape-allegation-a-1143910.htm

Working link: http://www.spiegel.de/international/zeitgeist/der-spiegel-football-leaks-exclusive-cristiano-ronaldo-rape-allegation-a-1143910.html PDF24 (talk) 23:40, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Done Gulumeemee (talk) 03:12, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Cristiano Ronaldo. 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 {{dead link}} tag to http://sports.nationalpost.com/2012/06/21/euro-2012-wrap-did-ronaldo-call-out-messi-after-scoring-for-portugal/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140114122800/http://www.futaa.com/football/article/ronaldo-sets-champions-league-goals-record to http://www.futaa.com/football/article/ronaldo-sets-champions-league-goals-record
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110209103258/http://www.realmadrid.com/cs/Satellite/en/1330040138220/noticia/Noticia/Cristiano_Ronaldo_makes_Real_Madrid_history.htm to http://www.realmadrid.com/cs/Satellite/en/1330040138220/noticia/Noticia/Cristiano_Ronaldo_makes_Real_Madrid_history.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131203021606/http://www.realmadrid.com/cs/Satellite/en/03_Marzo_Actualidad_11-12/1330093646829/noticia/Noticia/Fastest_player_to_score_100_goals_in_La_Liga_with_Real_Madrid.htm to http://www.realmadrid.com/cs/Satellite/en/03_Marzo_Actualidad_11-12/1330093646829/noticia/Noticia/Fastest_player_to_score_100_goals_in_La_Liga_with_Real_Madrid.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131029213032/http://www.realmadrid.com/cs/Satellite/en/Actualidad_Primer_Equipo_en/1330147154518/noticia/Noticia/Cristiano_Ronaldo_scored_his_200th_goal_for_Real_Madrid_against_Malaga.htm to http://www.realmadrid.com/cs/Satellite/en/Actualidad_Primer_Equipo_en/1330147154518/noticia/Noticia/Cristiano_Ronaldo_scored_his_200th_goal_for_Real_Madrid_against_Malaga.htm

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

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• 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) 19:36, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Football campus and sponsorship

In 2007, the C.D. Nacional renovated their statidum, the Estádio da Madeira and named their youth campus, the Cristiano Ronaldo Campus Futebol (Cristiano Ronaldo Football Campus), can someone add this to 'In popular culture' section, at the beginning of the 5th paragraph? http://www.cdnacional.pt/cristiano-ronaldo-campus-futebol/

The museum sponsors União da Madeira

46.254.251.216 (talk) 17:13, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Done Purijj (talk) 13:16, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 24 December 2017

nick name: pettikada 27.0.147.93 (talk) 05:29, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made.  shivam (t) 08:40, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 December 2017

It's definetly about time to change: "often regarded as one of the best of all time", to "often regarded as the best player of all time". there are so many talks around the world right now about it, and many many people agree ronaldo has become a candidate to be the greatest of all time, along with pele, maradona, messi, and cruijff. it's time to change it people, be objective! earlier i understood why u took this statement off, but rn if u won't add it back, it might hurt wikipedia's reputation as an objective source of media, because the statement "OFTEN considered/ regarded as the best of all time" is actually a FACT already! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.111.233.230 (talk) 17:08, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 15:46, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 December 2017

Please change 'Often considered the best player in the world and widely regarded as one of the greatest of all time' to 'Often considered the best player in the world and widely regarded as the greatest of all time.' Ronaldo is widely considered the greatest of all time after his fifth Ballon d'Or and heroics for his national team, with whom he won a major trophy (The Euro trophy).

An extract from the article: Real Madrid manager Zinedine Zidane hails Cristiano Ronaldo as the greatest player ever after fifth Ballon d'Or win. Ghannish07 (talk) 19:19, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Not done: I think the current version is fine. —MRD2014 ^Talk 03:35, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

I think he's 100 percent right. it definitely should be changed to "Often considered the best player in the world and widely regarded as the greatest of all time." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.111.233.230 (talk) 09:25, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Why am I not surprised that a single-purpose account used only for commenting on this page thinks that Ronaldo is the best player ever? – PeeJay 14:23, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

PeeJay - I respect your own opinion, but if wikipedia is objective, they need to change it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.111.233.230 (talk) 14:59, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Fine as it is after a long discussion. Kante4 (talk) 18:28, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Who's to say it's not a true statement? i really question the editor's objectivness here.

It's all subjective. Some agree, some disagree. Kante4 (talk) 18:46, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

"Some agree, some disagree" - And that's why the statement - "OFTEN considered the best of all time" is a true statement, and should replace the current statement. thanks Kante4. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.111.233.230 (talk) 18:48, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

"Often" implies that his name is usually at the top of the list when list of the best players of all time are compiled. I would fancy that he shares that distinction with a fair few other players, and the odd quote from someone with a vested interest in people considering Ronaldo better than the rest isn't going to change that. We had a discussion about this earlier this year, and a fifth Ballon d'Or isn't enough to alter the current wording. – PeeJay 19:00, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

PeeJay - "Often" does not imply to some lists that only a little percent of people are voting in (most people don't vote on those lists), it's more than that and ronaldo proved countless times is a fair candidate to be the best of all time. a lot of people thinks he's the best, and ignoring them completely proves the conclusion of this discussion can't be objective! as i said the sentence "Often considered.." is a true statement, and i find ruling it out shows that Wikipedia is not a 100 percent objective source of media, but contains a lot of subjective info which is in control of those who have the power to edit. enough said!

You only think that because your opinion isn't being reflected here. The fact is, you're not the only person who thinks the way you do, but there was a discussion and it was decided that the wording you suggest was not a fair reflection of the situation. Since it's very unlikely things have changed much in the last few months, please learn to accept the situation as it is and drop the stick. – PeeJay 19:30, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

That discussion here just prove that Wikipedia isn't objective, and editors just do whatever they want. if some people think ronaldo is the best, but some don't, then u exclude the statement completely, but with messi some people think he's the best, and some don't, but u still don't exclude the statement. that's like been caught red-handed for subjectivity. this site is uneven, and it seems like Wikipedia has become like some kind of site that reflects personal opinions of the editors, and that's a joke! Also i am pretty conviced u are here just to protect your own opinion which is reflected because the editors don't want to right the truth - which is ronaldo is considered (OFTEN)!

Again, you are only saying that because your opinion isn't reflected in the article. If you can't think objectively, please leave. – PeeJay 19:49, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

PeeJay - U are the one who's subjective. u know i'm right here, but u came to protect your opinion which is reflected in the article. please leave. I'm here cause some people (as a fact!) think ronaldo is the best, but editors ignore it completely. u are here cause u want to defend your opinion and ignore completely any other opinion. see the difference? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.111.233.230 (talk) 19:51, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

And other people think Ronaldo is just one of the best, not the absolute best. Sure, some people think he's the best, but it's fairer to say he's simply one of the best. – PeeJay 19:57, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

U can say the same thing about messi - sure some thinks is the best, but some think is just one of the best, so it's fairer to say he's simply one of the best. Sorry, but that's not an objective observation, and i give up here cause the conclusion is definitely not objective. there's nothing u can say about messi's career, that can't be said about ronaldo as well. Messi might have a more elegant style of play, but in terms of acheivements ronaldo doesn't fall from messi anyway. Wikipedia pretty much seem as a joke, when some editors decide whatever they prefer, and that's why dictionaries are always better than Wikipedia - no Monopoly on opinions!

Yes, you could say the same about Messi, and I would even argue that you should say the same about Messi, Maradona, Pele, Cruyff, Best and all the rest who come into the discussion. But this discussion is about this article alone; if you want to argue for the wording to be changed on the others, I suggest you open discussions there instead. – PeeJay 20:17, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

It won't matter. as i clearly see, it all comes down to the editor's personal opinion at the end (even if they declare themselves as "objective"). It's really hard to take Wikipedia seriously, when same situations are being handled totally different.

Dude, settle down. Wikipedia is not set in stone, we can make changes. But we don't just change something because one editor thinks it should be changed. Normally I would suggest that we have a discussion about this, but since one already happened so recently, it would be pretty moot to do so. So again, as I said, if you want other articles changed, we'll look at them on a case-by-case basis, but this one should probably keep the current wording for now. – PeeJay 21:05, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Do whatever u wanna do, it's clear to me that this is not based on objective conclusion, and what u write really does little difference anyway. And i don't even think myself there's someone who is the best, there are some who are at the top and ronaldo is clearly among them, but there isn't really "the best", i just really hate hypocrisy, and subjectivity has no place in a site like this who's meant to be an objective source of media, but clearly isn't. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.111.233.230 (talk) 21:21, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

References

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 15:46, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 December 2017

Hello. I feel the part 'Often considered the best player in the world and widely regarded as one of the greatest of all time' should be changed to 'Often considered the best player in the world and widely regarded as the greatest of all time.' It seems to me that the person who edits this article is not a regular football follower. In my country, Portugal, a country of 11 million people, Cristiano Ronaldo is revered as the Greatest of All Time. I fail to understand how a 5-time Ballon d'Or winner, a player who has delivered for his clubs AND his nation, is supposedly regarded as 'one of' the greatest of all time, when in fact, he is widely considered the outright Greatest of All Time. André53 (talk) 20:29, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Oh look, another account with his first edit talking about the same statement like the other accounts who just showed up, hmmmm... Kante4 (talk) 22:39, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 22:57, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Why am i not surprised. another one and another one are coming to ask for the change, and that says it all! The fact that you edited more Wikipedia terms, doesn't make u a football expert more than one who didn't edited before. It just shows what is right, but somehow is twisted in the edit! And Eggishorn - there's no sources for the matter of opinion, it's not statisics, but with so much people thinking he is the greatest, and his acheivements which are historical in any measurments, the change should be made no doubt.

This is not a fan site. It is an encyclopedia. Everything, especially including opinions, needs sources. Debate the greatest football player of all time somewhere else more suited to declarations of fandom.Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 03:11, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

I think the point has already been proven, but this encyclopedia turns out to be a one that reflects the opinions of few editors, instead of millions of people's opinions on the matter. when u don't have anything left to say, you answer like u do, but even u know ronaldo did anything needed to worth the change, and i don't need to give u countless of sources of his historical, top of the history acheivements, records, and statistics, cause u yourself know i'm right, but i guess you just have a personal motive to not want the change to be made. U can make the obvious change, or not, but it still won't change reality which is not reflected now in the entry at all!, it just hurts Wikipedia's reputation, and make it look bad and unproffesional. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.111.233.230 (talk) 12:27, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Not done: This encyclopedia is an encyclopedia and it is impossible to state that any one player is definitively the best in history at any sport. Especially when it is the player themselves who is the biggest exponent of that title. See below for further. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 15:44, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

No one asked editors to write Ronaldo is the best of all time, we asked to write "OFTEN CONSIDERED as the best of all time", like Messi, maradona, pele, and cruijff, and it's a fair and truthful request. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.111.233.230 (talk) 15:57, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 December 2017

I am copy-pasting the request. Hello. I feel the part 'Often considered the best player in the world and widely regarded as one of the greatest of all time' should be changed to 'Often considered the best player in the world and widely regarded as the greatest of all time.' It seems to me that the person who edits this article is not a regular football follower. In my country, Portugal, a country of 11 million people, Cristiano Ronaldo is revered as the Greatest of All Time. I fail to understand how a 5-time Ballon d'Or winner, a player who has delivered for his clubs AND his nation, is supposedly regarded as 'one of' the greatest of all time, when in fact, he is widely considered the outright Greatest of All Time. For true football followers, I don't really think sources are needed to understand this. But still, a few links.

It's a matter of opinions. But on a site like Wikipedia, referring to Cristiano Ronaldo as 'widely considered as one of the greatest of all time' shows a complete lack of football understanding, and also disrespect to a player who has reached the pinnacle individually, on club level, and most importantly, on the international stage. The current statement is also a lie; Cristiano Ronaldo is, IN FACT, widely considered the greatest of all time. André53 (talk) 14:30, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Andre53 - You're absolutely right, but don't count on the editors to change it, cause it's already bizzare that the statement is as it is, and probably for subjective reasons. I bet the editors are furious with me and u and others demanding for the change, and soon they might even block our accounts, in order to silence the discussion, or at least try to silence it.

 Not done@André53:, your requests would have a lot more credibility and be much more likely to be answered politely if they weren't accompanied by an inevitable amount of promotionalism, provincialism, and hostility. That we don't immediately jump to act on your assurance that millions of fans think he's the greatest of all time isn't censorship. As the really big yellow box at the top of this page says, this is not a forum for discussing how great Ronaldo is and it is up to you to demonstrate how you think adding "greatest of all time" fluff to the article actually improves it. Having read through your cites, they certainly demonstrate that a lot of people think he is the greatest of all time, most especially Ronaldo himself. Unfortunately for your proposed change, he is not the only one that is widely considered the greatest of all time. Lionel Messi is also "widely considered as the greatest of all time" [1], [2], [3] others talk about Ronaldinho [4], Diego Maradona [5], and let's not forget Pelé [6]. The point is: it is a debate, and will always remain a debate (here's just four examples). It is impossible for any encyclopedia to ever state authoritatively that any player is the "greatest of all time" in any sport. Please do not ask again for this change. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 15:43, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Eggishorn - So according to your logic, messi, maradona, pele, and cruijff's entries should be changed in this sentence to the same as ronaldo's entry. If Wikipedia considered to be a serious encyclopedia, either u need to change their (messi, maradona, pele, and cruijff) Wikipedia entries, or u need to make the change in Ronaldo's entry. Even if u really hate that fact, people would continue to come and ask for the change, because in this case Wikipedia does not reflect reality! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.111.233.230 (talk) 16:02, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

The irony of some-one who can't even be bothered to spell out "you" or capitalize names attempting to lecture anyone about correct standards is rich. I'll say this as simply as possible: Calling anyone the "Greatest in history" or "Greatest of all time" is never a "fact" but always an opinion. Please find a place more congenial to debating sporting opinions because this is not the place for it. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:14, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

I agree - "The best of all time" is never a fact, always an opinion, but as i said if at Messi, Maradona, Pele, and Cruijff's Wikipedia entries it says "often considred as the best of all time", it should be the same at C.Ronaldo's entry if Wikipedia is a serious encyclopdia. whether i write U or YOU, doesn't imply anything about my knowledge - you're just being arrogant. it's just a talk page, and if i was editing, i know very well how to write properly for formal writing demands (even though i'm not an english native). u clearly don't want the change to be made even though the current state doesn't reflect reality. The request is 100 percent just, and clearly none of the editors who dissed the request, gave any logical explanations against the request, therefore i don't think this discussion is over at all, and i'm also not so sure Ronaldo's entry would ever get into good article criteria again without the change.

Clearly the fact that Messi, Pele, Maradona and Cruyff are all in the discussion means that they are each simply "one of the best of all time". They should all be changed to say that, IMO. – PeeJay 18:08, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

True, articles should be with the same statement. Kante4 (talk) 18:17, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Cruyff's lead already has the same "one of the" language that is used here. I will make the changes to Messi, Pele, and Maradona shortly with explanations on each talk page. Thanks for your input, @PeeJay2K3 and Kante4:. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:46, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Changes made at Lionel Messi, Diego Maradona, and Pelé. Discussions at Lionel Messi's talk page, Diego Maradona's talk page, and Pelé's talk page. Happy New Year. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:20, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks PeeJay2K3, it's only about even approaches of editing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.111.233.230

(talk) 18:53, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

References

Pele, Maradona and now Messi are generally considered the greatest of all time. C Ronaldo, Ronaldinho etc, as someone wrote above, have never widely been considered as the greatest of all time. It strikes me that fans of Ronaldo, who are unhappy that Messi is regularly compared to Pele and Maradona, are ignoring all objectivity in order to promote an opinion which is by no means widely accepted. For example, recently FourFourTwo compiled a list of the 100 greatest footballers of all time, with Maradona, Messi and Pele the top three. This is so obviously the general view of football fans, footballers and journalists, that it is absurd to even have a conversation where C Ronaldo is considered alongside them. https://www.fourfourtwo.com/features/fourfourtwos-100-greatest-footballers O'Flannery (talk) 00:13, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Like it/him or not, he is in the same category. I have Zidane as the best i have ever seen but Ronaldo belongs to all mentioned ones. Kante4 (talk) 01:47, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

He is in the same category because you say so? I agree that C Ronaldo is 'one of the greatest' of all time, as is Di Dtefano, Cruyff, Garrincha, Zico, Zidane and many others. The problem with the recent edits is that all of these players are now described the same, when it is widely accepted that Pele, Maradona and Messi are above these players (see link provided above, which is compiled by football journalists, as an example). O'Flannery (talk) 02:22, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

O'flannery - the fact that u don't agree doesn't change the fact that last editing was correct. U base yourself on some articles that was written by normal regular people, it's not a stamp and people around the world have different opinions on the matter, which puts Di stefano, C.Ronaldo, Zidane' Cruijff, Garrincha, and so along with Pele, Maradona, and Messi. I don't see no problem with the current version, it's more accurate now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.111.233.230 (talk) 11:35, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Totally disagree with no name user 84.111.233.230. Find plenty of articles which name Zidane as the greatest of all time, or Garrincha, attempt to compile a large number of sources which claim this. I would be interested to read your thoughts after doing this. O'Flannery (talk) 13:11, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

I read a lot of articles about different players, but with all thee respect to articles, as i said they are basically another personal opinions of the writers. Somehow u think articles is all that matters, but articles doesn't mean more than the opinion of people who don't write articles. I think all that's left is to agree to disagree. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.111.233.230 (talk) 13:16, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

If you can find plenty of quotes and articles which claim that Garrincha, Zidane or Zico are the greatest of all time then I would not be arguing my point. The point is that there are plenty of such articles and quotes which name Pele, Maradona and Messi as the greatest. There are not plenty for the likes of Zidane, Zico, C Ronaldo, Garrincha etc. This is why the sentence which used to read 'regarded by many as the greatest of all time' was appropriately used on Pele's, Maradona's and Messi's page. O'Flannery (talk) 13:41, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Basing everything on articles (by some regular normal people) is not a proffesional observation at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.111.233.230 (talk) 14:01, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

84.111.233.230, that is why it is important to get many articles and quotes from professionals and people knowledgable about football. The more opinions that agree, the stronger the case is. Do you understand? O'Flannery (talk) 18:04, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

But you can't measure the opinions of people who don't say their opinion publicly, on articles and so, which are almost 100 percent of the opinions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.111.233.230 (talk) 18:18, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

@84.111.233.230 Of course we can't know the opinion of people who do not speak them or write them publicly! What an absurd point to make. We base a claims validity on articles and quotes by those who are deemed credible. The more there are the more easy it is to see a consensus O'Flannery (talk) 22:12, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

@84.111.233.230:, Wikipedia does not operate on suppositions of unstated opinions, but on reliably sourced opinions that comply with the Core Content Policies. Thank you for your understanding. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 22:32, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

As much as u can say "many in sport..." about Pele, Maradona,and Messi, u might as well say "regarded by many as the greatest.." on some other players. I don't see a reason to add this "regarded by many in sport the be the best" on Pele, Maradona, and Messi, but not add "regarded by many" to the other players we've pointed out in the discussion. Wikipedia needs to keep status-quo, and either make the addition for everyone, or just leave it like it is now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.111.233.230 (talk) 15:49, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

So what now? someone just decided and edited back the changes after several days. Wikiepdia doesn't seem to be a serious Encyclopedia, when every editor just do whatever he wants, and the day after another editor comes and change it back. there are more than just 3 players who are widely considered as the greatest of all time by fans worldwide (that's a fact!), but Wikipedia who is supposed to be serious, is not reflecting reality, instead reflecting only the opinion of several editors. u need to change it back, cause it looks unproffesional.

I assume the above comment is by the user 84.111.233.23 (who is unwilling to make an account or even learn how to sign their comments, yet is totally fine with criticising Wikipedia). Again, I would like to point out that it is simply not true that 'many' consider the other players to be the greatest, this term only really applies to the three players already mentioned above. Can you find many sources to back up the claim that 'many' consider Zidane, Zico, C Ronaldo, Garrincha etc. the greatest of all time? If it is a 'fact', as you claim, then it should be a simple task. O'Flannery (talk) 09:18, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Most people don't go and public their opinion, but yes there are some players who are considered widely as the greatest. it's ok, after i saw how things are working in Wikipedia, i cannot take this "Encyclopedia" too serious. If u want to keep Wikipedia a site that reflects only part of the opinions, feel free but it's not serious, and not proffesional. At least change the wording on the three to: "widely considered as the greatest of all time by many articles", cause just the wording "widely considered as the greatest of all time" is relevant for more than three players for a fact! I already know u personally not agree with this, but that's a fact whether u like it or not, and Wikipedia reflects only part of the opinions - if u want Wikipedia to appear serious, u should either not involve opinions and wording like "considered to be" at all, or make sure it reflects a wider set of opinions and not just some articles by normal people, just as those many people who don't go and write their opinions in articles on the internet. U just assumed that the opinions of those who did write their personal opinions publicly are all there is, and that's not reflecting reality, it's just total ignorance of millions over millions of people around the world who don't think the greatest is one of the three. U can keep it as it is, but it's definitely not reflecting reality when u just decided to base everything on web articles, and some internet polls that only a bunch of people voted on, and mostly just young - new generation people who didn't even see most of the players. Plus football players who say Messi is the best of all time are almost only new generation players (most former players didn't say Messi is the greatest), and most of those players who compliment Messi, would never compliment C.Ronaldo just because of his arrogant personality, so we might never know what they really think of C.ronaldo who in terms of facts, numbers, and acheivements just don't fall from no one in history (and that's a fact that can't be denied, and way more important than some articles, and internet polls that most people don't know they even exist!).

Question for editors - Is there a way that i can change an entry just for my personal view (i mean whenever i enter the entry i'll see my own edited version of the page)?? if not i suggest adding an option for everyone to edit pages for their own personal use, especially for cases like this where opinions get involved, and Wikipedia reflect only part of the actual opinions. ???? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Es031989 (talk • contribs) 19:01, 11 January 2018 (UTC) Wikipedia has proven itself as a sad joke. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.111.233.230 (talk) 02:13, 17 January 2018

Semi-protected edit request on 25 January 2018

I interviewed Ronaldo and would like to add additional information onto this page.many thanks Rthrtshrtshtshye (talk) 18:38, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Not done: requests for decreases to the page protection level should be directed to the protecting admin or to Wikipedia:Requests for page protection if the protecting admin is not active or has declined the request. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:07, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Infobox Image

I recently saw that a more recent picture of Cristiano Ronaldo in the 2017 FIFA Confederations Cup was changed to a older picture of Ronaldo in 2015. I want to know if this is correct or not, and why. Thanks Matthewishere0 (talk) 14:58, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

It's possible that the more recent photo was not actually eligible to be uploaded here (we're only allowed to use free images), or perhaps another editor simply thought the 2015 photo was a better representation of Ronaldo to put in the infobox. – PeeJay 22:05, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Ok thanks for your help PeeJay. Matthewishere0 (talk) 02:05, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 February 2018

Change age from 32 to 33 RamProdigyKamal (talk) 19:08, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

 Not done he will be 33 tomorrow, not today, and the template should update automatically once the article is edited - Arjayay (talk) 19:31, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 March 2018

Often considered the best player in the world and widely regarded to be one of the greatest players of all time-Often considered the best player in the world and regarded by many as the greatest player of all time. 103.204.38.57 (talk) 23:45, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: Sources prove it is the majority. "Widely" infers this moreso than "regarded by many" — IVORK _Discuss 00:20, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

This edit-warring has to stop

Please discuss changes on the talk page. These continual reversions aren't acceptable on Wikipedia and there are policies in place to deal with those who engage in it. Nzd (talk) 19:58, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

The edit warring has two sides, u can't take one side of it and send an attack message to the other side. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Es031989 (talk • contribs) 06:47, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Where is the attack message? I just see an editor advising people to discuss the matter before doing an edit war, which he is correct. Kante4 (talk) 08:54, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

I take no side, although I would prefer neutrality and consistency across all of the relevant articles. There appears to be a current consensus, which you are welcome to challenge. I can help with this if you want to initiate something more formal, but constant reversion is not the way to go. Your last comment was "if it won't be me, than someone else would make the obvious edit, the warring is inevitable even without me." How about we give that a test for a bit? Nzd (talk) 12:35, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Just as i said, the claim is obvious to too many people, so people would keep on comin and make the obvoius edit. right now... i really can't see Wikipedia as more than a joke, until Wikipedia will actually reflect reality, and won't let any angry Messi fan take control over this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.111.233.230 (talk) 19 March 2018

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, ([7] and [8]), 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)

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)

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)

'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)

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 [9] 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.

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)

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) Brandon280237 (talk) 14:09, 4 July 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)