Talk:Cristiano Ronaldo/Archive 11

Archive 5

←

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

→

Archive 15

Professional footballer Semi-Protected Edit Request

Could someone reinstate the term professional in front of footballer in the main page for Cristiano Ronaldo. I checked Messi as well as Sergio Ramos, Pepe, etc. and they all include the term professional footballer.

It's a bit disrespectful not to include the term since clearly Ronaldo is not an amateur footballer.

Thanks,

Velimir Vilypetkov (talk) 18:28, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Feel free to do it yourself. – PeeJay 18:43, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

I would love to but I am not an authorized user. I haven't done sufficient posts/ edits. If you or anyone could do it, it would be great. Thanks. Vilypetkov (talk) 18:58, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Once again, can someone please add the word professional in front of footballer in the main page of Cristiano Ronaldo.

It now reads: Cristiano Ronaldo dos Santos Aveiro, ComM, GOIH (Portuguese pronunciation: [kɾiʃ'tjɐnu ʁuˈnaɫdu], born 5 February 1985) is a Portuguese footballer for Spanish club Real Madrid and the Portugal national team.

It should read: Cristiano Ronaldo dos Santos Aveiro, ComM, GOIH (Portuguese pronunciation: [kɾiʃ'tjɐnu ʁuˈnaɫdu], born 5 February 1985) is a Portuguese professional footballer for Spanish club Real Madrid and the Portugal national team.

It was there before and it was removed, which is not consistent with other players wiki pages. Here are some to name a few:

Lionel Messi:

Lionel Andrés "Leo" Messi[note 1] (Spanish pronunciation: [ljoˈnel anˈdɾes ˈmesi] ( listen); born 24 June 1987) is an Argentine professional footballer who plays as a forward for Spanish club FC Barcelona and the Argentina national team.

Sergio Ramos:

Sergio Ramos García (Spanish pronunciation: [ˈserxjo ˈramos ɣarˈθi.a]; born 30 March 1986) is a Spanish professional footballer who plays for and captains both, Real Madrid and the Spain national football team.

Neymar da Silva Santos Júnior (Portuguese pronunciation: [nejˈmaʁ dɐ ˈsiwvɐ ˈsɐ̃tus ˈʒũɲoʁ]; born 5 February 1992), commonly known as Neymar or Neymar Jr., is a Brazilian professional footballer who plays as a forward for Spanish club FC Barcelona and the Brazil national team.

All these contain the word "professional" in front of footballer. Please someone add that word. I wish I could do it but I am new to Wikipedia and don't have the authority to do so.

Thanks!!!Vilypetkov (talk) 23:40, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Better picture?

Has anyone got a better picture for the article (best would surely be 2017, in a Real Madrid home kit)? The current one has odd dimensions (landscape) and isn't great quality. Formulaonewiki (talk) 14:38, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Adding "Male" prefix to one of/the greatest footballers of all time, yay or nay

Hi I would just like to know the consensus regarding the addition of the word "male" as a prefix, in regards to one' great achievements if it is in line with one of the best players/or the best player of all time. The context is that or tennis, the male prefix is an ongoing debate for the greatest player of all time on the tennis player, Roger Federer, whether to add the male prefix or not. While they are both different codes of sport, what does the football contributors think if male was applied in Ronaldo or say Messi? Is it appropriate to have it as for example, "Ronaldo is one of the greatest male footballers of all time" or "Ronaldo is one of the greatest footballers of all time" ?

Male is not needed. Kante4 (talk) 15:14, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Bronze bust

I invite editors to assist with expanding the article about the recently unveiled Bust of Cristiano Ronaldo. There are additional sources shared on the article's talk page. Thanks! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 15:37, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

 Moved to draft space: Draft:Bust of Cristiano Ronaldo. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 16:43, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

...do people really think this topic warrants a dedicated article? Anakimi (talk) 21:50, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

'Greatest' claim

The sentence 'Often considered the best player in the world and regarded by many as the greatest of all time' should be changed, as the citations used to back up the latter part of this claim are weak. The quote from Mourinho (Ronaldo's manager at the time and also Portuguese) from 2013 is invalid, as in 2016 Mourinho chose Pele, Maradona and Messi as the three greatest footballers of all time.

http://www.givemesport.com/828915-jose-mourinho-names-his-three-best-footballers-of-all-time

Two further quotes are from Nuno, a Portuguese coach, and Ancelloti who was manager of Real Madrid at the time. Along with these three quotes, there is a link to an article which does not claim Ronaldo is the greatest of all time (from 2014) and an article written by a random American journalist. All in all, I think the 'regarded by many' claim can not be taken seriously.

I would request that the sentence be changed from 'Often considered the best player in the world and regarded by many as the greatest of all time' to 'Often considered the best player in the world and one of the greatest of all time' O'Flannery (talk) 15:50, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Yes. As I stated previously here: "The threshold for inclusion for a WP:BLP is high. It is WP:Original research to cite a handful of people saying, "I think dogs are better than cats," and then extrapolate a supposed majority opinion from that. If writers, managers and players indeed widely consider a player the greatest of all time (whatever that means), then there will be sources that make that observation. If not, then you cannot add it to the article." Prayer for the wild at heart (talk) 16:04, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Btw, such a source did not exist for C.Ronaldo when I worked extensively on this article last year. If there is one it will have been more recent, which is not unlikely given this year's CL campaign. Prayer for the wild at heart (talk) 16:10, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

It seems Shady59 has not read what has been written here and has changed it back again. O'Flannery (talk) 16:30, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

I tweaked the statement to "regarded by some as the greatest", which is supported by a few citations. Fringe/minority views shouldn't typically be placed in the lead, but excluding it altogether is probably an uphill battle. Prayer for the wild at heart (talk) 17:04, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

On Messi's page, the term used is "many". I would argue that the same be applied here. Anakimi 00:03, 13 June 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tombstone5650 (talk • contribs)

As mentioned above, the citations for Ronaldo can not justify the 'many' claim. A quick search regarding Messi confirms that many do regard him as the greatest of all time, the same can not be said for Ronaldo. O'Flannery (talk) 06:54, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

In Messi's page, there are only 2 citations from Guardiola & Zanetti supporting the claim(which you can find in the sub section, coz citations are discouraged in lead) and another from Simeone that says he's better than Maradona. The rest all are articles by editors discussing whether he is the best player ever. And in one such article provided as citation, 5 out of 6 correspondents say that he isn't. And I don't know what O'Flannery meant by saying that a quick search regarding Messi confirms that many do regard him as the greatest of all time, coz apart from claims from a handful of guys like Pep, rest all are just discussions & articles by editors. Shady59 (talk) 16:59, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

A quick search confirms that he is often mentioned alongside Pele and Maradona, this is not the case for Ronaldo. The quote from Mourinho, from 2013, is invalid, as in 2016 Mourinho chose Pele, Maradona and Messi as the three greatest footballers of all time. Arsene Wenger, Graham Souness, Wayne Rooney, Gary Lineker, Roy Keane etc. all were quoted as saying Messi is the greatest ever, along with many journalists. It seems that this is a Barca v Real, Ronaldo fanboy thing now, as Messi was mentioned not long after the changes were made to the Ronaldo sentence, which is all a little bit sad. O'Flannery (talk) 18:32, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

"then extrapolate a supposed majority opinion from that" Perhaps the issue is to do with the meaning of the word "many"? "Many" does not imply a majority. "Most" does. No one is arguing about whether or not the majority think he is the greatest. @O'Flannery: Let me first attempt to get out of your derision (unlikely, judging from how quickly you chose to disrespect an observation) – I am not a Ronaldo fanboy. Personally I think Messi is the greatest of all time (that being said, I am a Real Madrid fan from much before Messi/Cristiano have been in the picture). But this is about being accurate, and I think you are either pushing an agenda, or turning a blind eye to other things that Wenger/Rooney/Lineker have said, "invalidating" what they may have said about Messi, by saying "Ronaldo has overtaken Messi/is the best alongside Messi" (I can provide references at your request if you are unable to find these quotes). Is your point that it is not true that a lot of people do think Ronaldo is the best player? Then you might be a bit deluded. If not, you are just pushing an agenda. Fact is, a lot of "unbiased" people in football do think that Cristiano is the greatest ever. Same way as a lot of them think Messi is the greatest ever. Whether or not there are more of them that think Messi is greater is a different issue. If you poll a thousand people about which of Pele or Maradona are better, 600 say Pele and 400 say Maradona, it doesn't mean only "some" think Maradona is better. Many of these hypothetical people think Maradona is better. The same applies here. Anakimi (talk) 20:30, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

My comment was not intended to be antagonistic. I made the comment as someone almost immediately brought Lionel Messi into the conversation. Again, one of the citations used for Ronaldo is not accurate (the Mourinho quote) as he has made a statement which contradicts this in 2016. If people are happy with a claim being backed up by an article written by a random journalist from LA, Ancelotti (a former Real coach) and a Portuguese coach (Nuno) then there is no point arguing my point any more. I do not see how this can be termed 'many' O'Flannery (talk) 21:00, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

I understand your point, but maybe this can be resolved by adjudicating some sort of quantitative threshold for "many"? Otherwise it is simply subject to the interpretation of different people, and ends up turning into an edit/revert war. Anakimi (talk) 21:16, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Indeed. Well I think it is probably futile to hope for anything close to impartiality here, sadly. O'Flannery (talk) 22:28, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

@O'Flannery: Messi is mentioned alongside Maradona because they are from the same country. If Ronaldo was from Argentina or Maradona was from Portugal, then Ronaldo & Maradona would've been mentioned together. And subsequently alongside Pele, since Maradona was compared to Pele. But you won't see Messi being compared to Pele, without being mentioning the name of Maradona. So just because Messi is compared to Maradona, since they are from the same country, doesn't automatically qualify for the former being tabbed as the greatest. And as I told earlier you'll find only a handful of people who say that outright, rest all are discussions, which you can find dozens of regarding Ronaldo too. So as far as reliable sources available are concerned, the tab of the "greatest ever" applies equally for both Messi & Ronaldo Shady59 (talk) 22:55, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Your comment, 'Messi is mentioned alongside Maradona because they are from the same country. If Ronaldo was from Argentina or Maradona was from Portugal, then Ronaldo & Maradona would've been mentioned together' is nonsense and suggests that your understanding of the subject might be limited (and that perhaps you are not the best person to be making edits here). The Messi/Maradona comparison is due to their style of play, dribbling ability, both being predominantly left footed, stature, and, most importantly, ability. Until Messi, the general consensus was that Pele and Maradona were the greatest footballers of all time, which is why the comparisons now generally involve the three of them. O'Flannery (talk) 23:19, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

I fully agree with you, the sentence you're talking about is complete nonsense. Especially the last part: regarded by many as the greatest of all time is simply not true (t's only stated by amateur/commercial media). But also the first part of the sentence is dubious (not in the least because it's very temporal). I regularly read articles on footballers and it surprises me that so many footballers are considered the greatest of all time. Wouldn't it be an idea to add to all of those articles the adjective 'one of the', to avoid the never ending discussion? Apart from that, in the case of C. Ronaldo there are no serious sources that state that C. Ronaldo is the greatest footballer of all time (even 'one of the' would be a matter of debate). Pelé, Cruyff, Maradona and now Messi are usually the footballers who are considered the greatest, and even Cruyff's article isn't calling him the greatest footballer of all time. Max Eisenhardt (talk) 20:45, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

@O'Flannery: This is not a place to discuss how Messi fans & Ronaldo fans think about the respective players. All that matters are the credible sources in both the articles & as I mentioned earlier the tab applies equally for both Messi & Ronaldo coz you can only find so many sources stating the same, apart from mere discussions. If you check the articles of Pele & Maradona, you can find around 20 different sources/players that call them the greatest, but you can't even find one-third of those in the case of Messi or Ronaldo. So it's really important to keep both the articles unbiased. Opinion of users don't matter, only credible sources matter. Shady59 (talk) 11:32, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Shady59 it has been explained, very clearly, by a number of people, why the claim 'regarded by many as the greatest of all time' is simply not true. Why are you unwilling to discuss the actual points raised? You mentioned 'credible sources'. Well if you are genuinely concerned by this, then you should be aware that a number of the citations used do not actually support the claim. The Mourinho quote, as I have mentioned previously, certainly should not be used, as in 2016 Mourinho named Pele, Maradona and Messi as the three greatest footballers of all time. Can this citation be removed from Ronaldo's page? And the fact that the opinion of a random journalist for the LA times is used to back up the claim just goes to show how tenuous the claim is. It appears that you lack the necessary objectivity to make corrections to this page. Also, your recent comment regarding comparisons between Messi and Maradona demonstrated your lack of knowledge of the subject. O'Flannery (talk) 12:54, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

@Shady59: so you're a Messi 'fanboy' if you put a few critical notes at a page about C.Ronaldo? Apart from that, I have to say that even now the statement - regarded by some as the greatest of all time - is dubious. Because what exactly are the sources? And shouldn't we be more critical of them? For example, is asking the question 'Is Cristiano Ronaldo the greatest footballer of all time?' (dixit Metro.co.uk) really stating that he's regarded as the greatest of all time? Or is this opinion (http://www.latimes.com/sports/soccer/la-sp-ronaldo-messi-baxter-20170506-story.html) really a representative and/or credible source? For instance: there are some people who call Cruyff the greatest footballer of all time (amongst others Michel Platini: http://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/sport/football-cruyff-the-best-player-of-all-time-platini-tells-afp-8138932), is this, however, really enough to make a statement like that in an encyclopedia? The vast majority of pundits wouldn't call C.Ronaldo 'the greatest of all time', so who exactly are these 'some'? Are they credible enough to be included in an encyclopedia? And how many sources are enough to say 'by some regarded...' or 'by many regarded...'? Max Eisenhardt (talk) 00:34, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

@O'Flannery: You claiming Mourinho statement shouldn't be used is the same as saying not to use claims made by people Pele, Maradona or Wenger who've said Messi is the best earlier & then changed their opinion later or vice versa. And @Max Eisenhardt:, you tried to even edit the article as "one of the best players". So it's clear what your intention is. And you stating those discussions was just what I was talking about all this time. These are exactly the same type of citations which you can find in the Messi article. If you check the citations provided in that page, apart from 3 statements, rest all are similar discussions. But the page still says "regarded by many", which is what is mentioned in this article also. So either both should be stated as "regarded by some" or both should be stated as "regarded by many". Only then will it be unbiased. Shady59 (talk) 14:30, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Shady59 Why not use Mourinho's most up to date quote if any are to be used? It seems nonsensical to quote him when his opinion has clearly changed (and by including it, it simply emphasises the tenuousness of the claim it is intended to support.) Regarding Max Eisenhardt, you said 'it's clear what your intention is'. What is their intention? It appears to me that they are attempting to correctly edit the page, despite the best efforts of a determined Ronaldo fan who lacks objectivity. I have a question for you Shady59, if more citations were added to support the claim that Messi is regarded by many, would you be happy to leave it at that, with Ronaldo's page saying regarded by some? This is a concession, as I do not believe there are enough credible sources to back up the claim regarded by some, but it seems a compromise is needed here. O'Flannery (talk) 19:03, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Why not leave this out of the article in its entirety? After all the man is still active as a footballer. Hence there's not really a majority claim for him as either 'one of the greatest' or 'the greatest'. And indeed, I don't think he can be considered as 'the greatest', because it's clearly not the majority view. You can find a 'source' for pretty much every claim. Like I pointed out: the majority doesn't view Cruyff as 'the greatest of all time' but as 'one of the greatest'. However, Platini stated that Cruyff was the greatest of all time. Can we now use that claim as a general statement on his Wikipedia page? I disagree with that, because it's clearly not the majority view. The same goes for C. Ronaldo. My question thus: is it possible to use any source when making statements like this? If so, then perhaps we can also argue that Bob Ross is the greatest painter of all time (I'm pretty sure we can find someone to argue in favour of Bob being the greatest in the history of the universe). Max Eisenhardt (talk) 00:38, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

UEFA Super Cup 2016

I¨m starting a new section about this topic, because someone can¨t bear that Ronaldo is a winner of this honour and has a golden medal. Let¨s start this case: Though he was not in the squad (because of injury), Real Madrid, the 2016 UEFA Super Cup winner, was presented with forty gold medals by UEFA: http://www.uefa.com/MultimediaFiles/Download/Regulations/uefaorg/Regulations/02/24/06/02/2240602_DOWNLOAD.pdf Real Madrid credits him as a winner, in other words he was given on of the forty gold medals the club received by UEFA. The squad for 2016-17 is of 25 players and 6 technical staff=31, still 9 left: http://www.realmadrid.com/en/news/2016/12/cristiano-ronaldo-wins-his-fourth-ballon-dor

How about reading this? The pdf file does not say who won, and reamlmadrid.com is no third-party source. Of course they award it to him. Same with Neymar when he was not even in the same continent. I have yet to see a source where it says that he received a medal. @PeeJay2K3: Again it seems... Kante4 (talk) 15:41, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

There is no hard evidence that Ronaldo is considered a winner of the 2016 Super Cup. He didn't travel to Norway, and simply receiving a medal does not mean you won the competition, if he did even receive a medal at all (which we have no evidence for). Also, the 25-man squad Real Madrid registered for the Champions League and La Liga is not the same as the one they registered for the Super Cup, so again, there's no evidence that Ronaldo was even considered part of the Super Cup squad. Sure, there may be nine medals unaccounted for from the 40, but even then we don't know that Ronaldo got one and it still wouldn't mean he won the competition even if he did. – PeeJay 16:27, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

UEFA is a third-party source. The title of the PDF is "Regulations of the UEFA Super Cup 2015-18 Cycle", and article 9.4 says "The winning team is presented with forty gold medals and the runner-up with forty silver medals. Additional medals may not be produced." It means every winning team from 2015- 2018 (2015: Barcelona, 2016: Real Madrid) will receive 40 medals. Also transfermarkt and Press Association Sport has put the Super Cup 2016 as part of his honours. He received a gold medal and won the competition, because he is a part of the winning team! I rest my case, now it is up to you guys. – SideMaster 17:41, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Yes, UEFA is a third-party source, but they never actually state who gets medals, only that the winning team gets 40 of them. However, to reiterate, there is no direct evidence that Ronaldo was one of the 40. Same with Gareth Bale. Also, what authority do Transfermarkt and the Telegraph have to say that Ronaldo won the competition? They literally have no say in the matter. You keep putting together sources that only kinda support your point, but there is no source that actually supports it definitively. – PeeJay 16:47, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

If the case is he wasn't named in matchday squad, players such as Rubén Yáñez, could have Super Cup medal only, considering he was only named in that squad Price Zero|^talk 11:20, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Sure, why not? Who said they couldn't? – PeeJay 12:41, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Sorry to stoke this up again, but I feel the consensus on this is incorrect. For instance, Gareth Bale has posted a picture of himself with the UEFA Super Cup 2016 medal, and he wasn't a part of the squad either. Surely there's not much more "direct evidence" needed. In that case should only Bale's page be updated with the honor, and not Ronaldo because he didn't post a picture? There are 24 players on the roster, 6 on the technical staff – they have medals for all of them. There's literally even enough for all the players out on loan. What else could they do with the medals? There's no one left to give it to.

If the argument is that they didn't contribute anything to actually winning the that game and therefore that trophy, then all everyone on the roster not a part of the matchday squad for the Champions League final should be excluded from every CL honor. There's no way the club would qualify for the Super Cup game if not for the Champions/Europa League win, same as the qualification for the finals of the Champions League itself. If a player left the club before the Super Cup, then its obviously not credited to him. But this is pretty straightforward in my opinion. Tombstone5650 (talk) 18:24, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

See PeeJay's comment below to that exact question... Kante4 (talk) 18:45, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

So, the only "official" thing is who was on the match day squad, and not whom UEFA considers as the winners? If UEFA felt the same way, they would award the medals to the players/staff on the pitch as they do, and keep the spare for themselves. Basically, by this logic, the actual physical medals that are awarded to players are meaningless, but the match day squad submitted is the defining authority? Tombstone5650 (talk) 19:02, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Yup. Or do you know who the UEFA Gabe the medals to? Going circle in here... Kante4 (talk) 19:15, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

All I know is that the "winning team is presented with 40 gold medals", according to UEFA's release. Real Madrid was the winning team. Now I don't know for sure that Florentino Perez doesn't keeps them in a shoe box under his bed, but I'm reasonably confident Bale was awarded one of them, and it's very likely that UEFA hasn't asked him for it back. I don't think they gave either Bale or Ronaldo the 2002 winner's medal, because they weren't playing for the club. They are playing for the club now, and the club has won the honor in this time, and they would have got a medal. I fail to see the reasoning behind the emphasis on the squad alone, and not an actual medal that the players actually receive. Tombstone5650 (talk) 19:31, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Dont know for sure, confident that, very likely... nothing confirmed. Maybe @PeeJay2K3: has some thing to offer. Kante4 (talk) 19:36, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

What's confirmed is that Bale got a medal, what's not confirmed is that UEFA does not consider him a winner, and yet it is not listed as an honor on his page. So in this case we use something not confirmed to discredit the trophy, while ignoring actual evidence of a medal. The Real Madrid page has it listed, but we are ignoring that too. Ronaldo's/Bale's height cites from the same Real Madrid page. Should we remove it and find a "third-party" source? Tombstone5650 (talk) 19:45, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, missed this bit. I actually made a mistake by claiming that Gareth Bale should not be considered a winner of the 2016 Super Cup. This page says he was part of the squad, even though he didn't travel to Norway for the game because of his involvement in Euro 2016, so it makes perfect sense for him to be considered a winner - he has a picture of himself with a medal, he was in the squad, what more do we need? Ronaldo, on the other hand, was not in Norway and wasn't included in the squad, so has no actual right to claim he won this competition. The suggestion that a player shouldn't be considered a winner of the Champions League if he wasn't selected for the final is irrelevant, but also nonsense, since the Champions League also requires that players are registered for it before they can play. If a player doesn't play in any of the 13 games on the way to winning the Champions League, there might be more of a case, but saying someone shouldn't be considered a winner just because they weren't in the matchday 18 for the final is bonkers (the FA Cup and other competitions that do not require player registration, however, are another kettle of fish). – PeeJay 18:14, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Actually this is correct, Ronaldo was not part of the 25-man squad submitted for the game, so it's possible that he hasn't got a medal. Also his own website doesn't even list it. Anyway, the reason I embarked on this entire thing was because my edits had been reverted on Bale's as well as Ronaldo's honours section. I even posted that 25-man squad on the Project Football talk page but it seems like it was dismissed without even proper consideration, so I'd just decided to give up on it. @PeeJay2K3: thanks for making the correction in Bale's case. – Tombstone5650 (talk) 07:20, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Well if ronaldo didnt win 2016 super cup, then lionel messi did not win champions league in 2006, he was not in the squad of the final, therefore, you have to take that years champions league off his name. Arslandon (talk) 22:23, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Why? Messi played in that season's Champions League competition and was part of the Barcelona squad for the tournament as a whole (since UEFA requires that teams officially name a squad of 25 senior players). Ronaldo wasn't included in Real Madrid's squad for the Super Cup at all. He didn't even travel to Norway. – PeeJay 22:24, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

What about 2005 Supercopa de España - Price Zero|^talk 03:29, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

What about it? Can we please keep the discussion on this page limited to Cristiano Ronaldo and not get into a pissing contest about which of Messi and Ronaldo has won more honours? – PeeJay 09:04, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Okay. But he has that honor even if he wasn't name on that squad - Price Zero|^talk 10:03, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Remove it. Kante4 (talk) 11:09, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Well, we should think that the super cup is played between winners of champions league and europa league and the fact that ronaldo was in the winning champions league squad should be enough. Arslandon (talk) 19:38, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

You realise that the Super Cup and the Champions League are different competitions, right? Aside from the fact that winning the Champions League qualifies you to play in the Super Cup, neither competition has any bearing on the other. Ronaldo was not named in the Super Cup squad as he was injured, therefore he cannot be considered a winner of the 2016 Super Cup. – PeeJay 21:54, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

I have no problem and ill accept the fact that they don't get awarded the supercup under there honors, but I don't understand why moderators are so strict on Real Madrid players pages...meanwhile Neymars page continues to allow him as a 2015 UEFA supecup and 2016 Spanish supercup winner despite the fact that he didn't play in either of those games...if I go add the supercup to Kroos, Bale or Navas page it will be removed tomorrow, but it seems know one takes issue with Neymars page as it went months without notice...maybe moderate the pages equally and stay on top of it like you do with Real Madrid players...for over a year the same wikiuser continues to put the supercup under Neymars honours with no consequences or warnings.A7xkid666 (talk) 02:02, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Go ahead an remove those as i did a few times. But I do not have Neymar or so on my watchlist. Be Bold or don't start the "why do Barca players have those honours..." saga... Kante4 (talk) 03:58, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

I try but I cant be on Wikipedia everyday having some sort of edit war with the same person.A7xkid666 (talk) 01:53, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

And nor can we. Most of us have full-time jobs that prevent us from being able to monitor Wikipedia at all hours, and in the time we do have available, we can't all keep an eye on every article; there's more than 5 million of them, for heaven's sake! I monitor all players who have ever played for Manchester United, and that includes both Cristiano Ronaldo (RM) and Gerard Pique (Barcelona), so I get abuse from both sides, and to be honest, I'm bloody sick of it. I know people aren't adding the 2016 Super Cup to Ronaldo's page out of malice - Real Madrid won the competition and Ronaldo is a Real Madrid player, so the lay reader would see that as an omission from the page - but there are certain eligibility criteria that players have to meet for any competition, especially if you're going to start saying they won it. As you can see here, Ronaldo and Pepe were not included in the Real Madrid squad for the Super Cup, presumably because they were in the Portugal squad that won Euro 2016; and although he didn't travel to Norway despite playing for Wales in the Euro 2016 semi-finals, Gareth Bale was included in the Super Cup squad, hence explaining why he posted a picture of himself with a medal. So you see, I get it - Ronaldo fanboys want to add as many medals to his page as they can - but they can't do that without evidence. – PeeJay 18:05, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

I think I have to start the discussion again. The main point is still whether players could actually have honours when they are not in squads of corresponding matches . My view point is still "yes". I said this because I already found several notable third-party source. All of them indicate that Ronaldo has the 2016 Super Cup honour (The same for Pepe and Kroos). For example, http://int.soccerway.com/players/cristiano-ronaldo-dos-santos-aveiro/382/ and http://www.eurosport.com/football/cristiano-ronaldo_prs27317/person.shtml These should be enough reliable. 七战功成 05:57, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Peejay and Kante. I myself thought they should have those honors, even if they haven't been in the squad, but Kante got me to realize that it also makes no sense. They didn't play in those tournaments, so why should they be given the honors? Ronaldo simply don't deserve the medal, he did nothing in the UEFA Super Cup, just like Messi did nothing in the 2005 spanish super cup, cause they were not even in the squad. Kante also says that of course their teams gives them the medal, but giving them honors in a tournament they didn't even play in, is an embarrassment to the sport of football. It will also most likely lead other people who read the articles, to think they played in those tournaments. It's historically inaccurate. Csknowitall (talk) 08:42, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

I didn't notice your posts until just now. The system didn't sent out notification. This is not decided by personal feeling or judgement. I insist on this point because I found there are a number of third-party sources show that he has the honour. We should pay enough attention to them. How could that be "embarrasing" or "historically inaccurate"? If according to what you said, why UEFA present a team with 40 medals? These are much more than the number of players who have played and coach staff combined. It's definitely possible that a player who is not in the squad of a game can have the honour. 七战功成 20:18, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Yes, it's definitely possible for a player who wasn't in the squad to receive a medal, but to consider them to have earned that honour is ludicrous. Just because someone gets a medal doesn't mean they've contributed anything to the team winning that competition; after all, a medal is just a token that the club can give to whomever they choose. Any third-party source that considers Ronaldo to have won the 2016 Super Cup is misinformed and should be ignored. – PeeJay 21:30, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

The medal are from UEFA, not made by clubs themselves. UEFA present teams with much more medals than actually needs means that UEFA also consider that players who are not in the squad of the game can also have the honour. If being presented with medals doesn't mean player have the honour, what do? Your logic is actually ludicrous. "Any third-party source that considers Ronaldo to have won the 2016 Super Cup is misinformed and should be ignored", this is just your conclusion? Just based on your personal preferences and judgement? This is definitely not a reasonable argument. 七战功成 00:33, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

@七战功成: If it helps, think of it this way – A player not named in the 25–man player list submitted to UEFA for the Super Cup has no chance of ever making an appearance in the game, and therefore no chance of contributing anything to the game. Players who are on this list could potentially feature in the game, similar to the unused subs. In this case, Ronaldo is no different to an academy player who was not on the list. It just does not make sense to consider him a winner. The third party sources in question possibly just referenced the Real Madrid website for the information, who are at liberty to "bestow" any honor they choose upon their players, official or not. If you can provide irrefutable evidence that UEFA considers Ronaldo to be a winner, then none of us would have any problem in adding the honor on his page. So far, there is no proof that Real Madrid have even given him the medal in the first place for us to be talking about the medals, and even if they had, it would have been a dubious distinction. I used to think the same way as you do now, but I realized that PeeJay was obviously right. Anakimi (talk) 01:40, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

@Anakimi: Ronaldo is definitely not the same as academy players in this. He is in the first-team squad of that season. And I don't know what kind of evidence could be called "irrefutable" to you, in fact, UEFA website never obviously indicate who are winners, who are not. The only information we can reference is just the squad. But as I said before, without being in the squad is not enough to shows that players cannot have the honour. Now the third-party sources should be the best evidence, since a lot of them all indicate the same results, we should consider them as true. As for this "The third party sources in question possibly just referenced the Real Madrid website for the information", this is simply a guess, cannot be an effective doubt. 七战功成 08:11, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

So, now we can add the honour to the list, right? 七战功成 06:00, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Nope. You are one against the others who disagree. Kante4 (talk) 05:23, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Jesus Christ, let it go, man! WP:DROPTHESTICK would seem to apply here. – PeeJay 10:36, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

If you disagree, you ought to give ideas and discuss the problem, rather than just saying such thing as"You can't do that, we don't agree with you". 七战功成 19:21, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

You're shifting the burden of proof. If you think Ronaldo should be considered a winner of the 2016 UEFA Super Cup, you need to present good evidence that he should be; it's not on us to prove that he shouldn't. As it stands, no one has provided sufficient evidence for anyone to think Ronaldo won that competition, especially in the face of actual evidence that he wasn't in the official squad for the competition (and that's a squad that goes beyond the matchday 18). – PeeJay 19:01, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Who is "shifting the burden of proof "? Don't I already provide a number of sources show that he has the honour? You can't see them? What "evidence" is sufficient to you? I gave RM's website, you said it was not third-party source. I gave third-party sources, you said they were misinformed and should be ignored. No matter what kind of evidence I give, you always say that it's not "good", not"sufficient", just because the information they indicate is opposite to your ideas? You seldom provide reasonable arguments and just judge them by your own opinions. This shows that you are not seriously discussing issues at all. 七战功成 18:51, 2 July, 2017 (UTC)

As I said, you are shifting the burden of proof. If you want to include something on a page, you have to provide evidence from sufficiently reliable sources. Now, we can debate the merits of the sources you've provided, but don't start slinging mud at us just because we come to the conclusion that the sources you've provided aren't good enough. Real Madrid will obviously attribute honours to all their players because they want to aggrandise their squad, so I don't consider their website to be particularly reliable, especially since even if they gave Ronaldo one of the 40 medals awarded by UEFA, possessing a medal does not automatically mean you won that competition. As for Soccerway and Eurosport - the only two other sources you've provided - I don't consider them reliable on this matter because their opinion on whether Ronaldo should be considered a winner of the 2016 Super Cup is irrelevant when you notice the fact that Ronaldo wasn't even in the official squad for that match. Unless you can present evidence that UEFA consider Ronaldo to have won the 2016 Super Cup, I'll take a look at it, but as things stand, you've got precisely jack shit. – PeeJay 19:19, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

And by the way, the point of the honours section is not to list all the competitions won by a team while the player was contracted to them, but to list the competitions that the player had a hand in winning. Ronaldo was not part of the Super Cup squad, so any suggestion that he played a part in them winning that specific competition (and obviously we don't count his contribution to the 2015–16 Champions League title, since that's a separate competition) is utterly ludicrous. – PeeJay 19:23, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Do you actually understand what are you talking about? You didn't explain where and how I "shift the burden of proof" at all. You said this just after I noticed that guy to discuss the issue more seriously rather than simply saying others are wrong. But this has nothing to do with so called "shift burden of proof". I already gave several important sources. So this is certainly ludicrous. And then, you never had even a little bit new ideas and logics. Just constantly repeated the point that Real Madrid side's source and opinions are not reliable. But the third-party sources are not relevant to these issues at all. You can't understand? And you just denied all the sources at will, without any serious logics and reasons, just because they didn't match your ideas. Are you actually discussing the issue? As of now, definitely not, from the beginning to end. 七战功成 00:12, 3 July, 2017 (UTC)

Oh, I'm sorry, I didn't realise you were having trouble with English - shifting the burden of proof is where the responsibility for proving someone is moved from one person to another. In this case, the burden of proof is on you because you want to add the 2016 Super Cup to Ronaldo's honours list, but you seem to want to try to make us prove why it shouldn't be there. That is not our responsibility, as it is always up to the person who wants to add content to prove that it should be there. I have explained why the sources you've provided aren't good enough; if you want to provide more for us to look at, we'll look at them, but as things stand, there's not enough here to warrant adding it. – PeeJay 08:09, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

There is no meaning to play dumb. I am very clear about the meaning, and if your vision and understanding is not bad, you should know what I actually mean. I already gave sources, but you guys always denied them without good reasons. Then I pointed out the weakness of the arguments and the ways you used. How could that be "I let you guys to prove why it shouldn't be there"? It seems that it can only indicate you have trouble understanding this word. And you said you already explained "those sources are not good enough"? Yes, you really expressed your ideas, but you didn't give any enough good reasons. Your arguments and logics are always"I don't think a player who is not in the squad of the game can have the honour, so all the sources show that he has the honour are not true, reliable" or something like this. In a word, you deny and ignore them at will, just because of your preference. No matter what kind of sources I provide, you will always say it's not good, not reliable. It's not discussing, it's nearly being perverse. 七战功成 01:40, 4 July, 2017 (UTC)

If you can't accept the fact that your sources aren't good enough, that's fine, but I have explained myself on multiple occasions, and your continued insistence on including this "honour" isn't going to change that. – PeeJay 15:21, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Change what? Go back and seriously look at what you said, are those plausible explanations? You just constantly repeat you ideas without giving any legitmate reasons and just try to make others not speak. If you can't understand this, you should go back to learn how to really discuss questions. 七战功成 18:15, 4 July, 2017 (UTC)

Obviously your grasp of the English language is not quite sufficient to maintain a discussion. Yes, I repeat the same ideas because you can't get it through your head that your sources are bad. I've given you reasons, you're just ignoring them. Now please go away. – PeeJay 23:40, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Now only being able to label others? It's no doubt that you never have any legitimate reasons for your opinions. From the beginning to end, your only "reason" is just "those sources are opposite to your ideas, so they are 'bad'". I didn't ignore anything, because this is all you have posted, and it's that you obviously didn't discuss the issue seriously, by denying and ignoring other's ideas and evidence at will. As for the last words, that should be for you. 七战功成 04:59, 5 July, 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 July 2017

You can add not only is the average goal for a match, but also how many minutes a goal is scored, how many shots it will need to score to hit the opponent. For last season for all competitions CR7 stats: 15 assists 6 hattricks Scored goal every 88 minutes He need to make 7.44 shots to score Avg shored 5.43 shots per game

You can add a paragraph with such statistics. These stats i get from https://www.fctables.com/spain/liga-bbva/real-madrid/cristiano_ronaldo-222119/ This website has also infographics: https://www.fctables.com/uploads/infographics/profil/222119/cristiano_ronaldo.jpg PatrickSmith45 (talk) 18:21, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. This is just me, considering I don't think such a paragraph is necessary. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 02:28, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 July 2017

It says that "Ronaldo is regarded by many as one of the greatest of all time". However I think this should be corrected to "regarded by some" because there are acctually not many people who genuinely means that he is the greatest of all time. Erik0609 (talk) 09:47, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

We had a discussion about this above. You can give your opinion over there, but I do think it's fair to say that many view him as one of the greatest of all time. However, I agree with you that not many people view him as 'the greatest of all time', but that's not what the sentence says. Max Eisenhardt (talk) 12:31, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Not done for now: Mdann52 (talk) 17:57, 30 July 2017 (UTC)