I am reopening this discussion because it’s absurd to mention a 6 months old relationship pk the lead of an wikipedia like some sort of a tabloid.
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Travis Kelce article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies |
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 60 days |
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article has been viewed enough times in a single year to make it into the Top 50 Report annual list. This happened in 2023, when it received 12,155,733 views. |
This article has been viewed enough times in a single week to appear in the Top 25 Report 8 times. The weeks in which this happened: |
They’re not even married. It goes directly against living persons policies. drop using wikipedia as a fangirling platform… Meryam90 (talk) 15:56, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
I hardly have time from real life to check this and it honestly slips my mind, but my argument about being in the lead is not the fact that I don't think the relationship is impactful on his life/career/NLF. The issue is in the need to mention it in the lead. So if they break up do we need to delete it then? He's not the first or last athlete to engage in a relationship with a pop singer. It doesn't mean it warrant a place in the lead seeing as he is primarily AN ATHLETE and this wikipedia page is not a tabloid. If they were married then it's more than welcome to add it but we're just adding to the tabloid vulture culture by making wikipedia page a place for entertainment gossip and taking the focus away from his primary career to his personal life.
The vague mention of his personal life being a topic of media coverage without mentioning her by name is enough to elude to it, anyone who needs to read further can go to his personal life section and get the full scope and get all the details. But to take the decade career of arguably one of the greatest NFL players and add his relationship to a famous woman in his lead section as if it's as important as his career (where not even his sport related achievements are fully mentioned btw) is truly laughable. And the people saying that Brady’s marriage or Romo’s relationship to Jessica Simpson didn’t make as many headlines or wasn’t the focus of media counts clearly wasn’t an NFL fan in the last 2 decades. I zm sorry to say this, but most of your comments on this issue really suffer from recency bias or are letting tabloids and excessive media coverage cloud their objectivity. No matter how impactful this relationship is on his career it does NOT deserve to be mentioned explicitly in the lead section.
I want to see one of you try to add mention of their relationship to the lead section of HER page and see what happens...Meryam90 (talk) 23:03, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please add a sentence that Kelce shoved Andy Reid during the Super Bowl. Consensus was fine with it above. Source: https://www.wsfa.com/2024/02/12/chiefs-coach-andy-reid-sheds-light-travis-kelce-sideline-shove/?outputType=amp 50.225.13.170 (talk) 21:43, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
PLEASE REMOVE
During the game, following a turnover by the Chiefs when Kelce was not on the field, he was shown screaming at Chiefs' head coach Andy Reid demanding to remain on the field. During the incident, Kelce bumped Reid knocking Reid off balance, which drew criticism from several NFL analysts. Kelce said he regretted the actions and that they were unacceptable.[154]
RATIONALE
Unless you cite this type of information for ALL OTHER sports and football players you are just allowing your site to be used as and promote celebrity gossip topics. An Encyclopedia is factual and does not usually fall into pop culture traps and issues. The truth is Tom Brady and many NFL analysts and ex NFL players defended him as well but you are not noting this. To remain neutral its best not to caught up in the fray. 134.153.91.80 (talk) 13:25, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}}
template. This is not a sufficiently uncontroversial edit for the "edit request" process. PianoDan (talk) 19:13, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
This section needs work. It is disorganized (e.g., it starts with the 2015 creation of Kelce's foundation, then backs up to talk about his 2014 award, then lurches forward to 2020, then heads back to 2018, etc., etc. And why does "Noted for being generous with his time and resources" appear only in the middle of a paragraph in the middle of the section?). The prose is full of typos (e.g., "launched an initiate"), style errors (e.g., "2 years later..."), and needless words (e.g., "directly impacting and aiding all 450 student-athletes"). So I have been bold in two attempts to bring it up to snuff. First, I cleaned up the style, typos, and wordiness and reorganized it chronologically in two edits. These were summarily reverted by Meryam90 (Edit summary: "why butcher this section this way? it was cohesive and had all well researched information with sources to go and cut it up to small paragraphs adds absolutely nothing it takes away from to???").
OK, I thought, I did make a lot of changes in just a few edits. So for my second try, I changed one or two sentences at a time, with edit summaries to allow any particular edit to be challenged or improved upon. I also tried a new organizing scheme: Intro and awards->Ohio-based efforts->KC-based efforts->Miscellaneous efforts. Each had a topic sentence, as most well-constructed paragraphs do; facts were presented thematically and then chronologically. The result? Another summary reversion by @Meryam90 (edit summary: "There is no mosindesting ecvept yours here. He works PRIMARLY through his foundation (ehnce why the focus is on it FIRST) the everything unrelated to his foundation has been put second and then activism outside of that last. you seem to not have a grip on how his charity work is done and when why you you botching this section. please leave the order of it as it is and make the appropriate edits according to that. or YOU take it to the talk page before..")
I'm certainly open to a different organizing scheme; there could be, say, a paragraph about Kelce's foundation and its works. But the article currently doesn't even assert that he "works PRIMARLY through his foundation", much less present citations to prove it; moreover, the bulk of the examples of his philanthropy appear to be unrelated to the foundation. @Meryam90, I'm happy to work with you to improve this section that so desperately needs it. But in the face of bulk reversions that have restored reams of typos and poor prose, I confess I'm a bit at a loss here. PRRfan (talk) 00:27, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
I am sorry that I don’t have the proper time to write a longer reply right now. But every argument you gave speaks to the fact that you didn’t take the time to read the articles provided in resources. When the work is related to the foundation itself, it’s clearly stated in the source and when it’s something he has done independently of his foundation, it’s also mentioned in the appropriate sources.
If you have gone back to the original edits, I wrote that whole section on my own. Why? Because I am informed enough on his philosophy and what he does around KC with his charity work as a long time Chiefs fan and I knew what/where to research to find all the reliable sources. I reverted your edits because they were adding things that were false and making conclusions that don’t exist. I said in my rv comment: He works primarily in KC not in Ohio, there are only specific instances where his charity work extended to his hometown (despite his foundation being set up in Ohio). That’s why I insist on his foundation being highlighted FIRST. It’s not necessary to highlight that he works primarily with his foundation because EVERY athlete who has a foundation does that. It’s common knowledge and it would actually be unhelpful and not needed at all to “state the obvious” And I also understand your need to make it chronological but it’s actually not a pressing issue when the sections are set up by order of Work with the foundation (the primary focus of his philosophy work)-> work outside of the foundation (mostly individual or pre-foundation-> his limited activism work (that really doesn’t warrant a section for such a small paragraph).
Also some of your edits completely took out major infos in some section’s paragraphs for absolutely no reason and with comments such as “needless”. By whose standards were those informations deemed “needless” and under what wiki policy/rule?
I already said in my rv comment that I am more than welcome to collaborate on the section but the way you cut/trimmed it and completely missed major points in it was unfortunate and I couldn’t just let it go on. It’s not me being overprotective over things I added, it’s me being insistent on the integrity and cohesiveness of the section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Meryam90 (talk • contribs) 08:23, February 28, 2024 (UTC)
Hi, @Rockchalk717. I can see the argument for removing duplicate citations, but why remove archive links? Link rot is real, says someone who has gotten burned by it over the years and is now somewhat obsessed with archiving referenced pages. PRRfan (talk) 17:24, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
This article uses material from the Wikipedia English article Talk:Travis Kelce, which is released under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 license ("CC BY-SA 3.0"); additional terms may apply (view authors). Content is available under CC BY-SA 4.0 unless otherwise noted. Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.
®Wikipedia is a registered trademark of the Wiki Foundation, Inc. Wiki English (DUHOCTRUNGQUOC.VN) is an independent company and has no affiliation with Wiki Foundation.