Talk:Jordan Love

Love extension
Love's one year extension offers no long term notability and shouldn't be there. Comparing Lamar's extension being in the intro is an odd one considering his made him the highest paid player. Yankees10 23:52, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi . Do you mind pointing out in MOS:LEAD or some other policy/guideline where it says that something cannot be included if it offers no long term notability? My understanding of MOS:LEAD is that the lead should adequately summarize, with appropriate weight, the key topics covered in the article. Seeing as the most recent and notable things about Love in the news over the last 6 months is his new contract (they extended him, providing some commitment to him over the next 2 seasons) and him being named starter for the 2023 season, I think these are appropriate for the lead, since they are covered in the body of the article. Obviously, him being named starter in 2023 doesn't offer longterm notability and will likely be removed at some point in the future as he has more content added to his article.


 * On that note, my mention of the other articles in the edit summary was more to note that there doesn't appear to be a hard or fast rule about extensions. I will also note that compared to his peers, Love's article is relatively short (1429 words, versus 4771 words for Lamar and 3985 words for Joe, as an example). Thus, the lead is likely to include details that maybe aren't included in longer articles.


 * All that said, I see the inclusion of this as clearly not against any policy/guideline and falls within a clear reading of MOS:LEAD. Less on a policy/guideline side, I just happen to be the editor who significantly expanded the article and am bringing it to WP:GAN right now. So although I definitely don't own this article, on items like this, that at best are grey areas or areas that are often left to editorial discretion, I think it would be respectful to leave the editorial discretion to the editor who put the time and effort into greatly expanding and improving the article. I am happy to discuss rewording or even expanding the body a bit to describe the importance of the contract extension. Let me know what you think. « Gonzo fan2007  (talk)  @ 00:26, 15 September 2023 (UTC)


 * There is no policy that says something like this can't be included, it's just my personal opinion on the matter. "Offers no long term notability and shouldn't be there" admittedly comes off too strong. Your reasonings for keeping the extension are sound, tho I am still curious on what others think. The last paragraph is a bit sketchy tho. I've seen other editors make these types of comments and it sometimes ends up turning into a bit of an "ownership of article" issue.-- Yankees10 00:40, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your response and insight. I see it more as stewardship when an editor takes on the grunt work of sourcing and expanding an article, then taking it through at least a few review processes. Obviously, if the article doesn't follow a specific policy or guideline, then it needs to be fixed. But as you note, when two editors have two opinions on how an article is written, I typically try to differ to the editor who has worked to expand the article. Cheers,  « Gonzo fan2007  (talk)  @ 03:00, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
 * and, I'm going to add my $.02, though it isn't of as much value :) I don't necessarily see issue with his extension being in the lead, but given the relative insignificance (compared to Burrows/Jackson, etc,) of the extension given that it's one year, at very low market value, it seems sufficient to mention it later in the article in his "transition to starter" section. However, I wouldn't remove it myself, rather replace it with a potential long term extension in the near future if/when that occurs, since it will (likely) be more significant, depending on obvious factors. I guess I really don't have a position here lol just some new thoughts on it. SPF121188 (talk this way) (my edits) 18:41, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

New photo?
Isn't it time for a little less goofy looking main photo? 2603:6000:A602:121D:4D4:F88E:3247:E94D (talk) 23:40, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Hi, its the best free photo currently available. If you have a better, free alternative, then please upload it and add it to the article. « Gonzo fan2007  (talk)  @ 18:21, 10 January 2024 (UTC)