Talk:Jordan Love

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 Yankees10. 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 Yankees10 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)

Gonzo_fan2007 and Yankees10, 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)

Reviewer: HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk · contribs) 20:17, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Jordan Love/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

I will review this shortly. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 20:17, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

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)

this edit is per the discussion here, in an effort to make sure citations for this page don't become excessive, especially for one straightforward piece of information that isn't controversial. SPF121188 ^{(talk this way) (my edits)} 16:11, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

I added in the NFL Combine measurements and stats because every other current starting NFL QB wiki page that I have seen has at least some Combine data in there. However they were then removed as inappropriate. Surely there should be consistency here and if they are not to be included for Jordan Love they should be removed from all other QBs as well? SimonB43 (talk) 14:31, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

My opinion is that it would be better to include Love's college statistics in the "Career statistics" section as per the advice of Wikipedia:WikiProject National Football League/Player pages format. Pretty much every other NFL quarterback page I found includes both NFL and college statistics in that section, and the "Nothing especially notable about his college stats and already described in text" argument from @Gonzo fan2007: could just as easily be applied to his NFL career statistics, so I don't really understand the distinction of including NFL but not college, when including both has been the standard. I would appreciate if other NFL editors participated in this discussion so we can achieve consensus. Joeykai (talk) 02:44, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

I'd agree with including college statistics. I don't see a need of changing the status quo when there is an obvious interest in pre-NFL stats. The NBA and NHL also have these type of stats, so I don't see a need to remove it here. kline / talk / contribs 22:37, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

Note, the status quo for years has been that a college stats table is not in his article. This was like this during the GA review, going on the Main Page for DKY, etc. Secondly, his key stats are in the article in the prose summarizing his college career. Lastly, there is nothing especially notable about his stats. He played for a smaller football program in a smaller conference and had fairly unremarkable stats for a couple seasons. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 23:38, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

@Gonzo fan2007:, The inclusion of a college statistics table is not a detail that would affect a GA review or DYK; it is more relevant to discuss the status quo in terms of football biography pages across Wikipedia, rather than the history of the Jordan Love article. And as mentioned by myself and @Kline:, it is the status quo to include both NFL and college stats. Joeykai (talk) 00:30, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

Dan Fouts is an FA and has college stats (and even when it was GA). Still, I'm pretty sure the inclusion or exclusion of college stats tables has little consistent bearing on the outcome of either of those review processes. —Bagumba (talk) 00:44, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

I am not very familiar with Dan Fouts and how his college career went. Each article stands on its own based on what has been written about each person. Having written this GA, I can affirm that overall there isn't much discussed about Love's college stats. And as I said before, his college stats are included in his article as prose. This includes the key QB stats that most readers are interested in. Regarding the comment by Joeykai that this argument could be made for his NFL stats table, I disagree, especially if Love plays for another 10 years. Love played 2.5 seasons of college football, easy enough to describe in the text. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS isn't the status quo for a specific article. Jordan Love's article has been stable for years now and had a million views last year. That's the status quo. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 15:31, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

Also, Love's high school stats table exists. Should we include that too? Just because some thing exists doesn't make it notable. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 15:33, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

@Gonzo fan2007:, no, his high school stats table should not be included because it is not the status quo to include those on Wikipedia football biography pages. Yes, his college stats table should be included because it is the status quo to include those on Wikipedia football biography pages. Your argument that this article has passed GA review, many page views, stable, etc, without a college stats table isn't relevant because a college stats table wouldn't affect any of that. @Bagumba: pointed out, it would have little consistent bearing on those review processes. The fact that the Jordan Love article has not had a college stats table, is not an argument for why it shouldn't have one. Addressing your other arguments, to say this page in particular should go against the status quo of Wikipedia football biography articles because he played for a small program in a small conference, feels very WP:WHOCARES. It could be argued that being a first-round pick after having mediocre stats for a small college program would make readers more interested in seeing that college stats table alongside his NFL stats table. Joeykai (talk) 15:49, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

• Following up on this since it has been more than a week with no response. @Gonzo fan2007:, @Kline:, @Bagumba:. Joeykai (talk) 05:01, 28 June 2026 (UTC)
• A couple observations. First, Love played at Utah State, which is a Division I FBS program -- the highest level of the game (indeed, Love led Utah State to an AP No. 22 ranking in 2018). Second, some of Love's college stats (here) jump off the page as very unusual: on the plus side his 64% completion percentage, 32 TD passes (in 13 games), and conference-leading 158.3 quarterback rating in 2018; and on the minus side, his conference-leading 17 interceptions in 2019. Cbl62 (talk) 10:14, 28 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Thanks Cbl62. I have added your observations that were not already in the article with this edit. In some ways, this restates my point, college stats are so short that they can be adequately summarized in the text, which is how an encyclopedia should work. I just don't see any need to repeat what is already in the text. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 16:21, 29 June 2026 (UTC)