Talk:Travis Kelce/Archive 1

Archive 1

Break-up

@Eagles247: So is this source ok? It even mentions that the tweet was deleted. Or would that be considered speculation, especially since it doesn’t show the tweet, it just points to a link that has a screen shot? I’m unsure about this. I feel like them breaking up should be mentioned, but the source seems to be the big issue I’m running into on this.--Rockchalk717 23:56, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

@Rockchalk717: The People source is okay, per Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources#People. Eagles 24/7 (C) 22:14, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Templates broken at bottom

On my screen, many of the templates on the bottom are broken. Do other people have the same issue? If so, can someone fix it, as I am not very experienced with templates? JumperZ69666420 (talk) 20:02, 1 March 2021 (UTC) comment added by JumperZ69666420 (talk • contribs) 18:39, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

@JumperZ69666420: Thanks for the catch! An IP had vandalized Template:Kansas City Chiefs roster navbox and broke the template, I've reverted the change there and it should be good now. Eagles 24/7 (C) 19:39, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Moonbase 8

There's no mention here about his involvement with the TV comedy Moonbase 8.

It should be here, but what section should it be in? Haryadoon1 (talk) 08:47, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Anyone catch the vax line?

There's one sentence in the "personal life" section that isn't really a fact but rather an opinion: "Kelsey is lame for promoting vaccinations" (something like that) That is a matter of opinion and therefore I'm proposing it be removed or edited to reflect fact versus opinion. MCbowden717 (talk) 23:35, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

No need to mention obvious vandalism. It was removed 10 minutes before your post (and only 3 minutes after it was added). And it wasn't in the "Personal life" section, it was in "Television appearances". Meters (talk) 23:41, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 September 2023

The date of the game is September 24, 2023. Not September 25, 2023 2600:1011:A129:5AC6:6424:6583:E5E:E47 (talk) 04:48, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Section removed. It was a mention that Taylor Swift attended the game, which is just part of the dating speculation. Tarl N. (discuss) 04:58, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

This should not be removed as it didn’t mention dating. She did attend the game, the chiefs and nfl mentioned it (along with the world) and the nfl had it in its tik tok bio.

The significance is that she was at arrowhead for her tour in July. Travis attended that and invited her back to see him play. She accepted and was there. Don’t really have to get into dating even with simple statements I just made. It should be returned as a result as it’s all facts. Leighwills (talk) 12:13, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 October 2023

Taylor Swift and Travis Kelce began seeing each other in summer of 2023, after a clip of him claiming to have made her a friendship bracelet with his phone number on it went viral. Swift was seen attending a football game between the Kansas City Chiefs and the Chicago Bears in Kelce's suite sporting Chiefs gear on September 24, 2023. Swift also attended the matchup between the New York Jets and the Kansas City Chiefs one week later. Taylorkelce (talk) 01:09, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

This will likely be declined, mostly because the relationship is purely just spurred-on rumors which actually haven't been seriously confirmed by either Kelce nor Swift. Also, per WP:ONUS verifiability does not include inclusion. Techie234 (talk) 01:19, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Declined. There will be no mention of Taylor Swift on this page until a relationship is confirmed. Wikipedia is not for celebrity gossip.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Rockchalk717 (talk • contribs) 03:33, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

We'd be following an extremely strict, honestly even unfair, reading of WP:ONUS if this doesn't get included in the event Swift and Kelce do end up confirming it. Or do real world effects just not matter anymore? What, we can't add a few sentences on Kelce's jersey selling at a 400% increase, his podcast numbers blowing up, NFL games getting quite considerable viewership increases as a result of his (rumored, but in this context, the future hypothetically confirmed) relationship with Swift? And the NFL alluding to the connection in literal promotional material for a Chiefs game. Even the Wikipedia article for Kelce had more pageviews over this than when he won the Super Bowl this year, and also ever (and even for a massive artist like Taylor this situation is also the reason for her second-largest ever spike of Wikipedia pageviews). Not including this for the moment due to WP:NOTGOSSIP is fine and obviously in-bounds. Completely omitting what is obviously a massively covered and analyzed situation and moment (1 2) in Kelce's biography because of WP:ONUS would be a disservice. Soulbust (talk) 04:23, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

I agree, Swift should be included. ℛonherry☘ 15:32, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

To be honest, I feel like you're against including Swift only because you're an editor of football articles and fans of football are characterized by academics to be carrying male ego generally and often anti-women. I'm just saying you shouldn't let your fan bias to cloud your judgement. There's been more than enough widespread coverage of Kelce's relationship with Swift, which Kelce has confirmed. There is no Wikipedia guideline that's stopping me from adding that to the article prose apart from the discussion we are having here. I intend to talk it out, or we should go for an WP:RFC to see what a wide range of editors think, more than just what football fans think. ℛonherry☘ 15:37, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

I didn't figure I'd be called a misogynist because I'm a football fan, but I suppose we're at the point where we can make assumptions about each other purely because of disagreements on topics on WIkipedia. Techie234 (talk) 16:01, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

Not at all. Nowhere I called you a misogynist. I am just saying we should broaden the narrow channel of conversation that is this talk page of a football player. To emphasize my actual point, I find it deafening that a topic, arguably Kelce's biggest press coverage moment on a global scale, is practically absent from the article, while content that be considered superfluous (as they have little to negligible press coverage) are present in the current Personal Life section. This does not seem un-biased to me, and definitely does not uphold WP:NPOV. ℛonherry☘ 16:28, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

@Ronherry: You've made a way better point then anyone else has from solely a Wikipedia side of things. However, I don't necessarily appreciate the assumptions about me as a person just because of the pages I edit and I do agree the comment was at the very least indirectly accusing people against the inclusion of Taylor Swift of being misogynistic. You did try to defend it but you said football fans carry a male ego that is anti-women, which is quite literally the definition of misogynistic. My exclusion had absolutely nothing to do with my fan hood (even being a Chiefs fan), nothing to do with Travis Kelce himself, or Taylor Swift herself and everything to do with not thinking a reported relationship belongs in an article in anyway shape or form. We don't edit articles to reflect sports transactions based on insider reporting information from anonymous sources, so I felt the same thing should be applied to a relationship.--Rockchalk717 20:35, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

I want to clarify that the statement "football fans are generally anti-women and harbor male ego" is not mine; it is just me citing what publications and academic journals say from statistics. However, I'm assuming WP:GOOD FAITH here and want to constructively work with the editors to reach a fair consensus abiding both WP:NPOV and the rules about biography articles. ℛonherry☘ 06:17, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

Adding Taylor Swift to Travis’s Personal Section

Ok Travis is casually dating Taylor Swift. Clearly she’s notable & there are numerous credible sources where this info can be found. Although they’re not exclusively dating, the fact that these two high profile celebrities are in the beginning stages, there’s should be at least a brief statement of this connection given the gravity of this situation until they state they’re just platonic friends. Here are some sources:

https://amp.tmz.com/2023/09/25/taylor-swift-travis-kelce-hung-out-several-times-very-private-setting/

https://amp.tmz.com/2023/09/27/taylor-swift-travis-kelce-hug-neck-pda-couple-dating/

https://www.instagram.com/reel/CxslXZjLKQM/?igshid=MzRlODBiNWFlZA==

Thoughts? Leighwills (talk) 16:35, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

I wouldn't make it a big deal yet. Somebody recently added a section under "Personal Life" for the New Heights podcast him and his brother Jason run, and this situation was briefly mentioned by the end of the section. Probably preferable to keep it at that (if allowed to stay on the article) until one of them (or both) makes it official. Techie234 (talk) 20:26, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I'm inclined to agree. So far all we have confirmed is them hanging out and engaging in some physical contact. If the dating thing becomes more than a rumour, that would absolutely merit an inclusion, but neither the unconfirmed dating nor the confirmed hugging would seem to me to be worth including. AntiDionysius (talk) 21:28, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

Well, I agree with you and tried to add some general notes about his comments on their night together. I guess there are some TS haters here - people keep deleting the entire section. Best of luck! Haha. RikkyRob (talk) 21:36, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

She's one of my most listened-to artists on Spotify; I just care about the Wikipedia notability policy. AntiDionysius (talk) 21:37, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

Can’t it be locked this is ridic. Also Travis is confirming it. Mark Cuban asked Taylor to break up with Travis via first take. Travis responds to sign him to a 10 day contract. It’s not a rumor at this point.

https://www.instagram.com/p/Cxv54wdphPh/?igshid=MzRlODBiNWFlZA== Leighwills (talk) 03:10, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

@Leighwills: Kelce has not confirmed a relationship neither has Swift. His little comments do not confirm anything and claiming they do is the exact definition of original research, specifically number 4 under WP:PRIMARY because you interpreting comments as confirmation without providing a reliable source that confirms it. @RikkyRob: Exclusion of the rumored relationship has absolutely nothing to do with hating on Taylor Swift and everything to do with it (since it is just rumored) violating WP:NOTGOSSIP. Wikipedia isn't for celebrity gossip.--Rockchalk717 03:23, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

yes but the effect on Kelce (i.e. an increase of his jersey sales) + Chiefs (game ticket sales) + NFL (viewership and even being alluded to in official NFL promo) is well within the context of "public image" and it is rather silly to exclude that information given its legitimate presence in reliable sourcing, seen in the edit I made. Soulbust (talk) 03:46, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

@Soulbust: What's silly is how many times this needs to be explained. Regardless of which way you spin it, it still comes back to a rumored relationship causing all of this. So called "Swifties" are buying up Kelce's jersey because of the rumored relationship. Swifties are causing tickets to Sunday's game to rise in price because of a rumored relationship. Sundays Chiefs game had a usually high viewership for a regular season game because......wait for it.....the rumored relationship. And as stated in the hidden note, verifiability does not guarantee inclusion.--Rockchalk717 04:10, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

It’s more nuanced than this broad stroke being painted. Taylor was at the chiefs game to see Travis: fact. He asked her to attend: fact. As a result, there are tangible, verifiable results of her attendance which is why the NFL welcomes her presence after she declined sb invite. At a minimum, it can be stated that they’re linked & the commercial effects of that association that extends to merch/commerce. Everything is verifiable facts. The length at which some are going to avoid including it is silly when there are verifiable sources that discuss her attendance. If the NFL & chiefs noted her presence on its sm pages without addressing dating speculation, it’s possible to do the same. It’s not that deep. Leighwills (talk) 07:24, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

@Leighwills: Once again, per WP:ONUS verifiability does not include inclusion. Once again, regardless of which you way you attempt to spin it, it all boils down to and is connected to a rumored celebrity relationship. I've provided the policy that shows this shouldn't be included and another policy showing just because you can verify something doesn't automatically mean it should be included. It's not being included until Kelce or Swift say "yes we're in a relationship". Yes it does appear they are in a relationship, but it's nothing more than rumored celebrity gossip right now. And it seems neither appears to be willing to confirm right now. You can wait a week or two or how ever long it takes them to confirm the relationship to mention it.--Rockchalk717 16:55, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

I really don't care about mentioning the (rumored) relationship, and ultimately I'm fine letting that wait till it's officially confirmed. But to disregard the actual tangible commerical effects of Kelce and Swift being linked is again, silly. I agree with @Leighwills that at a minimum, the commercial effects can be stated.

If you want to say that once it's spun back, it ends up being us spinning it back to a rumored relationship causing those effects, then that's tough... and oh well, guess we'd have to be transparent with Wikipedia readers and let them know that? Which is I why when I added the info I included the prose "Though unconfirmed," with a citation. It's secondary to the actual tangible commercial effects it's having on Kelce, and all this context is also why I opted to add the info the "Public image" section as opposed to "Personal life".

Fully agree with this being much more nuanced than a cut-and-dry "WP:NOTGOSSIP" doesn't allow it being added, which is why I included such nuanced context. But it's whatever, I really don't care to go back and forth with adding and removing the content. Soulbust (talk) 04:06, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

This is my final response to this because you simply aren't getting it. If you need to add caveats like "it's unconfirmed" or that's a "reported" or "rumored" you're just further proving my point, even including the commercial impacts of the rumored relationship. Point blank, until it's confirmed, it's not going in the article. This is not a threat to edit war, but I know there's no way other editors besides the couple of you pushing for inclusion and myself will allow any mention of Taylor Swift in Travis Kelce's article until either confirms it.--Rockchalk717 15:01, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Final response as well. I'm with you on this. You've basically brought out all of the points needed to successfully make this argument. Techie234 (talk) 16:12, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Lol, if you say so… Leighwills (talk) 21:32, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Are you the article’s head editor in charge? Leighwills (talk) 21:31, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

"you simply aren't getting it" No I got it, which is why I haven't re-added it and literally said I didn't care about mentioning the relationship at all. Just wanted to voice that it is far more nuanced than the typical celebrity relationship that media rumor mills pump out. Wouldn't call being thorough and transparent with readers adding caveats, but whatever. Don't care to edit war or go back-and-forth any further on this talk page either. Soulbust (talk) 04:55, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

@Leighwills: Ok this is actually my final response. Stop making up Wikipedia editor titles that do not exist. You have been clearly provided the policies and how they apply. There is nothing more to be said and reverting reverts of the inclusion of it will be taken as incitement of an edit war.--Rockchalk717 04:39, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

I think Swift should be included. ℛonherry☘ 15:33, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

I've added it after photos of them holding hands were published, which I think is as good as any a confirmation. I also removed the bits about the rumors in the weeks before, the stuff about how interest drove up viewership and sales of tickets and Kelce's jersey, and how the NFL capitalized on it - I think personal life sections should be brief and to-the-point. Shuipzv3 (talk) 05:48, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

@Shuipzv3: I don't think that counts; they need to explicitly and unambiguously confirm it. Also, given consensus against including it, it seems improper to include that before discussing here.--Jasper Deng (talk) 05:54, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

@Jasper Deng: If that's the bar, then technically she hasn't ended her relationship with Joe Alwyn because neither of them has said anything about that. Shuipzv3 (talk) 06:01, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

I would argue that should be removed too as not BLP or NOTGOSSIP compliant.--Jasper Deng (talk) 21:29, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

I think that's too far, the end of that relationship has been covered by numerous non-trivial news publications many months ago and there is no evidence to dispute it. Besides, if that relationship is still ongoing, someone would have commented on the fact that she may or may not be in a relationship with someone else. I get that we want to avoid gossip, but at this point I'd argue the end of her relationship with Joe Alwyn is a fact and it would be too far to exclude it just because it happens to concern the personal life of a celebrity. Shuipzv3 (talk) 13:30, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

@Shuipzv3: What's in the article is just barely compliant with WP:NOTGOSSIP, let's not push the envelope here. Holding hands means nothing. I've held hands with women I wasn't dating before. It literally means they're holding hands. Don't over analyze this. Yes, personally speaking I do honestly believe they are in a relationship, but that's just an opinion until Kelce or Swift confirm it. Despite the rep Wikipedia gets sometimes, this place is about what is verifiable and we cannot verify they are in a relationship because they haven't confirmed it.--Rockchalk717 05:19, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

It’s not overanalyzing given the totality of the circumstances. They’re in NY, both make cameos in SNL. Seen leaving SNL holding hands to & from SNL after party as a couple. They go to dinner, still holding hands & being affectionate as a couple. Next day in NY, seen at the waverly, holding hands like a couple. Not to mention prior activities but holding hands means nothing? Surely you jest. Very odd response & is telling if not. Seems as if there’s a lot of effort trying not to include something that’s obvious. Wonder why?

• https://www.instagram.com/p/CydHDnxOr6Y/?igshid=MzRlODBiNWFlZA==
• https://www.instagram.com/p/CydiFbBuYrd/?igshid=MzRlODBiNWFlZA==
• https://www.instagram.com/p/CyaorP9OhhM/?igshid=MzRlODBiNWFlZA==
• https://www.instagram.com/p/CyeYnquscjA/?igshid=MzRlODBiNWFlZA==
• https://www.instagram.com/reel/Cyd48ycN7bF/?igshid=MzRlODBiNWFlZA==
• https://www.instagram.com/p/Cya-4AutFx6/?igshid=MzRlODBiNWFlZA==

Leighwills (talk) 06:58, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

I agree. I think the decision to include the romance should depend on whether a majority of mainstream sources explicitly claim they're dating rather than relying on whether Swift or Kelce have stated that directly. No famous person who hates the media scrutiny is going to be like "Yes, we are dating" on television. If there is one such statement, well and good, but if not, then the factoid must be added in the article alomng with multiple reliable sources that are claiming they are dating. ℛonherry☘ 12:30, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Until they confirm a relationship, yes holding hands means nothing and does not confirm they are dating. Waiting for official confirmation is standard practice on Wikipedia in multiple topics. We do it with sports transactions, the same practice is applied to celebrity romances. That's the entire purpose of WP:NOTGOSSIP.--Rockchalk717 15:23, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Let me rephrase something I said: From a Wikipedia policy standpoint, holding hands means nothing. Also, stop using Instagram as evidence. If you've been doing this any amount of time, you should know by now social media isn't considered a reliable source.--Rockchalk717 15:29, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Edit request (semi-protected page) 5 December 2023

The source, and all other sources, related to the house TK recently bought say $6m USD but the text reads $16m - presumably a typo. Can someone please edit as I can't remember my Wikipedia login details. Thanks! 122.150.73.202 (talk) 19:05, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 December 2023

Under the personal life section, an article is quoted indicating that Kelce purchased a 16 million dollar home. The source is INCORRECTLY cited as the article lists the house purchase price as 6 million. Aftramarket (talk) 14:12, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

 Done RudolfRed (talk) 16:53, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

"Taylor swifts boyfriend" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Taylor swifts boyfriend has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 December 15 § Taylor swifts boyfriend until a consensus is reached. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 22:09, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Real notability

It's a widely known fact that the vast majority of people only know him as Taylor's bf. That's why his Google Trends shot up the second he started dating her. He was a nobody before then.

What utter nonsense, the fact he has a article even before he was dating Swift due to his well-known career in the NFL and other ventures. Shows that what you claim is straight up false and is living in a fantasy world. Stop with this disrupting editing. TheDeviantPro (talk) 10:18, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Suggest using the Valeri Bure page as a guideline, for how to handle this topic. GoodDay (talk) 23:36, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Indeed. Their relationship and its effect on league viewership is already mentioned in the personal life section. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 23:46, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Mentioning his relationship with Taylor in the lede

It's a widely known fact that Travis Kelce's relationship has been covered in detail by the mainstream media. Far from being celebrity gossip, it has received notable coverage in outlets like the New York Times, CNN, BBC, the Globe and Mail, etc., both domestic and foreign.

I think it's thus very much notable enough to mention by itself in the lede. I propose to dedicate just one sentence to it at the end of the last paragraph to acknowledge its notoriety, following the exact same format found in Joe DiMaggio's article, another sports legend. TheCelebrinator (talk) 18:40, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

This isn’t a gossip site. Yes, a lot of people know about him and Swift, but that is not the source of his notability (indeed, it’s probably the other way around, his notability enabled the relationship). Either way, it doesn’t need to be in the lede, and per WP:BRD, it is removed from the article until discusion is finalized. Tarl N. (discuss) 04:45, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

I explained this to you on your talk page. But I'll repeat it. The lede establishes notability. There is no such thing, on Wikipedia, as being notable for being the significant other of a celebrity, especially when they have their own independent established notability like Travis Kelce has. Joe DiMaggio is a poor example as that was a different era in entertainment when celebrities or even pro athletes weren't as glorified as they are now. With Joe DiMaggio, it's very likely a lot of people knew him from his marriage to Marilyn Monroe because athletes weren't much in non-sports media back then and they weren't as engrained in pop culture. Now, pro athletes are very much engrained into pop culture with pro athletes being, in some cases, celebrities themselves. A future Hall of Fame NFL player who just hosted Saturday Night Live 9 months ago, who is all over TV with endorsement deals, and is hosting one of the most popular sports podcasts isn't notable just for being Taylor Swift's boyfriend. Yes, there are some non-football fans that know who is now because of him dating Taylor Swift, but that number is not as high as you're trying to make it seem and is definitely not high enough to blatantly say that he is known for being her boyfriend. Because of the pop culture impact of the relationship, I'm ok with making a brief comment on the relationship with Swift in the lede, but it cannot insinuate whatsoever the relationship has any impact on his notability.--Rockchalk717 06:04, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

Well, I am willing to concede that Kelce's main notability is as a Football player. That's why I am only proposing to dedicate one sentence to it—a brief comment, as you put it—in the lede. He's still mostly known as a Football player, but it should definitely be at least mentioned as it's a very notable relationship.

I'm speaking from my perspective as a non-Yank, I, and a lot of other people in my entourage, had no idea who Kelce was, maybe only in passing. We don't follow football, here. As soon as news broke out of his dating Taylor, he instantly became a topic sensation here. It definitely had a pop culture impact, as you admit. Granted, he's mostly known to Americans, but I think the relationship also gave him wider exposure to a more global audience. That should count for something. TheCelebrinator (talk) 12:15, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

Well, that's why there's the whole paragraph dedicated to his career/life outside of football. I think that one of the main things that define him outside that realm is his relationship to Taylor. It's been acknowledged by the media, by the Chiefs themselves, even by the NFL... is it not notable enough to mention in that context? TheCelebrinator (talk) 18:09, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

No. One celebrity dating another celebrity does not define them. If they get married, that would be a major life event (e.g., DiMaggio marrying Monroe), and would then be a major part of his life history going forward. But saying that dating someone for a few months is life and/or career defining? No. Tarl N. (discuss) 23:44, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

Is it really when your exposure has skyrocketed considerably because of said relationship? When even non-NFL or international audiences have heard of you because of it? This isn't anecdotal—it's proven by the surge in metrics like Google Trends, media coverage, etc. This is far from a 'conventional' relationship, even at this stage.

There's the section on his football career. It currently takes up 3/4 of the lede. That's what defines his life/career. There's also a section on his life/career outside of football. What's defining, or notable if you will, about it? What has gotten the most coverage from mainstream notable sources? If hosting a podcast is notable enough, then his relationship definitely passes the notability test, as if it didn't already. TheCelebrinator (talk) 10:52, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

@TheCelebrinator: It's not his "main" notability. It is his notability. For the 100th time, on Wikipedia there's no such thing as notable for being the boyfriend of a celebrity. @Tarl N.: While I agree with the point you're trying to make, I don't see a problem with mentioning it as long as it's clear and obvious the pop culture impact of the relationship is why it's being mentioned and it's not insinuated it contributed to his notability. I'm not necessarily saying a for sure yes on inclusion of a mention in the lede, but it's not a hard no either.--Rockchalk717 03:23, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

@Rockchalk717: My concern at this point is primarily WP:RECENTISM. At this point, in the eyes of celebrity chasers, Swift/Kelce dating is the biggest deal ever in the history of the world. If it falls apart, then five years from now nobody will care about it. Given an underlying principle of Wikipedia is that we write for the future, not for today's gossip mongers, making a huge deal of it here is improper. Tarl N. (discuss) 06:00, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

I think the relationship has been covered in enough detail by more "serious" outlets for it to fall outside the mere gossip category, but I see your position here. Would you be OK with including it if, in a few months' time, they're still together and it turns out it was more than a fleeting media craze? TheCelebrinator (talk) 14:43, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

I believe it's a just semantics issue. We're all in agreement that Kelce's claim to fame is his NFL career. We also agree that his relationship with Taylor Swift has had a very notable pop culture impact.

The way I propose to word it is, at the end of the paragraph re: outside of football, to add this: "Outside of football, Kelce is also known for his relationship with Taylor Swift." Would that be OK or would you propose rewording it? TheCelebrinator (talk) 14:46, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

@TheCelebrinator: Absolutely not. That's insinuating the relationship has contributed his notability, regardless of if that was your intent or not. @Tarl N.: I get the recentism concerns. But that's why we focus on the pop culture impact of the relationship in the lede, not the relationship itself. That will have staying power even if they broke up tomorrow. That's why I was thinking "In 2023, after starting a relationship with musician Taylor Swift, Kelce saw an increase in jersey sales and social media followers, as well as an increase in TV ratings for Chiefs games." It keeps the focus on the pop culture impact and not the relationship itself.--Rockchalk717 14:59, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

Alright, that's an acceptable wording of it to me. I'd just reword it a bit more: "In 2023, after news emerged that Kelce started a relationship with musician Taylor Swift, Kelce..." We'd likely need sources, but that should be easy to find. TheCelebrinator (talk) 15:15, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

@TheCelebrinator: It doesn't necessarily need sourced because the same information is sourced later in the article. Making a comment about "news emerging" implies rumors anonymous sources etc which we don't need to say, especially since both have confirmed in a relationship. We need to just stick to the facts which are they're in a relationship and his jersey sales increased as did TV ratings for Chiefs games.--Rockchalk717 05:31, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Does anyone else object to a sentence that'd read like, "In 2023, Kelce confirmed that he was in a relationship with musician Taylor Swift. His jersey sales, TV ratings, etc..... all saw an increase." Otherwise, I think I can just go and add it. TheCelebrinator (talk) 12:30, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

The separate sentences and order implies the relationship is what is notable, the rest is secondary. Better wording would be Kelce's jersey sales and celebrity coverage increased following publicity of a relationship with singer Taylor Swift"

That I'm ok with.--Rockchalk717 17:17, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Alright, I'll go add it then. Glad we managed to agree on this. TheCelebrinator (talk) 21:05, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 January 2024

Change “In the Chiefs second game of the season against the Ravens, he become the fastest tight end in NFL history…” to “ In the Chiefs second game of the season against the Ravens, he became the fastest tight end in NFL history…” 2603:7080:5A3C:2BC0:F9F5:4271:B9C2:639A (talk) 02:53, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

 Done Shuipzv3 (talk) 03:35, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Kelce

His name is not pronounced Kel-si. Its Kels. Thats what is father said. 2601:640:8001:B90:684E:A83B:227D:C36B (talk) 16:45, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Is there a source for that that contradicts what's in the article? TheCelebrinator (talk) 20:32, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

https://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/nfl/you-ve-been-pronouncing-travis-and-jason-kelce-s-last-name-wrong/ar-BB1gVW0p

Nsayer (talk) 22:24, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 February 2024

Edit info on his brother to reflect that his bro is now retired from the Philadelphia Eagles 73.36.96.29 (talk) 23:12, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made.
— Urro^{[talk][edits]} 17:22, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 February 2024

Travis Kelce and Taylor Swift have broke up because Taylor Swift payed the referees into letting the Kansas City Chiefs win. It is also believed that Taylor Swift cheated on him with superstar Harry Styles. 0GDIN077776 (talk) 20:59, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

 Not done Please read the note at the top and supply reliable sources for your edit requests.

Semi-protected edit request on 12 February 2024 (2)

When it mentions Travis kelce’s incident in SB58, please add that he was also shoving Andy Reid 38.122.245.52 (talk) 19:24, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. - FlightTime (open channel) 19:26, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 February 2024

PLEASE CHANGE X During Super Bowl LVIII, a clip of Kelce screaming at head coach Andy Reid after he was taken out of formation went viral on social media.[150][151] He was held to one catch for a yard in the first half of the game. He finished the game with nine catches for 92 yards as the Chiefs won 25–22.[152]

TO Y He was held to one catch for a yard in the first half of the game. He finished the game with nine catches for 92 yards as the Chiefs won 25–22.[152] 134.153.91.80 (talk) 14:13, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: Y does not specify what game it is talking about. Shadow311 (talk) 19:56, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Kelce/Tucker incidents

Someone removed the Tucker incident and the Reid incident from his career tab, I added them in the other day since I think it’s worth mentioning but what are some other thoughts? Eg224 (talk) 01:19, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Super Bowl 58 incident

I know Frank Anchor wants it to be only statistics, but I feel like this should be discussed because I think it actually should be mentioned especially since Kelce could receive severe sanctions for the incident. 69.118.230.235 (talk) 22:16, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Don't see why this can't be in the article. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 22:29, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Not sure I’m tagged on this chat, as I have either rarely or never edited Mr. Kelce’s article. Frank Anchor 22:55, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Kelce will not receive any "sanctions" whatsoever for it. If he was going to it would have happened by now and if anything happened it would have been fine. Second, coaches and players get into disagreements more often than people realize. The only reason this one is different, is he knocked Andy Reid off balance. It doesn't need mentioned unless he actually does by some miracle get a fined.--Rockchalk717 23:24, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Are you sure he won’t be fined? He was for a similar incident in 2016. In any case, I still think it has enough media coverage to include, it is WP:UNDUE weight to not include it, and Rockchalk is stonewalling again.69.118.230.235 (talk) 14:08, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

You're comparing him throwing a towel at a referee to accidentally bumping his coach during what is a routine disagreement between a player and a coach? And yes I'm sure he won't be fined because like I said, it would have happened by now because players are fined typically within a few days of the incident. I'm not stonewalling and it's not WP:UNDUE to exclude. If you're going to start accusing me of stonewalling because I disagree with you, then I'm done speaking to you directly on this. If you take this that serious why are you participating in a discussion through an IP address and not an account?--Rockchalk717 15:57, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

(Personal attack removed) In any case, it is due weight to include. By your argument why should Taylor-Travis relationship be here? 50.184.101.97 (talk) 18:12, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Off-topic
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
One, read what I said. I never said that I never stonewall. 2, you guys must not have the slightest clue what that means if you're accusing me of it. Stubborn, yeah sure I'll admit to being stubborn on and off Wikipedia. But stonewalling, a refusal to communicate or cooperate I am not doing. In literally communicating about this issue right now and refusal to not take your side isn't a lack of cooperation. So take the false accusations and elsewhere because I have more important things to worry about. That's an absolutely terrible analogy and I'm not going to justify it with a response. Unless we get people other than you two commenting I'm not responding to this thread anymore.--Rockchalk717 02:50, 18 February 2024 (UTC) Actually you are engaging in dictionary definition WP:STATUSQUOSTONEWALLing right now. Since you seem to want to ignore the discussion because of that, I have no choice but to file ANI.2603:3003:4802:5F00:D059:EC1D:21C9:6D9E (talk) 16:59, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Getting back to the matter at hand, the Kelce-Reid dustup provoked a bit of a furor at the time, but it seems to have blown over. I'm on the fence as to whether it should be mentioned at all, but certainly nothing more than a brief sentence would be necessary. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 17:10, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

One or two sentence should suffice. But completely leaving it off is inappropriate. 96.231.203.242 (talk) 17:24, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

I should probably add, I'm not the one that removed the comment about it in the first place. I was neutral at first. We definitely don't need excess detail about it but I could see where a brief comment, like maybe a sentence, could be useful.--Rockchalk717 18:40, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 February 2024

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)

I have added it. However, I have used a source that doesn't refer to it as a shove.--Rockchalk717 00:20, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 February 2024

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)

@134.153.91.80: Your rationale doesn't make sense. Number 1, it is cited. Second, the comment isn't celebrity gossip. Next, I saw a few players that also criticized him. Finally, a consensus was reached for inclusion on this already.--Rockchalk717 22:52, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Mentioning Taylor Swift in the lead

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. 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)

Pinging the person involved in the last conversation @TheCelebrinator:. It does not violate any policy mentioning the relationship. WP:GOSSIP only applies to unconfirmed rumors and mentioning every small detail of someone's personal life. Additionally, the comment is not commenting on the relationship itself, but the unusually high media coverage of the relationship and the pop culture impact of the relationship which GOSSIP doesn't specifically forbid. GOSSIP reads "Even when an individual is notable, not all events they are involved in are. For example, news reporting about celebrities and sports figures can be very frequent and cover a lot of trivia, but using all these sources would lead to overly detailed articles that look like a diary. Not every facet of a celebrity's life, personal details, matches played, or goals scored warrants inclusion in the biography of that person, only those for which they have notability or for which our readers are reasonably likely to have an interest." You're acting like a very mention of it violates GOSSIP but it doesn't. It's not tabloid reporting to mention the large amount and slightly excessive media coverage of the relationship. Even 20/20 did an entire special on the media coverage of it. And for the record, yes Travis Kelce had media coverage of his previous relationships. But it's not anywhere near the coverage of the Taylor Swift relationship and to think that is flat absurd. (Don't take this the wrong way I'm not implying these as being a reliable source it just proves my point about comparing media coverage before and after) Travis Kelce has had more celebrity gossip articles about him in the last 5 months (since Swift showed up at the Bears game) than he had in his first 10 seasons of his career. He's even had way more than Patrick Mahomes has had so far in Patrick's career.--Rockchalk717 17:47, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Tom Brady was married to Giselle and we never mentioned her in his lead. Christian McCaffrey is currently engaged to Olivia Culpo and she is not mentioned in his either. Jessintime (talk) 17:58, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

I’m going to reiterate what Rockchalk717 said above. The amount of coverage Kelce’s relationship with Swift has received in the media is far unlike any of the examples you’ve listed. She’s been featured on TV every time she’s in attendance for Chiefs games and her photo of her kissing Kelce after the SB literally made headlines. It’s not the relationship itself but rather its coverage by the press that’s notable. That’s why we should keep it in the lede. TheCelebrinator (talk) 18:23, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

It belongs in the lead—and not just for the avalanche of media coverage and social-media engagement[1] that drove a "cultural moment of unusual significance," as the New York Times called it.[2] It's financially significant as well. Here, for example, is Fortune: "Super Bowl–bound Kansas City Chiefs are riding a $331.5 million boost to their value just because of Taylor Swift"[3] When McCaffrey's engagement makes a company one-third of a billion dollars, we can add it to his Wikipedia page as well.

I suggest the intro sentence read: "Kelce's relationship with singer-songwriter Taylor Swift, begun in 2023, has drawn massive media coverage and stimulated viewership and revenue for his team and its league." PRRfan (talk) 18:37, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Personally, I don't care about the wording. Just as long as (as I said in the previous discussion) it doesn't hint he's notability has anything to do with the relationship and it's clear the point being made is about the unusually high media coverage of their relationship.--Rockchalk717 16:05, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

I still don't see how a six months relationship needs to be in the LEAD. how is it related to any of his achievements as a sportsperson? or to his 11 years career? It is sufficiently covered in his personal Life section.

Yes, it has received a lot of media coverage, but so does most celebrity relationship and you don't go around mentioning them all in lead sections of actors/actresses who have been in very high profile relationships. Furthermore, the relationship has impact on NFL as well and the Chiefs, do we go around mentioning her in the lead of their articles too? Meryam90 (talk) 22:20, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

The age of the relationship is irrelevant. The relationship itself is not the purpose of the comment. Don't get into what-about-isms on this. We aren't talking about other pages. We're talking about Travis Kelce not other pages. What other pages do and don't do does not matter here unless the comment was a policy violation, which it isn't. The comment is for the pop culture phenomenon that is the coverage of their relationship. It blows my mind you are so fiercely defending excluding something you appear to be in the minority on.--Rockchalk717 08:03, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

• I know I commented above that the relationship shouldn't be mentioned in the lead, but if it does stay the lead should probably mention more than just widespread media coverage. Jessintime (talk) 17:05, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

  What else do you think should be mentioned? Personally, I'm leaning towards being in favor of a brief mention at the end of the lead. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 17:08, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

  Again: the significance is not simply cultural, but also financial. As above, I suggest the intro sentence read: "Kelce's relationship with singer-songwriter Taylor Swift, begun in 2023, has drawn massive media coverage and stimulated viewership and revenue for his team and its league." PRRfan (talk) 1:37 pm, 16 February 2024, last Friday (3 days ago) (UTC−5)Reply

  PRRfan (talk) 18:17, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

I'm ok with the mention of the financial impact in addition to cultural impact. It makes it more clear the comment isn't simply just referencing their relationship, that's for the personal life section. Because yes, as Meryam90 has stated, just the relationship by itself isn't worthy of a mention in the lede (not necessarily because of the length of it), but everything that happened after they began dating definitely is.--Rockchalk717 18:36, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

I would suggest something along the lines of the boost in ratings the NFL received as a result of the relationship, rather than just the media attention paid to it. Jessintime (talk) 16:15, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Good idea! Which is why "stimulated viewership...for his team and its league" is part of the addition under discussion. PRRfan (talk) 17:44, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

I'm ok with that. It meets everything I'm personally looking for it to say and seems everyone except Meryam90 feels the same.--Rockchalk717 20:56, 20 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)

@Meryam90: Once again, other pages are irrelevant. Number two, this discussion is over and the clear consensus is to include it. I mean this in the most polite way possible: please just let this go.--Rockchalk717 22:44, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

This discussion was not closed and formal consensus under wikipedia rules was not declared so with all fur respect, no consensus was reached and it’s still an open discussion unless you want us to involve a wiki admin and dig up all the Living person wikipedia rules so they can moderate this discussion since you all clearly cannot?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Meryam90 (talk • contribs) 12:30, March 1, 2024 (UTC)

One discussion on this ended on 30 December with a weak consensus (2-1, to judge by comments) to mention the relationship in the intro. You began another discussion on 16 February, which has produced a stronger consensus (4-1, to judge by comments) to do so. I'm sure we could set up a formal vote, but the prevailing sentiment at this point is pretty clear. PRRfan (talk) 22:22, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Once again, it is clearly a consensus for inclusion. And yes it is closed. There were no comments on it for over a week and you tried to push your side further. This time I don't care how you take it. Let it go.--Rockchalk717 15:35, 2 March 2024 (UTC)