Open main menu

Wikipedia β

Talk:Aaron Rodgers

Former good article nominee Aaron Rodgers was a Sports and recreation good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
Date Process Result
December 25, 2011 Good article nominee Not listed
June 6, 2012 Peer review Reviewed
July 11, 2012 Good article nominee Not listed
May 2, 2015 Good article nominee Not listed
Current status: Former good article nominee

Postseason statsEdit

His 2012 postseason stats are wrong. He started 2 games, not 1. Which means all of his 2012 postseason stats are wrong too.

RfC Regarding Danica PatrickEdit

Closing RFC, consensus is to include a brief mention, confirming with reliable source requirements. Fish+Karate 10:12, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Should it be mentioned in the article that Aaron Rodgers is dating Danica Patrick? For Context please see the above discussion. --Church Talk 19:37, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

SurveyEdit

  • Support-- Per my reason above. --Church Talk 19:38, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Yes - The parties themselves are stating it to the press and publishing their own photos. This is not gossip or paparazzi sneak photos. I can't believe people feel a need to vote on this. --SVTCobra (talk) 19:42, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose There is no doubt they have been dating ... for a full month.[1] However, the policy WP:NOTDIARY is clear: "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 over-detailed articles that look like a diary." Comparisons to inclusion of his relationship with Olivia Munn are a misguided case of WP:OTHERSTUFF, as that was a longer-term relationship and WP:PROPORTIONal to his bio. Sorry, one month is just too trivial.—Bagumba (talk) 20:05, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
Curious as to what makes a relationship not "too trivial"? If one month is too trivial, is two months? 6 months? A year? When do you think it would become notable enough to add? Also remembering that reliably sourced coverage of the relationship will most likely be focused on milestones and will be hit and miss in the meantime. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 18:56, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Support having a sentence on their relationship, based on the wide coverage it's received, including from major outlets such as USA Today and the Washington Post. Lizard (talk) 20:45, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Bagumba. That source is violates the tabloid policy and too much trivia information. Steam5 (talk) 02:22, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
I'm sorry, Steam5, but are you calling Associated Press, USA Today and Washington Post "tabloids"? --SVTCobra (talk) 02:37, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
Can't talk now, I'm busy. Will see if User:Sabbatino and User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz to decide if they can "support" or "oppose" the addition for a possible trivial content per WP:NOTATABLOID. Steam5 (talk) 03:09, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
OK, but I think this easily passes the "inclusion test" of WP:NOTATABLOID. Cheers, SVTCobra (talk) 05:00, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Abstain at this time. I do not have a firm opinion on this matter right now. One side of me says that it should be included, while the other says the opposite. – Sabbatino (talk) 22:20, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - Since it has been reported in multiple reliable sources and doesn't read like a TMZ type tabloid. Meatsgains(talk) 03:43, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose dating for a whole month? Wow! A fact of mind-numbing triviality. Pincrete (talk) 23:31, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Support, reliably sourced. Two famous people whose relationship has garnered significant coverage in its own right. There is no way for us to determine when a relationship is notable (a week, month, 6 months, year, marriage???), thus if it is reliably sourced and notable in its own right it should be included. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 18:52, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
    • There is no way for us to determine when a relationship is notable [...] thus if it is reliably sourced and notable in its own right – ??? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 01:16, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Gah (Summoned by bot) It is RS, and I wouldn't consider it trivial after 6 months, but right now I feel it is too early. I won't oppose It's insertion, but personally I would wait. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 19:29, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
  • I'll see your Gah and up you an Ughhhhh... In all seriousness folks, neither side could give way on this incredibly trivial difference in content before resorting to an RfC pulling in editor time? Well, alright then--I lean slightly towards oppose. Frankly, I feel as though, project-wide, we have gotten a little too loose with including trivial details about the social lives of the subjects of BLPs, where said information does not relate to the subject's general notability. Outside of relationships that have hit a certain minimum threshold of WP:WEIGHT in coverage, I frankly don't think statements concerning which sports figures, models, and celebrities are snogging eachother are in any way relevant to the purpose of an encyclopedic review of a person's notability. That said, I reiterate that the difference of content advocated by the two different sides here is minuscule enough that I would have expected one side or the other to give way. Snow let's rap 00:57, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Bagumba and Pincrete. Honestly, why should any reader care about this trivial development? Will Wiki bios be documenting subjects' shoe sizes and favorite cocktails next? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 00:21, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
If RS makes a big deal about… L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 23:28, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Weak Support as the content is reliably sourced. I've waited until near to the end of the RFC to see if there would be any material changes to the relationship given how long they had been together at the start of the RFC, but there haven't been, so a short mention cited to a reliable source should suffice here for now. If they have a low profile break up in the near future, then there is a good argument for removal. IffyChat -- 10:40, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Threaded discussionEdit

  • In regards to the NOTDIARY debate, I understand the dissuasion to the topic. Has there been any kind of precedent on this before? Was anyone here long enough ago to when Tony Romo began dating Jessica Simpson to know when that was included? Perhaps that will allow us to reach some sort of conclusion on a proper inclusion time. --Church Talk 21:45, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
I didn't want to dig so deep in the archives as Romo/Simpson, but I think the following can serve as a precedent: Alex Rodriguez' relationship with Jennifer Lopez was added within a month of them becoming "official" (see diff) and has stayed on his article ever since. --SVTCobra (talk) 23:23, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
We should avoid comparing other content. Aaron Rodgers is neither Alex Rodriguez nor Tony Romo, and Danica Patrick is neither Jessica Simpson nor Jennifer Lopez. Lizard (talk) 00:26, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
Agreed, Lizard. It should be based on policy, not precedent. And the policy cited by Bagumba states: "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 over-detailed articles that look like a diary. Not every match played or goal scored is significant enough to be included in the biography of a person." This is neither a diary entry about Rodgers and Patrick at the beach nor about their day at the Daytona 500. It is merely an acknowledgement that they consider themselves to be in a relationship, and it is not a one-night-stand or something of that sort. Cheers, --SVTCobra (talk) 01:06, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
Pinging Muboshgu, who took Derek Jeter to FA. Jeter dated a lot of celebs, so it would be informative to see how it was decided which ones got listed and which were filtered. I don't follow this TMZ-type news, but with a quick Google I found that Adriana Lima and Jessica Alba are not listed in Jeter's article. Are there others? Were there objective criteria used for Jeter that make sense for Rodgers?—Bagumba (talk) 09:08, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
I welcome the input. I doubt, however, that any of those were as public as this. SVTCobra (talk) 12:37, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
My memory is terrible, but the Internet remembers everything. Jeter was nominated at FAC four times, failing the first three. I suggest skimming through those discussions to see how his dating life was covered. Duck duck duck goose. (Or maybe it was covered in a GAN). – Muboshgu (talk) 16:37, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Semi-protected edit request on 7 April 2018Edit

Add This record which he currently holds to either his 2017 career paragraph or statistics paragraph

Rodgers isn't just the highest-rated qualified passer in NFL history, but no other quarterback is within eight points of his 106.0 rating. The gap that separates Rodgers from second-place Tony Romo is about the same as the gap that separates Romo from Matt Schaub, who ranks 13th all-time with a rating of 89.5.

Now, we can't really only compare Rodgers with his peers here because it's a different game. How else do you explain Romo being the second highest-rated passer in history and Schaub being 13th? It's safe to say that Joe Montana wouldn't have a 92.3 career rating in this era, and Rodgers wouldn't have a 106.0 rating in Montana's era.

Still, take a look at how Rodgers compares to guys who have been active during the same era

[1] PackFAN18 (talk) 10:34, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Not done. I'm not sure exactly what you want to add. It's already mentioned several times in the article that he has the highest passer rating in NFL history. Did you want to add all the above text? Because that's definitely a no-go as it's copied verbatim from the source you posted, so it'd be a copyright violation. Put it into your own words and summarize it a bit and we might have something to work with. Lizard (talk) 13:28, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Bucks ownershipEdit

I'm looking for input from more experienced editors here because I'm wondering 1) Should this news be included on the subject's Wikipedia page? And 2) If so, under what section would it go?

Here's the source: http://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/23269313/aaron-rodgers-green-bay-packers-purchases-minority-stake-milwaukee-bucks

And a tentative suggestion on language: "On April 20, 2018, during a playoff game against the Boston Celtics, Green Bay Packers quarterback Aaron Rodgers was announced as a limited partner in the Milwaukee Bucks ownership group, making him the first active NFL player with an ownership stake in an NBA franchise."

Any feedback is appreciated. HPLeu (talk) 12:47, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

I'd say it's worth a mention due to that last part: "the first active NFL player with an ownership stake in an NBA franchise." I don't see a section it could currently go under though; I'd either start a new section, something like "Other ventures," or rename the "Media appearances" section to "Other ventures" and include it there. Lizard (talk) 14:15, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
How about listing this in "Personal life" section with a new sub-section called "Ventures" or similarly? – Sabbatino (talk) 14:25, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
Is it really part of his personal life though? And if we're making a new section anyway we might as well make it separate. Lizard (talk) 14:30, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
If it is not part of his personal life then what is it? He bought a stake in the team. No corporation or company forced him to do that. In addition, if we were to add a completely new section then it should be called "Business ventures" or something like that. – Sabbatino (talk) 13:28, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
Return to "Aaron Rodgers" page.