Talk:Ryan Day (American football)

Disambiguation

Any consensus on whether there should be a disambiguation page for Ryan Day (American Football) and Ryan Day (Snooker Player) rather than just showing the latter? --Analogue Kid (talk) 14:02, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

There absolutely needs to be one now that Day will become the head coach. A lot of readers are going to end up at the other Day's article and be very frustrated. 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:3059:8016:5847:3E43 (talk) 15:09, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Coaching tree

@Strikerforce: can we talk about your edit?

Coaching trees are pretty standard for coach articles on wikipedia, including Urban Meyer#Coaching tree, Jim Harbaugh#Coaching tree, Nick Saban#Coaching tree, Brian Kelly (American football coach)#Coaching tree, and even NFL coaches like Marvin Lewis#Coaching tree and Hue Jackson#Coaching tree (I have yet to find a current football head coach article that doesn't include a coaching tree). Rather than WP:TRIVIA, I think most editors see it as the pedigree of a coach, demonstrating what kind of playing styles they were exposed to. Hoof Hearted (talk) 18:12, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Sure, we can talk about it. My stance, in general, is that they're trivia. If I wanted to make a point, I would go to every coach's article on the project and make the same edit that I did to this article. However, that would be seen as being disruptive. It's neat information to know, as a fan, but is it really encyclopedic? Happy to hear other thoughts, however. Strikerforce^Talk 18:19, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

I have to agree with Hoof Hearted on this one. I'm a big sports fan and in my many years of reading articles here about coaches, I have always thought of coaching trees as standard, or at least widely accepted, content. I don't believe WP:TRIVIA applies at all to lists like this, but is instead intended for much more random, fluff type of information, often presented essentially as fun facts or entertainment. In other words, true trivia as in trivial information. I see a coaching tree as important, noteworthy information for coaches. It helps readers understand a coach's history in terms of the types of coaching styles and systems he was a part of as he worked his way up the coaching ladder. WP:TRIVIA says, " A trivia section is one that contains a disorganized and "unselective" list. However, a selectively populated list with a relatively narrow theme is not necessarily trivia, and can be the best way to present some types of information." As I see it, a coaches tree, is just the opposite of what we're trying to avoid; it is organzied and selective. And it's certainly quite relevant to the topic (the coach). So, to answer Strikerforces's very important question... yes, I definitely believe it's encylopedic. 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:3059:8016:5847:3E43 (talk) 19:37, 4 December 2018 (UTC)