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 coaching 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)

@2605:A000:FFC0:D8:3059:8016:5847:3E43: That's a reasonable perspective and interpretation of TRIVIA. I don't necessarily agree with the stance that it's encyclopedic (to me, that's information better suited for a sports almanac), but you've presented a reasonable case. Strikerforce^Talk 21:28, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:3059:8016:5847:3E43 (talk) 04:14, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Note: Upon re-reading WP:TRIVIA, there's a very important point that I missed originally; that the guideline is strictly about style, not about content. Thus, the reason it comes from the Manual of Style. In the lead, it says, "This style guideline deals with the way in which these facts are represented in an article, not with whether the information contained within them is actually trivia, or whether trivia belongs in Wikipedia." And in the What this guideline is not section, it says, "This guideline does not suggest the inclusion or exclusion of any information; it only gives style recommendations. Issues of inclusion are addressed by content policies." That leads us to WP:INDISCRIMINATE, part of the What Wikipedia is Not (WP:NOT) policy. So, WP:TRIVIA doesn't even apply to this discussion since Striker's objection doesn't have anything to do with how the information is being presented, but rather just whether it is encylopedic or not. And unless I'm missing something, I don't see anything in WP:NOT that would have us exclude a coaching tree. 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:3059:8016:5847:3E43 (talk) 20:24, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I just realized that wikipedia has had an article on coaching tree since 2007, if that can be used as an argument that the topic is encyclopedic. It even survived a AfD nomination. Hoof Hearted (talk) 20:27, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I did see that right after you originally posted because I was curious to know if there was an article about it. I have to admit, though, that it's a pretty weak article that needs a lot of improvement. To be fair, I'm not sure that a notable subject automatically equates to enyclopedic content in a particular article. In this case, I just happen to think it's a natural, relevant fit. And just now, I randomly chose about 25 current college head coaches from major football programs to see if their articles had a coaching tree. Although some do not, the vast majority of them do. It appears to be so widely accepted for current and recent coaches, that calling it "standard" content would probably not be far off the mark. 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:3059:8016:5847:3E43 (talk) 21:14, 4 December 2018 (UTC)