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)


 * I have proposed moving the articles at Talk:Ryan Day. Ostealthy (talk) 15:00, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Coaching tree
can we talk about your edit?

Coaching trees are pretty standard for coach articles on wikipedia, including Urban Meyer, Jim Harbaugh, Nick Saban, Brian Kelly (American football coach), and even NFL coaches like Marvin Lewis and Hue Jackson (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. Striker force 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)
 * 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. Striker force 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)


 * More input: I was directed to this thread regarding NFL coaching trees by another editor. I don't read a clear consensus there (but must say, our discussion is much more civil), but I like the opinion expressed that a short list of legendary coaches has merit vs. listing every single coach associated with a person.  Of course, this would lead to a discussion of the definition of "legendary" (overall winning record? multiple Coach of the Year awards? National coaching awards?), and could prove to be a slippery slope.  I would also acknowledge that coaching trees were removed from basketball and hockey articles with the given reason "they didn't improve the articles in any way". Hoof Hearted (talk) 14:20, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Ryan Day which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 15:00, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
 * The snooker player was moved off the primary topic; the closed discussion is now at Talk:Ryan Day (snooker player). – wbm1058 (talk) 12:02, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 November 2021
Currently the profile shows he won the big ten east championship in 2021. That is not accurate. The University of Michigan did. 2603:900A:1701:D8DA:2598:8621:CE71:ED70 (talk) 13:22, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. - FlightTime  ( open channel ) 13:26, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Michigan and Ohio State were co champions of the division in 2021. Michigan by tiebreaker got to play in the title game though. Kjtrill (talk) 22:24, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 November 2022
Ryan Day and the OSU Buckeyes were not the B1G East Champions. That would be the Jim Harbaugh led Michigan Wolverines 192.63.72.32 (talk) 05:06, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Semi-protection-unlocked.svg Not done: The page's protection level has changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. MadGuy7023 (talk) 21:26, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Make a new picture of him
That picture is obvious vandalism. Hes obviously in the middle of speaking and also he has had a beard for years. Fix the vandalism pls. 2603:6010:A140:7D:69FE:A5CD:BBE1:D074 (talk) 00:51, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

"Coach Day" listed at Redirects for discussion
The redirect [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Coach_Day&redirect=no Coach Day] 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  until a consensus is reached. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:13, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Change the picture
The pic was intentionally used as vandalism because he was mid speaking when it was taken 2603:6010:A140:7D:F121:EB99:A1E5:FDED (talk) 23:10, 19 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Vandalism? Lolwut? Can you suggest a better picture of Day that's in the public domain or has been licensed via Creative Commons? Jweiss11 (talk) 04:42, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
 * lol Jjazz76 (talk) 17:50, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Ryan Day which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 18:48, 21 November 2023 (UTC)