Talk:Sonny Dykes

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Lede section[edit]

Regarding this revert:

  • "Dykes has an overall losing record as a head coach" is a factual statement - but that alone strips out the nuance as to why, namely inheriting Jeff Tedford's horrible 2012 team, and he inherited a losing team at Louisiana Tech too.
  • WP:LEDE also states: "The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic. It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies." So that's why I expanded the lede to summarize Dykes' assistant coaching career and provide more details about his head coaching tenures at LT and Cal. Arbor to SJ (talk) 05:56, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
    • A recent bowl game is not an introduction. That has its place. The fact that he has a losing record is valid, considering he is a football coach.41.45.225.248 (talk) 19:51, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
      • There's also WP:NPOV as well. Again, stating in the lead "he has a losing record as coach" alone strips out the context. Arbor to SJ (talk) 20:34, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
        • The context comes below. A single bowl game is not how to introduce a coach. His record is how you introduce him.41.45.206.181 (talk) 17:46, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

I am the Secretary of Football Kenya federation. I would love me to talk go Mr. Dykes. HaggaiElkanah (talk) 16:36, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

I would like to talk to Mr. Dykes concerning our football affairs. HaggaiElkanah (talk) 16:38, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

record standings[edit]

The record standings column should be listed as standings within the division. The column does not say "conference standings", it just says "standings". Conference's with divisions do not break down there standings for every team, they only do it within the division. And every other coach page lists the division, not overall standing. So it needs to be listed with the standing within the north division. Bsuorangecrush (talk) 17:19, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

It clearly says Pac-12 Conference. It isn't even close. Nowhere in the entire article does it even state that Cal is in the North Division. I have no objection to you adding another column for the division. But you can't list division standings right under a graphic that says "Pac-12 Conference" and "Standings."156.222.124.111 (talk) 20:18, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
Yes, it clearly says Pac-12 conference in the header for what team he is coaching, not in the standings column. Please look at every other coach in the Pac-12 north. Every single one of them lists the division in the standing. Look at the Pac-12 south, every one of them lists the division in the standing. Look at every other conference where there is a division. Every single one uses the division as the standing. It is the standard used on every coaches page. I understand your objection, but the standard is to use the division. DO NOT revert it again unless you take it to the college football project talk page and come up with a consensus to how it should be done. For right now, listing the division is by far the consensus since it is done that way on every other page. Bsuorangecrush (talk) 20:40, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
Bring arguments here before reverting again. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject College football Bsuorangecrush (talk) 20:59, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for discussing this. I appreciate the discussion. But please, let me just clarify. You are the side that has made changes. It referred to the conference standings for a long time. Since you are the one that wants to change things, you should bring it there before you revert again. The "standings" column listed right underneath the "Pac-12 Conference" heading. So it seems your two best options if you care about accuracy is to 1) change the heading to "Northern Division" instead of "Pac-12 Conference" or 2) Add a column for divisional standings. Why not make it as accurate as possible? Inaccuracies on other pages does not justify inaccuracies on this page. 156.222.131.209 (talk) 07:26, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
EVERY COACH PAGE LIST DIVISION STANDINGS!!!! So are all of them wrong? What about that do you not understand? Conferences with divisions don't even acknowledge overall standings. Please find ANYWHERE that list overall pac-12 standings without divisions. IT DOES NOT EXIST. You are beyond wrong on this one.Bsuorangecrush (talk) 22:13, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

This argument was made by another user: my understanding is that all the FBS conferences that are split into division official report their standing only by division. Therefore, it would not be appropriate to present such "overall" conference standings in placed like head coaching record tables.Jweiss11 (talk) 21:34, 2 December 2016 (UTC) So even other users say you are wrong.Bsuorangecrush (talk) 22:22, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

You can see here that the Pac-12 presents its football standings by conference. I have never seen an official or reliable third-party source present Pac-12 football standings—since the divisional split in 2011—in overall conference fashion. Jweiss11 (talk) 01:17, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
So why not just delete "Pac-12 Conference" and replace it with "Northern Division"? Just because other pages are inaccurately labelled does not mean this one should be. Accuracy is more important. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 156.222.129.217 (talk) 08:50, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
REALLY??? THE COLUMN IS NOT LABELED PAC-12!!! How can you not see that? That is a subheader for the team and conference he is currently coaching. Look at the top of the box. The Column just says Standing, it does not say Pac-12 standing. And what part of the conference does not go by overall standings don't you understand? Their OFFICIAL standings are within the DIVISION!!! Other pages are not inaccurately labelled. This is THE ONLY page that, under the way you want, would not be labeled by division. Do you really think we've just decided to label them all wrong on purpose? NO!! They are labelled that way correctly and this is the only page that would be wrong.Bsuorangecrush (talk) 17:12, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
Dear IP user, there's nothing inaccurate about these tables. In cases where the standing refers to a divisional standing, the division is clearly noted in parenthesis. See Bob Stoops for another good example. Note how the Big 12 lost two teams and dropped its divisional alignment after the 2010 season. Jweiss11 (talk) 18:54, 5 December 2016 (UTC)