Talk:Ian Eagle

WikiProject class rating
This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 08:12, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating
This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot (talk) 19:10, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Ian Eagle. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071016072857/http://nicindy.org/whos_greek/greeks_in_sports/other/Sportscasters%20and%20Sportswriters.php to http://www.nicindy.org/whos_greek/greeks_in_sports/other/Sportscasters%20and%20Sportswriters.php
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061031111630/http://www.nba.com/nets/game_night_experience/broadcasterbios_011011.html to http://www.nba.com/nets/game_night_experience/broadcasterbios_011011.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 22:28, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

How much is too much?
Do we really need a week by week listing of which games Eagle called? Personally, I'd say no, but I'd like to have the discussion. I think the excess information falls under WP:INDISCRIMINATE. WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 11:53, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Sorry am new to this and was not aware of such scrupulous regulations. I read under the indiscriminate hyperlink you provided that its possible to split statistics into a separate article when they are 'so lengthy as to impede the readability of the article'. I can only presume this is what you're referring to so perhaps this is a solution. And yes, would be a shame to see all the work go waste. Sh1pp02 (talk) 12:27, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't think a separate article is the answer here. I think the key takeaway from WP:INDISCRIMINATE is this statement: merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. In other words, Wikipedia should not try to encompass every bit of arcana about a subject. No other NFL broadcaster's bio includes an exhaustive list of every game they've ever broadcast, and I see no need for such information here either. WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 12:42, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Right well perhaps this is not the platform for me then. I thought that I was providing a helpful addition, at the very least something that can't be found anywhere else on the internet. I guess I underestimated the petty nature of what goes on here, where people with seemingly little or no interest in a topic feel the need to intrude on the work of others. Says a lot about our society, people feeling the next to wield any sort of power, no matter how insignificant, they may have at others, often with no real cause. A real shame to have devoted a couple of hours to this practice, but a learning experience if nothing else. Today's lesson; you're never too far away from a cunt on the internet!
 * If this information can't be found elsewhere on the internet, where did you get it? And I don't believe I've interfered or intruded on your work, merely questioned you about it since Wikipedia does have policies and guidelines on how things should be done. If you are not comfortable with the collaborative nature of this project, you may feel more comfortable editing elsewhere. Fandom.com (formerly Wikia.com) is very welcoming of users who want to share this level of arcana on their favorite subjects. WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 14:09, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Notable calls
The Notable calls section does not appear to define any criteria for what constitutes a "notable" call. The fact that someone posted them on YouTube is not sufficient. To be deemed notable, the calls themselves should have been the topic of some third-party commentary. Lacking this, we could call any thing he said that we particularly liked a "notable call", but that's not how we roll at Wikipedia. WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 20:19, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Pinging and  who were largely responsible for adding and expanding this section to get their input on the discussion.  WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 20:58, 3 November 2021 (UTC)