Talk:Dan Patrick (sportscaster)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled[edit]

Someone should also mention how Patrick always annoyingly (and apparentely out of habit) replies with "all right" (usually in a mean and/or disappointed tone of voice) each time he ends a discussion topic with a colleague during various segments (i.e. "Fact or Fiction," post/pre-game analysis, on-location report, etc).—Preceding unsigned comment added by Nick22aku (talk • contribs) 22:41, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Relationship[edit]

My parents tell me that Dan (Patrick) Pugh is the brother of Mike Patrick (Pugh?), also of ESPN, and that both are sons of an acquaintance of my parents from Zanesville, Ohio. Neither bio refers to the other as a brother (at least in Wikipedia). Can this be confirmed by anyone else?—Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobcatbob (talk • contribs) 19:04, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is incorrect. Mike Patrick is not related to dan patrick.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.208.145.85 (talk) 03:00, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sportscenter[edit]

I'm in the UK, so only listen to Dan's radio show and never see him on TV. When did he leave Sportscenter ? Was he fired or did he quit ? Tycobbuk 12:53, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He said the day Bill Parcells retired (today) that he grew very tired of doing it every day and he began to dread doing it. Now he enjoys what he does on the radio and NBA Nation. Quadzilla99 20:55, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

JFK connection[edit]

Can anyone confirm the mention of Dan Patrick's possible JFK involvement. I doubt it myslef.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.244.30.103 (talk) 19:11, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

--I've heard rumors also, but it seems that information is hard to find. Perhaps if we go the route of the National Archives, something like that, we can find something.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.54.206.219 (talk) 15:27, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

...I hate to burst your bubble, but he would have been 7 at the time. Dx87 17:31, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Semiprotect[edit]

I added the {{Semiprotect}} to this page. Rolando 15:33, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And I removed it since the page isn't actually semiprotected. --OnoremDil 15:50, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Future of the Dan Patrick Show[edit]

The story about Patrick going into radio syndication was published July 12. After that point, Dan Patrick has not hosted that timeslot, which is now being referred to by guest hosts (Brad Van Pelt Jun 12-13, Michael Kay 16) as "ESPN Radio" with no show title. The email address has been changed from Patrick's show's email to the generic "radio@espnradio.com."

My comments did not state anything further about the future of the show, they merely indicated the timeline to which ESPN Radio has rebranded that hour. Everything stated was factual, with no speculation. Snowfire51 22:12, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • It is really going to suck when Dan leaves the airwaves from ESPN Radio. He will be missed.Djjackal0509 21:36, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

His show is on XM 143 now, not XM 144. This was effective 1/5/09. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.226.41.42 (talk) 00:29, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Trivia sections[edit]

They are bad. If you have information that is important, write about it in the main article. Don't create a trivia section, because this is an encyclopedia, not a list of random facts. - Ta bu shi da yu 10:49, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not encyclopedia worthy[edit]

I deleted "Dan has ETHICS ISSUES, doing ads and endorsing products. Those things go in direct violation of the RTNDA Code of Ethics (that's the group which is for broadcast "journalists"). It's good to see Dan leave ESPN. Maybe he will clear his head and get the ESPN crap out and become a real sports journalist again."

This is an encyclopedia, not an opinion piece. FACTS!!! Gamecockbo 19:01, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Other Dan Patricks[edit]

I am going to edit the article so that "Dan Patrick" goes to a disambig article. There is a Texas politican and Broadcaster named Dan Patrick, also. See Dan Patrick (politics).--Getaway 21:44, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I think the "Dan Patrick" article should point here, with perhaps the "This article is about the sportscaster, for the politician, see..." line at the top. The broadcaster DP is much more widely known than the local politician, and the majority of people searching for Dan Patrick will be looking for the broadcaster.Snowfire51 22:39, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Issue taken care of. Edit sample: Brian Griffin, dog from Family Guy.--Getaway 22:42, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How is the issue taken care of, and what does Brian Griffin have to do with Dan Patrick?Snowfire51 22:50, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Again, why was this necessary? The broadcasting Dan Patrick has a much higher profile than the political DP. This was never discussed, and I think a simple "For the politician and broadcaster, see..." at the top of the page would have been sufficient. Why wasn't this discussed? Snowfire51 04:51, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I gotta add, a disambiguation page with two references to Dan Patrick, once as a Sportscaster and again for The Dan Patrick show, looks kinda stupid and contrived to make it seem like there are a lot of entries. There aren't. There's Dan Patrick and then there is relatively unknown politician with the same name. Tommyaquinas 18:24, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was move to Dan Patrick, and use a disambig link at top. I'll prod the disambig page.-Andrew c [talk] 16:15, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move[edit]

Dan Patrick (sportscaster) → Dan Patrick

This article was moved a week ago with no discussion to a disambig page, because there is another "Dan Patrick" who is a politician in Texas. I tried to enter into a discussion above, but go no answers on why this move was made. I feel the DP who is a former ESPN sportscaster and national radio host is far more popular than the local politician, and the vast majority of people searching for the name will be looking for the sportscaster.Snowfire51 06:41, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Survey[edit]

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.
  • Support - Should have been discussed, and should be moved back to just Dan Patrick, with an "other uses" tag for the politician, as Snowfire51 has suggested. --Bongwarrior 07:07, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Should have been discussed is not a valid reason to change the article now, as the Survey header states lack of discussion is not one of Wikipedia's naming conventions. More importantly, there is a potential for confusion between the Dan Patrick, the former sportscaster, and Dan Patrick, the politician who is also a radio personality. Both Dan Patrick's were on the radio. Dan Patrick, the politician, is also radio talk show host in Dallas and Houston. The most important reason behind Wikipedia's naming conventions is to easily guide the Wikipedia user to the correct person. Also, there is a third person with a similar name Danica Patrick, the female racecar driver. And finally, there is an article about the cancelled radio show called The Dan Patrick Show, which used to be on ESPN radio, but no longer is. The current set up easily guides the Wikipedia reader to correct use of the name Dan Patrick.--Getaway 23:41, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - I honestly don't think the potential for confusion is great enough to justify having a disambiguation page. "Danica Patrick" and "The Dan Patrick Show" are distinct enough that a reader wouldn't expect to find those at Dan Patrick. It would be much simpler to put it back the way it was, with a "for the politician, see Dan Patrick (politics)" note at the top, so the majority of readers who are expecting to find information about the sportscaster are delivered to the intended article, rather than a disamb page. --Bongwarrior 04:19, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - My understanding of the "Deciding to Disambiguate" guidelines is that when one entry for a given name is overwhelmingly more likely to be the one expected by anybody searching for the name, that actual entry (rather than a disambig page) should be landed upon by any such search, and a link to the other, far less likely target entry provided at the top of that first entry's page. In such circumstances, a disambig page is actually discouraged because it inserts an extra, largely unnecessary step in reaching the more likely entry for the overwhelming majority of people who are seeking it. As far as determining whether such an overwhelming majority exists, this page of Wikipedia articles that link to Dan Patrick should be helpful. In this instance I think it's quite clear that the vast majority of people entering "Dan Patrick" would be seeking the national sportscaster rather than the Texas politician/radio host; hence a disambig page is inappropriate, and the link at the top of the sportscaster's article should be sufficient. --Beeeej 04:30, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - A separate disambiguation page is, according to the guidelines, warranted when there are several possible subjects for a given name to reference. For Dan Patrick, there are really only two. Danica Patrick doesn't go by "Dan" as far as I know, the Dan Patrick Show is already linked from the former ESPN sportscaster's page, and the politician is relatively obscure. As an experiment, I googled "Dan.Patrick ESPN" and got about 178,000 links. In contrast, "Dan.Patrick state.senator" turns up only around 9,600. That would seem to indicate that it's about 18 times as likely that a person who wants to find Dan Patrick quickly is expecting to get the former ESPN sportscaster as the Texas state senator. Therefore, I think the politician should be a link from the top of the this page. Andreac 06:51, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agreed Forget about googling "Dan Patrick ESPN" or "Dan Patrick state senator" and just google "Dan Patrick" and you get to the 3rd page before a mention of the senator even comes up and pages 5 or 6 before you get his official site and more results come up. Mr mark taylor 13:45, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - I gotta agree with the notion of putting a disambiguation link at the top of the Dan Patrick page (the sportscaster). I doubt that the general population visiting Wikipedia and searching for Dan Patrick would really not be expecting the sportscaster. This change greatly reduced the simplicity of finding the desired information on Wikipedia, so I support change back to the original article with a disambiguation note.Tommyaquinas 18:26, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The user Tommyacquinas over half of his edits with Wikipedia concerns supporting this proposition. I hope it is not a sockpuppet.--Getaway 19:46, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've been called a lot of things, but a sockpuppet is a new one. I do believe I am my own flesh and blood entity with my own opinions; I apologize for not making more corrections in the past on Wikipedia if that's what's bugging you. I only ended up here because I was poking around Wikipedia looking at Olbermann, Kilborn and the other anchors and came upon the Dan Patrick page and saw the weird disambig page. Frankly, this whole thing seems a little too passionate about a random entry about a sportscaster. Oh, also an unknown politician.Tommyaquinas 13:11, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, Good Lord. It's not a new account, he does have an edit history. It looks like Tommyacquinas made one edit on this page, and then fixed his own edit. I doubt he's a sockpuppet. Snowfire51 20:32, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, for Goodness Sake. Peter, Paul and ALL the Saints, of course, it is a potential sockpuppet. The account has only made fifteen (15) edits in its whole existence and six (6) of those edits are Dan Patrick focused in the last two days!!! Of course it is a potential sockpuppet!! Suddenly the account comes to life during a survey on where the words Dan Patrick lead the Wikipedia user? If it quacks like a duck, if it walks like a duck, then it is probably a duck.--Getaway 03:51, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I'm not a duck either, that's a fowl thing to call a man.Tommyaquinas 13:11, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wait, the page is fixed. Why are we still talking about this? Oh, wait, I'm the only one. My Bad.Tommyaquinas 13:12, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - The disam should be done at Dan Patrick (disambiguation). Dan Patrick should be about the former ESPN personality with an {{otheruses}} tag on the top of the article. In Houston or Dallas, people might be more likely to expect an article about the senator, though even there I'd expect many would be looking for the sportscaster. Around the rest of the world, I think it's obvious that the sportscaster would be the expected topic. --Onorem♠Dil 11:40, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - Not sure what you're trying to "support" here. You give all the usual reasons that there should not be a disambiguation page - that the disambig should occur at the top of the individual pages - but you give all those reasons after saying "The disam should be done at Dan Patrick (disambiguation)." Care to clarify? --Beeeej 18:02, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I believe that there's nothing wrong with having a disambiguation page for the two Dan Patricks, Danica Patrick, and The Dan Patrick Show. I also believe that searching for Dan Patrick should bring you directly to this page, so I Support the move back to Dan Patrick. --Onorem♠Dil 20:40, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion[edit]

Any additional comments:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Rick Reilly[edit]

I think he was kidding with Dan when he said that on Dan's show. He didn't write anything and I don't think it was serious. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sam22789 (talk • contribs) 03:16, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clean Up[edit]

This article has a section titled Future beyond ESPN/ABC that I think should be changed to "Current ventures," or something like that. To say "future" means that these things haven't happened yet, but they have. Good idea? Your thoughts?Gamecockbo (talk) 21:37, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians, I have just added archive links to one external link on Dan Patrick. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know. This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 16:47, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians, I have just modified 2 external links on Dan Patrick. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}). This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:13, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress[edit]

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Dan Patrick (politician) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 11:59, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 14 June 2020[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. Slices of pageviews appear inconclusive, since they vary by which recent slice you take, and multiple topics with long-term significance. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:04, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

– no clear WP:PRIMARYTOPIC Joeykai (talk) 16:10, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 17:26, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leaning support. I note that this would reverse the outcome of a recent discussion to this effect at Talk:Dan Patrick (politician)#Requested move 2 April 2020, but looking at page views for the five years before the recent controversy, the politician still got more than 20%. BD2412 T 18:00, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Unreal7, Nohomersryan, DonSpencer1, and Paine Ellsworth: Pinging participants from the last discussion. BD2412 T 18:04, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I messed this one up before and forgot to correct it. Unreal7 (talk) 19:10, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Thank you for the nod, BD2412! To me this looks like an almost-but-not-quite PTOPIC situation. Patrick the sports caster does get more page views and appears to be just a bit more prominent on Google; however, in absence of long-term significance evidence, there isn't quite enough imo to give the sports caster primary-topic status. P.I. Ellsworth  ed. put'r there 02:13, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. The sportscaster has been the primary topic for many years and nothing in the above discussion convinces me this is no longer true. The sportscaster has been well known for the last 30 years, so I fail to see why he doesn't meet the long-term significance criteria. I might be persuaded there was no primary topic if the politician were from another country, but that isn't the case here. Calidum 15:53, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Texas might as well be a country for these purposes. BD2412 T 16:14, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Weak oppose (see below). 75% of pageviews and decades of significance equals a pretty clear cut primarytopic. Dohn joe (talk) 20:02, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Dohn joe: 75% of page views since when? The politician has averaged more page views than the sportscaster (despite the sportscaster being at the base page name) for more than a year. Some number of these must be people who went there looking for the politician in the first place. BD2412 T 16:00, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Hmm. I mistook your five-year pageview chart up above for the most recent five years. The last month, though, minusing out the huge spike for the politician, still shows the sportscaster with 55% of pageviews. This is still more than all the others combined and more than any other individual topic. But with the basename boost, much closer than I initially thought. I still think there's just enough of a usage and significance argument to keep the status quo, but I'm revising my !vote to weak. Dohn joe (talk) 23:58, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. As per Dohn joe's comment. --Zimbabweed (talk) 00:22, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per significance. I love Dan Patrick the broadcaster, but he gets on TV and talks about sports. The other guy is the 2nd in command of a state of 29 million people. That's enough for a dab page. Red Slash 00:38, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nomination, Ortizesp, BD2412, Unreal7, P.I. Ellsworth and Red Slash. The disambiguation page lists five men named Dan or Danny Patrick and it does not appear that the sportscaster's prominence is so overwhelming that it eclipses the combined notability of the other four men. Furthermore, Daniel Patrick should redirect to the dab page, not to the sportscaster. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 07:36, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose At 55% of page views his has more page views than all the other combined. That is a pretty clear primary topic. -DJSasso (talk) 11:55, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

CNN?[edit]

Wasn't Dan at CNN in its early years before going to ESPN? I don't have details of his career there, but that's not to say nobody does. Zigwithbag (talk) 14:33, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Dan_Patrick_(sportscaster)&oldid=1195563885"