Talk:Eagle (disambiguation)

The eagle has landed

Wence commeth the phrase "the eagle has landed"? I know the Apollo 11 astronaut Armstrong (q.v.) uttered "Houston, Tranquility Base here. The Eagle has landed." as his Eagle lunar module touched down on July 20th, 1969, it has been the name of various warcraft, and it was the title of a 1975 World War II novel, but where/when did it originate?

Well, "the Eagle has landed" might have been said many times before Apollo 11 by Armstrong himself, as he was a pilot - and an Eagle Boy Scout, too. ;-) --Matthead 17:13, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Split

• split Both splits seem reasonble to me. The page is overly long and this would help tidy things up. (Emperor 23:58, 9 July 2007 (UTC))

Against merge

• I also agree that Eagle (disambiguation) and The Eagle pages should remain separate. The former page is already too big. The links to the other's pages under the "See Also" heading should be enough. Marchije (talk) 18:13, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Eagles

The usage of EaglesEagles is up for discussion, see talk:Eagles (band) -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 00:13, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

---

Eagle - British car manufacturer (est 1982). 'Jaguar' replicas construction, 'E-type' repairs

Merging and splitting (headache)

I didn't see the merger discussion here before I merged The Eagle here. Still, it makes more sense to split off Eagles than The Eagle. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:05, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Eagle which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 11:02, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

American University student newspaper

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is an argument to avoid in deletion discussions. It is not an argument against the creation of WP:REDLINK. In fact, it is a very good reason to believe that the topic generally within scope to Wikipedia. Why are you edit-warring over this, Bkonrad? (Revert #1 (partial), Revert #2 (full), Revert #3 (full)). Green Montanan (talk) 20:16, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

It is not a valid argument for notability to point to other articles of a similar type. Why are you edit warring to add a red link for a subject that does not have even a hint of a suggestion of independent notability in any existing article? There are hundreds if not thousands of student newspapers that do not have articles. What about those? older ≠ wiser 11:12, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

Perhaps they should all have redlinks. A red link does not guarantee notability. But in the specific case of the redlink over which you are edit warring, it is a publication of a school of 10,000 students. That's a pretty good indication that an article about the school's newspaper would likely survive an AfD.

Per WP:REDLINK, "Remove red links only if you are certain that Wikipedia should not have an article on that subject."

Stop this edit war. Or better yet, re-instate the red link, rather than make me do it. Green Montanan (talk) 13:40, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

Sorry, but WP:REDLINK is guidance for articles not disambiguation pages. I see no indication whatsoever that an article will be created and nothing to warrant inclusion of such a redlink per WP:DABRL. older ≠ wiser 14:26, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

I don't see anything in WP:REDLINK suggesting that it's not applicable to disambiguation pages. Green Montanan (talk) 14:35, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

See the WP:REDDAB section which defers to WP:DABRL. older ≠ wiser 14:42, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

WP:REDDAB says "Red links can be used in disambiguation pages if existing encyclopedic articles (i.e., not disambiguation pages, because disambiguation pages are not considered encyclopedic) have such red links.".

This is the case in question. Green Montanan (talk) 14:46, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

You missed the first part: Use of red links on disambiguation pages should be limited. The whole point of a disambiguation page is to help the reader arrive at the correct existing article from a choice of articles with similar titles. Since a red link is a link to a non-existent article, using red links in disambiguation pages is usually discouraged. That the guidance suggest they can be used does not equate to should be. Or the guidance at WP:DABRL: Do not create red links to articles that are unlikely ever to be written, or are likely to be removed as insufficiently notable topics.. Aside from a bare mention in the article that such a newspaper exists, there is nothing to suggest potential for an article. older ≠ wiser 17:13, 29 April 2025 (UTC)