Talk:Eagles (band)/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Subdivide 'band members' section into current and former members

Someone already did, but someone else deleted it and said 'discuss first'. So here it is. 49.196.179.176 (talk) 05:09, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

They are all "former". And we have not yet come to a final decision as to if two annual shows qualify as making the band "currently active" or not. Kellymoat (talk) 05:25, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

The two annual shows should definitely count as currently active. 106.68.213.206 (talk) 14:21, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

The Glenn Miller Orchestra, The Duke Ellington Orchestra, The Coasters, The Duprees, The Happenings, The Tokens, The Classics, The Toys. What do they have in common? They are all bands that are going to be performing within 20 miles of me within the next two months. None of them are listed as currently active in the infobox (a couple did not have an infobox).

"One offs" are not the same as being active. Kellymoat (talk) 14:58, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

I consider this conversation finished. I have made edits to the article (on 2017-04-24) and added a talk page summary further below regarding the changes collected by the various discussion topics. Kellymoat (talk) 18:41, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Subdivide 'band members' section into current and former members

Someone already did, but someone else deleted it and said 'discuss first'. So here it is. 49.196.179.176 (talk) 05:09, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

They are all "former". And we have not yet come to a final decision as to if two annual shows qualify as making the band "currently active" or not. Kellymoat (talk) 05:25, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

The two annual shows should definitely count as currently active. 106.68.213.206 (talk) 14:21, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

The Glenn Miller Orchestra, The Duke Ellington Orchestra, The Coasters, The Duprees, The Happenings, The Tokens, The Classics, The Toys. What do they have in common? They are all bands that are going to be performing within 20 miles of me within the next two months. None of them are listed as currently active in the infobox (a couple did not have an infobox).

"One offs" are not the same as being active. Kellymoat (talk) 14:58, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

I consider this conversation finished. I have made edits to the article (on 2017-04-24) and added a talk page summary further below regarding the changes collected by the various discussion topics. Kellymoat (talk) 18:41, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Another reunion story

Eagles and Fleetwood Mac Planning New York and Los Angeles Festivals WWGB (talk) 05:05, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

but a show or two is not the same as "years active". Kellymoat (talk) 05:36, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Ant the band has not confirmed this story, which is all it is at present. Let's not get carried away and start major edits to the article until such band confirmation is forthcoming. WWGB (talk) 06:54, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Furthermore, even if the concert takes place, we don't know for sure who will be involved. Henley could do a show without the other guys and call it Eagles if he wants. We don't have to be instantaneous with information like this. Bob Caldwell CSL (talk) 14:42, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Seems to be a thing with the 3 of them if the official website is any indication. Curious who will be subbing for Frey. I hope this doesn't devolve into a The Eagles featuring Timothy B. Schmit coming to a county fair near you thing. - Immigrant laborer (talk) 19:16, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

I consider this conversation finished. I have made edits to the article (on 2017-04-24) and added a talk page summary further below regarding the changes collected by the various discussion topics. Kellymoat (talk) 18:41, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Timeline

Template for this section is broken, and appears to have been so for some time. Not sure how to fix it, and can't get it to comment out, so I've removed it until someone can fix it. --2601:CC:4000:1C00:E8B9:7450:6E47:B1FF (talk) 19:32, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Fixed. It was a whopping 7 days. And is actually part of an ongoing discussion as to whether or not the Eagles are current. Kellymoat (talk) 20:40, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

IDC if it was 7 seconds, honestly. It was broken; you fixed it. Fin. --2601:CC:4000:1C00:E8B9:7450:6E47:B1FF (talk) 22:02, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

I consider this conversation finished. I have made edits to the article (on 2017-04-24) and added a talk page summary further below regarding the changes collected by the various discussion topics. Kellymoat (talk) 18:41, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Periods of activity

I invite Standing Steel to participate in a discussion about why you feel it's necessary to express a break in date ranges when they were active in both 2016 and 2017. Bands say things all the time like, "Oh we're done touring" but then they do it anyway. I don't think that means we need to break up the date range. You also need to learn a thing or two about editing here because it's quite rude to continue pushing in your change when others disagree with it. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 03:37, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

I prefer that 2017 not be included at all. At least not yet. They have said that they were done. This means that 2016 is the end date. And to me, 2 shows at an annual festival does not qualify as being active.Kellymoat (talk) 04:31, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

I would tend to agree, if that's all we're talking about. I had assumed the editors of this page agreed they are active this year. There are other bands who called it quits and then went on to make partial appearances here and there (the Police and the Bee Gees come to mind) but we don't call them active. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 11:11, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Unless it occurred in one of the archived discussions, there is no consensus as to if they are active or not.

First they were all moved to former - which is per their own announcements after Frey's death. But then there were rumours of the festival shows, which caused a debate as to if it was official or not. Once it became official, it was followed by "we don't know which members are participating, so don't change individual members to current".

But nothing, to my knowledge, stating whether or not the band is "active". In a topic above, I listed a bunch of acts that are not listed as active even though they are all performing shows nearby. Kellymoat (talk) 11:59, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

The fact is, having declared themselves inactive, they are not active until they play their next show. Anything could happen between now and then. WWGB (talk) 12:13, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

How do you define "active" though? Just playing a show? Or actually going on tour or recording together? I mean the Police broke up in 1987 and played someone's birthday party a year or two later. Would you call that active? --Spike Wilbury (talk) 12:28, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

That is part of the issue. No one is active just because they are breathing. As of right now, today, they have not been active for 2017 by any measure, because those two shows have not happened. Them being active in 2017, today, should not even be a debatable issue. THEY'RE NOT ACTIVE. Then, once those shows do happen, it becomes a matter of if two shows qualifies as active or not.

But, as for me, personally, my opinion for a "years active" is definitely not two shows. If two shows qualify as "years active", then the WP Community has a lot of editing to do, because Glen Campbell performed at an award show after his retirement. And I said in a topic above, The Glenn Miller Orchestra, The Duke Ellington Orchestra, The Coasters, The Duprees, The Happenings, The Tokens, The Classics, The Toys. What do they have in common? They are all bands that are going to be performing within 20 miles of me within the next two months. None of them are listed as currently active in the infobox (a couple did not have an infobox). For me, it takes more to be considered active. Kellymoat (talk) 12:47, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

I would agree with that. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 13:05, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

At this point, you and I seem to be in agreement and have pretty much laid it all out there. No one else is participating, no in the similar topics above. Let's call it quits, to give others a chance to respond. If they don't, in a few days I can reword the article to reflect the current consensus. Kellymoat (talk) 13:28, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Sounds like the basic problem is defining the "years active" parameter in the infobox for all articles. Many of these older groups are only active intermittenly. Should the infobox be cluttered with dates like 1971–1980, 1994–2011, 2013–2015, 2016, 2017 that only a reader already familiar with the subject would understand? Would a reader who has tickets to their next concert be confused to see the group ended in 2015? Do we go by what they say or what they do? No sooner do they say it's over and they're back together again. Should John Lennon's years active be 1957–1975, 1980? He basically announced his retirement at the time or does buying cows count as active?. Other groups don't announce anything when in reality they are probably done for good, and have been for years (the Cars). Or should Wikipedia editors decide when a group ended? Piriczki (talk) 14:30, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

IMO, some of that is a problem with the way WP works. It started as an encyclopedia. It now seems to be an extension of the entertainment industry. Years ago, there was "the deletionist movement". In hindsight, they were right. Kellymoat (talk) 17:04, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

I consider this conversation finished. I have made edits to the article (on 2017-04-24) and added a talk page summary further below regarding the changes collected by the various discussion topics. Kellymoat (talk) 18:41, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

timeline changes 2017-07-08

@Zabboo, I have reverted those changes because:

1. December 2017 hasn't happened yet. there is code that allows for "today", therefore we do not need to go into the future. Especially when you look at the other discussions on this talk page.
2. The color scheme doesn't help. Particularly when you are adding vocals to all of the singers - which is everyone.
3. Timelines do not need "original members first". We know who was there first because of the "members" section. Most of the timelines I have seen group them by instrument.

Kellymoat (talk) 19:26, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

@Kellymoat I understand this page is important to you, but I implore you to not revert edits that make sense and support clarity and continuity with other pages. My edits are appropriate and serve to clarify and update the current timeline. - Zabboo

Solving the genre wars.

We have constant editing as to what genre of music the Eagles and their albums belong. I don't consider them Hard Rock, thinking that groups like Black Sabbath and Deep Purple are more representative of that. Soft Rock is a bit of a slam; their music is much more rock than Air Supply or Seals and Crofts. Why can't we just use Rock? I think that would cover it. For the first three or four albums, I would also include Country Rock, but not thereafter. I'd like to start this discussion to see if we can get a consensus to stop the edit wars. Bob Caldwell CSL (talk) 13:57, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

@Bob Caldwell CSL: Albums should not necessarily be grouped with the band genre, a punk band can easily release a hard rock album. - Mlpearc (open channel) 18:01, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

I may not have been clear, but I absolutely agree. For the Eagles, however, I think that Country Rock was such a part of their identity for so long that I could make the case for the artist being classed as Rock and Country Rock. I would use the same designation for their first four albums and just Rock for the next two. In any case, I despair of ever fixing this. Even if we had a consensus, someone is going to come along and edit the artist or albums later. Bob Caldwell CSL (talk) 19:08, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

When I think Country Rock, I think more "outlaw" stuff, which the Eagles are not. Are you ready for some football? Kellymoat (talk) 21:16, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Hank Williams Jr. is your example of "outlaw" country? He wishes. I understand where you're coming from, but the term 'Country Rock' was coined for rock-and-roll types who used country-styled songs as their base. The Byrds, Flying Burrito Brothers, and Poco all preceded the Eagles, however, it was the Eagles who had the big success. The true "outlaw" artists like Willie Nelson, Kris Kristopherson, etc., didn't use the term 'country rock' even when they cranked up the guitars. They considered themselves 'country.'Bob Caldwell CSL (talk) 14:02, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

I'd definitely classify the Eagles as country rock. All day long. Can we find sources, though? --Spike Wilbury (talk) 15:45, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

1 2 3. That took about 10 seconds. Any real effort will find much better. Doctorhawkes (talk) 00:27, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

See WP:GWAR for a bit of a humorous jab at this subject, but it's a problem across all music articles. No matter what consensus you come to and how well-sourced the genres are, there will always be random (and generally good faith) editors changing the genres. Ultimately it doesn't matter what any of us think; it only matters what sources say. The genres that are there now, are reflected in sources given in the Musical style section. I'm actually in favor of simplifying genres to things like "rock" but I haven't encountered much support for that position over the years. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 14:06, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

In this case I think all of the genre warring is coming from one blocked user. Unfortunately blocking vandals doesn't stop them or even slow them down. Years ago there was a well-intentioned effort to stop genre wars by requiring that reliable sources be cited. That effort backfired because it is way too easy to find something, anything on the internet, usually just a passing reference, that supposedly supports any given genre. This has actually enabled the genre warriors because they can always claim to have "reliable sources." I think the solution to stopping genre wars is to simply follow Wikipedia guidelines. The infobox is a summary of what is found in the article and does not require citations. Those belong in the body of the article where the information is discussed in more detail. Requiring editors to contribute content to the body of the article first, citing reliable sources, before summarizing it in the infobox will probably go a long way toward stopping genre wars. Also, simply following Wikipedia policy on synthesis will deter those editors that want to fill the infobox with a plethora of genres. In my opinion, citing five different sources to support five different genres amounts to synthesis unless there is a single reliable source that supports all five. And if there are different opinions among sources about an artist's or album or song's genre, that would be unsuitable for summarizing in the infobox and should be discussed on in the body of the article. Strictly following Wikipedia policies on reliable sources would help too as genre warriors tend to cite weak sources that often don't definitively support their claims. The guideline "aim for generality" should also be strengthened since genre warriors inevitably are going against that policy.

As for the Eagles I would go with Rock and country rock. Hard rock and soft rock are so subjective they are practically meaningless. Piriczki (talk) 15:44, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

I am going to second what Pirickzi said in his first sentence - Most of the recent activity has been from one user.

Beyond that, anyone who thinks that Eagles is a Hard Rock band is mistaken. Yes, they have done a couple songs that may qualify as Hard Rock (based on 1970's values, not 2017 values), but it has been established that we work from top down, not bottom up - meaning, one HR song doesn't make an album HR, the same as one HR album doesn't make a band HR (otherwise, Kiss and the Rolling Stones are Disco bands). But, an HR band needs to have HR albums and HR albums need to have HR songs. The river only flows one way.

So, I am fine with reverting them as they come along. And most likely, the one guy that has been doing the edits is going to give up. Kellymoat (talk) 17:23, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Just my 2 cents: after listening to their greatest hits (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Very_Best_Of_(Eagles_album) double cd i have put them in my 'beatles afterthought' box. one remarkable song in the whole lot, the top hit hotel california which became a more or less unintended success born of their one time experiment with some friends. if i understood correctly what they said about it. (there was some 'eagles history' dvd included with the greatest hits cd, where i think they mentioned how the hotel california song was conceived under the influence of some fellow reaggee musician friend or friends. not that i could notice any reaggee influence in it's sound, but that's what they said anyway.)80.99.38.199 (talk) 17:13, 1 October 2017 (UTC).

@Keyllymoat Ok listen Eagles as far as genre goes, we’re extremely experimental. Listen to every album from “Eagles” to “Long Road Out Of Eden” idk why they have a reputation for being this soft country band yes they were country rock, yes they were soft rock, but their music expands way beyond that! I can name you at least 12 Hard Rock songs they have recorded some were hits some weren’t but that doesn’t matter. I mean I 100% disagree with whoever classified the song “Hotel California” to be a Soft rock song, are you kidding me? That ending guitar solo and the strong electric guitars in the song are far from soft rock. Yeah, maybe the acoustic intro makes it a little soft, but as soon as the electric guitars come in by Felder, and Walsh, I can definitely say it’s a pure Rock song. Their first 2 albums are Country rock and folk rock yes I agree, however “On the Border is a Hard rock album all the way and a little country rock too but just listen to the album and you’ll see where I’m coming from. One of these nights I agree with the genres that are standing right now, same with greatest hits 71-75. I agree with Hotel California, however, the Long Run should be Rock and Hard rock because there are at least 6 hard edge rock songs on the album. To come to the conclusion I think their main genres are Rock, country rock, hard rock, soft rock, and maybe folk rock in their early days. After everyone listens to the albums like I did, then plea your counter claim. Youngsavage5659 (talk) 14:33, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

After Frey's death (article changes on 2017-04-24)

based on the previous discussions, as well as article references, this is what I did regarding "years active" in my changes on 2017-04-24

1. Band ended at Frey's death in January of 2016. I added notes, where needed, to the appropriate sections, to guide future editors.
   1. This means that the Award Show memorial song that they played is not considered part of their "active years" (more on this below)
2. I changed the "Band Members" heading to "Personnel", and added sub-sections.
   1. Final lineup - the band as it consisted of at the time of Frey's death.
   2. Previous members - the two guys that weren't there in 2016.
      1. I did not make a "touring members" section, maybe others want to do so?
   3. Participants after Frey's death - anyone that played after Frey's death. The two-discussed (but not yet happened) annual shows, and any other minor get-togethers, are certainly going to have various guests over the years. I just listed them alphabetically, and with the year they participated - not the actual date or event.
      1. perhaps someone can come up with a better title?
      2. maybe, if someone creates a "touring members" section, we can add "non-Eagles", like Jackson Browne, to the touring section? As it stands, guys like Browne and Steuart Smith are listed in this section for 2016.

• I really don't appreciate that folks are edit warring over this instead of discussing it. Nothing is that urgent that you can't leave it alone and talk it out. I personally am fine with the above edits but let's hear dissent here instead of arguing in edit summaries. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 01:15, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Band members die or leave all the time. Articles cope with that without creating special subsections. The existence of headings "Final lineup" and "Participants after Frey's death" is internally inconsistent. It's either final or its not. IMO, the Eagles were active until February 2016. If they perform in July 2017 then they will be active then. We are not talking birthday parties and jam sessions, but performances in front of thousands of people. Bands don't need a concert tour or a record to be active. They just need to keep performing to a commercial audience. So, no, I do not support a section header like "Participants after Frey's death", more so since Jackson Browne and Steuart Smith has never been members of the Eagles. WWGB (talk) 02:19, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

I agree that Smith and Browne is a weird situation. That is why I called them "participants", and I left the note in the above summary that if someone wanted to make a "touring" section.

But I will disagree that "Final Lineup" isn't correct. It is used all over the WP. And I will also disagree that two annual shows makes them 'active'. Kellymoat (talk) 03:53, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Let's not have that debate until the 2017 shows actually happen. For now, we both agree that the final show was in 2016. WWGB (talk) 04:58, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Two shows a year isn't "active". Otherwise, as I stated above, there is a lot of editing that needs done because I have non-active bands playing around me all the time. It isn't active, especially when they aren't even a full-blown artist event. Think of a baseball. Every year at the All-Star game, MLB has an Old-Timers Game. And I am sure that many of the participants are even playing in their local country clubs leagues the rest of the year. But we don't consider them active. They are still retired, they just make special appearances. It helps pay the bills and keeps fans involved.

Either way, we have a little over two months to figure out what the best way to lay it out is before the shows happen. I've already stated/edited mine. Kellymoat (talk) 19:13, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

What about the news that Glenn Frey's son will be taking his father's place in the band? Henley describes it as similar to ancient times when heirs took on their father's roles within communities. It is official, why are we not changing the lineup to reflect this?--50.232.205.246 (talk) 17:48, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

No, it's just for a couple shows. - Mlpearc (open channel) 17:50, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Not just the amount of shows, but he isn't going to actually be an Eagle. He is going to be a participant like Steuart Smith and Jackson Browne. Kellymoat (talk) 17:57, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

As of today that is different per the official announcement from the band. Vince Gill plainly states "I've always thought I'd make a good Eagle"; while Henley states that they would consider recording an album after the shows and that Frey's son can go on and form his own band in the future if he wants to. That all can be read on their official website, which directs the reader to the LA Times full interview, here.--50.232.205.246 (talk) 21:25, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

First, the shows and albums have not happened yet. Therefore, there is no "current". Then, of course, we still need to determine how we are going to handle "two annual shows a year" (which is really the purpose of the discussion).

But, also, Frey and Gil are not going to be "members", they are going to be employees or participants or some other cliché term. Very similar to Jackson Browne (at the Grammy's) or Steuart Smith or any number of other participants through the years that are not members. Kellymoat (talk) 21:36, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Again, Gil calls himself an Eagle in the press-release, and Henley states that the band would like to record an album after the shows. That is CURRENT as it is what is occurring right now. Even if they haven't performed yet, the band is still together and practicing and collaborating together. That's how a band works....--50.232.205.246 (talk) 23:01, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Again, NO. Not at this time. This article is not going anywhere, let's wait and see what developes. Time to move on. - Mlpearc (open channel) 23:05, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Regardless of what your personal opinion is User:Mlpearc, yours is not the defining word. "Time to move on" - is demeaning, try to be collaborative. As-is the page is innacurate given that the proclaimed "Final line-up" is not correct as A) They are still a band, and B) They will be performing without Glenn Frey, and Leadon as well. So to use your own words "NO. Not at this time" - is this page correct. Also, the fact that founding member Henley states that he isn't ruling out an album, and the press-release features an official band photo with the new additions --- what's the argument? Never has the band taken a photo with mere studio musicians, nor touring members.....71.35.229.135 (talk) 16:38, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, I surely didn't mean to offend you or anyone, but you're correct that is my opinion. Cheers, - Kathy Griffin 9:46, 2 June 2017

This isn't Twitter. We are not Headline News. We are an encyclopedia. We are not the first to report the news, we only state was has already happened - and within the confines of the guidelines within wikipedia. So, in a way, "move on" really is the final word. It is absolutely within the WP standards to not report future events. It is also, if you read all of the available discussions, the consensus of the WP users that this information is not to be added. Kellymoat (talk) 16:51, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Users: Mlpearc/KathyGriffin and Kellymoat, you're right Wikipedia is not 'headline news', Twitter, nor a fansite. That argument is completely besides the point. The Eagles as a band have made an official announcement - as a band. Since the band has officially made an announcement for the sake of upcoming shows the page needs to be current with the official line-up. By doing so, this page will not be reporting on "future" events, as it is a current event. The band is prepping for these shows right now as you sit at your computer and read this, and will be ready for the concerts come the festival. With the addition of co-founding member Don Henley stating that the band isn't ruling out recording another album --- this page needs to be updated. Having a section titled "Final line-up" when the leading line of the page says that "The Eagles are an American rock band...." rather than past-tense makes zero sense and is confusing. Given the fact that the line-up has now moved on and is currently not the listed "Final line-up" this page is all sorts of backwards. I agree with 71.35.229.135, the page needs to be updated. P.s. Kellymoat -- the 'consensus' you speak of is non-existent. That argument was made before the official press-release from The Eagles. Nice try though.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 04:25, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

An inactive band becomes active when it performs again, just as happened with Hell Freezes Over. While I have some appreciation of your argument, can we not defer this discussion until the re-formed performances actually happen? Then there will be no doubt that the band is active, and the article can be edited accordingly. WWGB (talk) 04:32, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Well, not exactly will there be "no doubt". We shouldn't be wasting time discussing when to change it - that was been settled years ago and is a distraction from the real issue. We really do need to discuss if we need to change it. Does two annual appearances (because at this point, an album is just "wishing and hoping") make a band active or not. And then, if it does, in what manner do we write it?

1994-current. 1994-2016, 2017-current. 1994-2016, 2017, 2018, 2019 (assuming those two shows continue).

Because I just have a problem giving them credit for what can ultimately be considered a novelty act or special appearance. Otherwise, that one song at the Grammy's for the Frey memorial could be argued as "active". And I really don't think that saying "current" works, because it is two shows over two weeks, and then a year off. Like I said in a recently archived discussion - in my local area, there were a dozen acts performing in a two month period that are not considered active. Nor should they be. Kellymoat (talk) 05:49, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

What Kellymoat said. - Mlpearc (open channel) 13:08, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

The problem has also been that people were too keen on deciding that the band is finished based on a few things Don Henley said, rather than any official statement. It could be argued that the original decision to say that the band had been dissolved was wrong. Hzh (talk) 19:53, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Either way, Wikipedia is an "after the fact" posting. They said they were done, and they have done nothing since. They said they may do an album. They said there would be special guests - and that stuff is all well and good. If it happens, great. It hasn't yet. But the more pressing issue is...

The two concerts come first. Are they "current" after two concerts? We can't take albums and everything else into consideration until AFTER they happen. The first thing that we all have to figure out is - does two shows make them "current". And if yes, are they 94-17. 94-current. Or are they 94-16, and 17. Obviously, if they do make an album and do a tour and become full time again, we can always go back and change whatever needs changed. But until those things actually happen we shouldn't take them into consideration.

And for a more global issue, not just Eagles, if these little one-offs count a band as being active, are we to start changing the articles of other artists like the ones I listed (way) above. Kellymoat (talk) 20:10, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

My argument is that there may not have been a dissolution of the band in the first place. The idea that the band had been dissolved was simply based on a few things Don Henley said, nothing based on official statement. We may be guilty of stating something as a fact when there is no such fact. There is therefore no "after the fact" because that "fact" is actually our interpretation rather an actual fact. We are extrapolating, creating our own interpretation not based on anything official. Whether the the concert are "current" or not is irrelevant in this case. The problem only arise because someone (in fact many) wanted to say that the band is over when there is no firm announcement that it is. People in Wikipedia has a fondness for making definitive statements without them being obviously so, so now we have the statement about dissolution and second reformation when it might all be our own constructs rather than any fact. Hzh (talk) 20:44, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

I will just toss this out there --- It wasn't just Henley. Henley is the one that got the national press. But Joe Walsh did an interview (more like a casual chat than an interview) on a tv show and said that the Eagles were done but that he was open if "Donnie" wanted to get the guys together. Obviously, not exact wording (other than Donnie, I remember "Donnie"). Kellymoat (talk) 21:01, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

There is no formal statement, it's still just the feeling of Don Henley at any moment in time. Here's what Henley said to LA Times: "I did say that I thought that was the end of the band, but I reserve the right to change my mind" - [1]. We can have a situation where Don Henley changes his mind every six months about the band, and you'll have a third reformation, fourth reformation, fifth and so on and so forth. We are not sure if there is any reformation now rather than just some temporary band member changes. Given that they have announced the concerts, it would mean the band is still ongoing (certainly what Henley said indicated that he changed his mind and the band is still ongoing), so listing them as ex-members is just odd. There is nothing wrong with having leaving it as "current" until we are certain that the band is finished. Hzh (talk) 22:16, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

There was no official announcement that the Eagles are done/disbanding, so they should be treated as a current band. Perhaps they are simply fulfilling contractual obligations at this point, but they are still an active band. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 00:33, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

The status of band was changed to disbanded here only because of what Henley said, now that Henley has changed his mind, it makes no sense at all not to list it as a current band. Whether we accept what Henley said as gospel or we wait until an official statement is issued, its status would still be "current". The simplest thing to do here is to assume that the band never disbanded after Frey's death. Hzh (talk) 01:12, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

I agree. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 12:18, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Speaking as someone who has played in multiple bands over the years, how and why is it that the editors of this page think that a band is only active 'if and when' they release a studio album? That's completely ridiculous. If that were the case, every band page would have a million activity-dates. The band is together, with new musicians prepping for future projects. It's that simple.--50.232.205.246 (talk) 17:30, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

The flaw in your logic is --- Why doesn't Wikipedia have an article about me? I am a musician, and I have been practicing. Someday I am going to do something worth writing about. Therefore, we can create my page and wait for it to happen. Right?

This is an encyclopedia. Not a fansite. There are different standards to acceptability. Kellymoat (talk) 20:08, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

He or she had a point, the time of release of an album cannot be the sole criteria for deciding when a band is active. The Eagles was reformed not when when Hell Freezes Over was released, but when the band announced that they had reformed months earlier. If it is unclear when a band was formed, then the release of an album can be taken as a convenient reference point, but that is by no means the only time when it is active. Hzh (talk) 17:02, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

But you are also of the opinion that they have been active this whole time - which I disagree with, but I do accept your logic as valid. So, going with the assumption that they have always been active, then, sure, they are active even without putting out an album or tour. But, if, like me, you believe that they called it quits what would re-activate them? Yes, a death situation is different, but we have heard many stories of "we are getting the band back together" by various acts, and nothing ever comes of it because once they get together privately for rehearsals and deal making, they start to hate each other again. Time and distance may heal wounds, and we may look back with rose tinted glasses remembering only the good times, but it is different once everyone comes together and those same personalities begin to clash again. Kellymoat (talk) 18:34, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

I did not make such as definitive statement that they have been active this whole time. You'd notice that I used qualifiers like "may" or "it could be argued that", and I said it's simplest to assume that they have never disbanded (which is not the same as saying they did not disband). The problem here of course is that Henley is the most important member of the band now, and what he says is significant with regard to the future of the band, the issue then becomes whether we are bound to reflect everything he says, and I would say not. He can change his mind all the time, and it would become a yo-yo situation. If the band did not issue any definitive official statement, then I think just leaves things as they are (i.e. assume they never disbanded, or assume they had stayed disbanded if they did not issue any official statement that they had reformed after disbanding). I see no issue at all leaving a band as being active if they never issue any official statement, sometimes it's only clear in retrospect years later that they had indeed disbanded. Wikipedia is not meant to give definitive statement in the absence of definitive evidence. Hzh (talk) 21:13, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, Hzh for having some sense to understand what I was saying. Just because an album, or tour isn't going on does not mean that the band is not together. The band had reportedly been together rehearsing since they announced they were getting back together with Deacon Frey and Vince Gill. That's the end of it. A band doesn't need to be recording something to be currently active. It's that simple.--50.232.205.246 (talk) 21:18, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Looks like this argument got messy really fast. I recently saw The Eagles live, and they didn't announce themselves as "The Eagles featuring Deacon Frey and Vince Gill" it was "We are The Eagles: Don Henley, Joe Walsh, Timothy B. Schmidt, Deacon Frey and Vince Gill". Along with this I reference The points that User: 50.232.205.246 made when they stated - Don Henley has now multiple times stated that the reason they're back together is because of Deacon Frey, and that the band is considering recording a new album with the new band members. That's as solid a definition we need for the edits on this page. I'm moving Gill and Frey over to current band member locations.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 06:08, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

What someone overheard is not verifiable. Where are the published reliable independent sources that report all five as equals? Do you think Henley would ever let someone in as a further member of his cash cow? Gill and Frey Jr have the same status as Steuart Smith, that is, employees. WWGB (talk) 06:51, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Best selling album

I am sure I heard on the news today that an album by The Eagles has now sold more copies than "Thriller" by Michael Jackson. If this is accurate, it deserves a mention in the article. It was on Monday 20 August 2018 when I heard that. Vorbee (talk) 18:39, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Beating the King of Pop, The Eagles have No.1 album of all-time

"At the end of the 20th century, two of their albums, Their Greatest Hits (1971–1975) and Hotel California, were ranked among the 20 best-selling albums in the United States according to the Recording Industry Association of America. By 2006, both albums were among the top three best-selling albums in the United States."

"In early 1976, the band released their first compilation album, Their Greatest Hits (1971–1975). The album became the highest-selling album of the 20th century in the United States,[42] and has since sold 29 million copies in the U.S. and 42 million copies worldwide.[43][44] It stayed the biggest seller of all time until it was taken over by Michael Jackson's Thriller following the artist's death in 2009."

Please change the above as it is no longer true. The Eagles have the No.1 album of all-time.

https://apnews.com/3c0b39a1bb5b4e44aafe2c4e05a4b67f?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=newsletter_axiosam&stream=top-stories

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/the-eagles-greatest-hits-album-beats-michael-jacksons-thriller-as-no-1-all-time-album-today/

Snapdog187 (talk) 21:08, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Redoing the timeline

As some of you may know, timelines on wikipedia's layouts have changed. the members are no longer ordered by join date. flight time reverted my edit that would make the timeline up to standards, and i need to "reach a consensus" with everyone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TimelineMaster (talk • contribs) 00:56, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

@TimelineMaster: Can you please point me to the "layout changes" documentation you refer to. Thank you, - FlightTime (open channel) 14:38, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

@FlightTime: For example, when Chicago's timeline was majorly overhauled for layout reasons. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TimelineMaster (talk • contribs) 00:56, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

@TimelineMaster: Thank you, but I'm referring to the page where this is all documented. - FlightTime (open channel) 23:48, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

I have been reverting timeline changes that have not been discussed or gained consensus, @Binksternet and Synthwave.94: do either of you know anything about these "layouy changes" mentioned above? - FlightTime (open channel) 23:57, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Band members are always listed by date of first joining, and by alphabetical order for simultaneous joining. Binksternet (talk) 04:33, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

@FlightTime: Does this mean i can re-do the timeline? — Preceding unsigned comment added by TimelineMaster (talk • contribs) 00:56, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Please provide the location of the consensus to change the layout of the timeline. WWGB (talk) 23:29, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Just “Eagles”

The band’s name is idiosyncratic in that it intentionally omits the word “The” at the front. I was gonna just address this within the article, but it’s apparently locked. Anybody with the keys up for rectifying this? Rthomas2 (talk) 17:33, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

@Rthomas2: There have been many discussions on this subject and a consensus has been reached. Please search the talk page archives for further information. - FlightTime (open channel) 17:38, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

And yet, the band is always referred to as "The Eagles", @FlightTime:. Consensus doesn't override proper English and the band's name. For example, it's "Hotel California" by The Eagles, not "Hotel California" by Eagles. No one ever says that.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 06:03, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Community consensus usually overrides all on Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to try a change the community minds, that's why we have talk pages. Cheers, - FlightTime (open channel) 16:35, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

@Rthomas2: : Many bands and other musical groups, such as the Eagles, don't include "The" in their official names even though they might have done so. This does not mean that it is not included before their names in sentences. It really depends on what kind of names they have. We would not write "the Fleetwood Mac" or "the Kiss" in sentences but we normally would include "the" with names which are also plural nouns. It should also be noted that the Eagles have done this themselves with, for just one example, History of the Eagles – Live in Concert. Please note that in the intro "The" is not in bold because it isn't part of the official name. Hope this helps. Yahboo (talk) 01:04, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

The so-called "community consensus" on this is plain wrong. The fact that the same question is raised over and over and over again, by people who can clearly see that the title "Eagles" is incorrect, should demolish this purported "consensus". The band is NEVER called "Eagles" in ordinary English. In a lengthy documentary featuring numerous interviews with band members, NOT ONCE did any of those members refer to the band as "Eagles". EVERY SINGLE TIME it was "the Eagles". (talk) 02:04, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

109.145.27.211 and anyone else: The "community consensus" is to include (not to exclude it as you seem to think) "The" or "the" before "Eagles" (except in certain grammatical circumstances) in sentences as this is grammatically correct when referring to bands with this kind of name. It is not correct with band names such as Fleetwood Mac or Kiss. Because "The" is not part of the band's official name it is not bolded ("The Eagles" instead of "The Eagles") in the opening sentence. Yahboo (talk) 05:53, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Note that the name The Eagles did appear on some of their officla products, e.g. the compilation album "The Very Best Of The Eagles" and the documentary "The History Of The Eagles".

New tour needs to be added

https://www.weareclassicrockers.com/article/eagles-reveal-hotel-california-2020-tour-dates — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.253.84.145 (talk) 23:31, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Deacon Frey and Vince Gill

These two have inaccurately been presented a 'touring members' for the years they have been in the band. During the initial press release - Don Henley stated that the only thing that would get him to regroup the band is if Deacon would join. He further stated that he would be open to recording with the two newest members. I have edited the page to be correct, and included two references where the members of the band directly talk about Deacon joining the band, and Vince Gill talking about him being 'the new guy in the band'. On top of this, certain editors have stated that eagles.com states otherwise - there is currently nothing there regarding the band lineup. Additionally, a long-time "touring/session member" named Steuart Smith (who should probably be a full-fledged member at this point, but is not) is never in any of the tour merchandise/advertisements. Gill and Frey are in every band lineup photo of the band since their addition. Coming here, to avoid edit wars.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 05:23, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

The official website reports the membership thus :"the Eagles - Don Henley, Joe Walsh and Timothy B. Schmit, with Deacon Frey and Vince Gill". Note the use of "with" to signify their different status. They are hired employees, like Steuart Smith. Eages brand is Henley's cash cow, he's not about to give it away to two newcomers. WWGB (talk) 05:26, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

The website is mostly likely deliberately vague regarding who is and who isn't in the band. And being an "employee" doesn't automatically mean someone isn't a member. Ronnie Wood was a member of The Rolling Stones for decades before becoming a full business partner, for instance. The article is inconsistent, though, as regards Deacon Frey and Vince Gill, both listing them and not listing them as members. Count Robert of Paris (talk) 00:30, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

I have reverted the fallacious edit that they are members. Disagreements, with evidence, can be brought here. WWGB (talk) 02:08, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

ESPN (oddly) has been filling time with a 2018 concert film, where Deacon Frey and Vince Gill sang leads and were featured alongside the three longtime members. They appear to be more than mere sidemen. Timothy Horrigan (talk) 00:58, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Appearances can be misleading. Gill and Frey Jr have never been members of the Eagles. They are hired guns, on a pay-to-play basis. WWGB (talk) 03:40, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

You are obviously very strongly committed to your position, WWGB, but it is at odds with the band's own recent press releases, etc., which depict the band as a quintet including Gill and the younger Frey. It is also at odds with the fact that Gill & the younger Frey sing many leads, but the other "hired guns" sing few if any leads. The credit roll for the 2018 concert film begins with the names of the five featured members at the beginning, followed by a long list of dozens, perhaps hundreds, of other contributors, including the other musicians. Timothy Horrigan (talk) 12:29, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Your personal observations are irrelevant. Again, eagles.com states "The Eagles spent the majority of 2018 on an extensive North American tour with Vince Gill and Deacon Frey". Note the word "with". They ain't part of the Eagles. Never were, never will be. Give us a reliable source that says Gill and Frey Jr are in the band. WWGB (talk) 12:40, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Just for laughs, I will quote the band's July 1, 2020 press release, and I am looking forward to your pompous explanation as to why that's not a reliable source and/or as to why this doesn't in fact say that the band now has five members: "Live Album and Concert Film Capture Definitive, 26-Song Performance Recorded at the Fabulous Forum in September 2018 Featuring First Eagles’ Recordings with Vince Gill and Deacon Frey ESPN will air the Eagles concert “Live from The Forum MMXVIII” this holiday weekend. The Eagles spent the majority of 2018 on an extensive North American tour with Vince Gill and Deacon Frey joining Don Henley, Joe Walsh, and Timothy B. Schmit. Earning rave reviews from fans and critics alike, the quintet arrived at the Forum in Los Angeles for three sold-out concerts on September 12, 14, and 15." Timothy Horrigan (talk) 20:03, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

OK, here's a reliable source: At 2:55 of the above film, all 5 are listed together in the closing credits. No with. No Steuart Smith. Are they legally, financially, full members? Are they hired hands? Since their contracts are not public, we don't know either way, and the article shouldn't assume. Calling them "featured touring musicians" does not reflect their status. Simon12 (talk) 03:15, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

I would agree with that. The band has been around for almost 50 years. They have sold over 100 million records, and made probably well over a billion dollars. They have several ex-members. One of the founding members just died, but his son is now in the band. Three of them, including the dead guy, are also big-time solo acts. They just added Vince Gill to the band, who is a big solo act in his own right. They have a catalog of dozens of hit songs, many of which have been covered by other performers. There are lots of managerial types and other non-performers who have worked with the band, as well as backing musicians. The band members doubtless all have spouses and ex-spouses and other relatives. I am sure the financial, personal and legal interactions between all those people form an extremely tangled web. But clearly, Deacon Frey and Vince Gill are more than just "hired guns." Timothy Horrigan (talk) 19:40, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

@Users:Timothy Horrigan, Simon12, Robert of Paris, & WWGB - glad to see that this discussion was resolved. As I stated from the beginning, the band has been clear about Deacon and Vince's roles in the band. All featured/touring musicians are never mentioned by name. Given their inclusion and listings on the Eagles Forum MMXVIII album - I'm happy to see the article reflect as much. Cheers m8s!--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 16:06, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

On the band's page regarding the Forum MMXVIII album that @TimothyHorrigan: referenced, it also states: "...along with some of the individual members' biggest solo smashes (Henley’s “Boys Of Summer,” Walsh’s “Rocky Mountain Way,” and Gill’s “Don’t Let Our Love Start Slippin’ Away”). There can't be any debate about this anymore.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 16:13, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Felder's double-neck guitar

I came here after watching two performances of Hotel California, one in 1998 and one back in the 70s(?). Prominent in both is Felder's double neck guitar. But there's no mention of that here; I had to look up the article on Multi-neck_guitar and search for "Eagles" to find out who it was (I'm not familiar with the band members...). Found it, but I'm surprised it's not mentioned here; is it not considered important enough? Mcswell (talk) 02:52, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 October 2018

I'm going to edit the timeline to make Don Henley's main instrument vocals, as suggested by the amount of songs he sings (more than half of the Eagles catalog) EATMYFRICKINGSHORTSLADY (talk) 01:29, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. DBigXrayᗙ 01:54, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Hard rock needs to be added as a genre I saw my post got deleted I will keep saying this statement over and over again Franny3249 (talk) 22:21, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi, I hate it when people keep making the same revert to my stuff, but you might consider that if wiki people don't feel "hard rock" is right for the Eagles, you might listen. Rock for sure, but I wouldn't call them "hard" rock. If it is contentious, you really need to cite some solid sources. Billyshiverstick (talk) 04:16, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Genre

I know that the eagles dabbled in the hard rock genre and it needs to be listed as one of them there are multiple sources that say so including ultimate classic rock and rolling stone magazine which state “country tinged vocals with hard rock guitars and lyrics” and ultimate classic rock stating “combining hard rock country folk and pop” every time I add it even with a source it gets taken down and I need to know why Franny3249 (talk) 01:02, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

If you had included that statement in your edit summaries, you might not have been blocked. If you had stopped edit warring, you might not have been blocked. But, that's what you did and that's why you were blocked. On the substantive point, the fact that (the) Eagles "dabbled in" hard rock, in some songs or occasionally, does not mean that should be included as one of their typical genres. Ghmyrtle (talk) 06:47, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

They have enough songs and enough credit to be considered hard rock and the facts also speak for themselves. Fleetwood Mac is an example of a band that dabbled in Hard rock with “The Chain” and a lot of their early stuff, but it shouldn’t be listed because it’s not what their typically noted for. I just need to add that genre to the list without being blocked from editing because theirs evidence to what I’m saying. Franny3249 (talk) 04:03, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

The genre of a musical artist comes from sources talking about them directly, for instance someone saying that the Eagles are a hard rock band (which you won't find.) The point is that the genre of a musical artist is not just a collection of song genres or album genres. Similarly, the genre of an album is not a combination of song genres; album genres come from sources talking explicitly about the album's overall genre.

The infobox is supposed to supply simple facts. If there's some important but complex information we need to relay to the reader, then we should do it with a prose description in the article body. Binksternet (talk) 04:23, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Franny3249 - You don't "need" to add anything, because contentious edits such as your suggestion need to be agreed among editors through discussion and consensus - not by any one editor's unilateral action. You would not be "blocked from editing" because of your views, but because you persist in edit-warring, which is not allowed. Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:50, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

I understand your case however, the eagles have enough sources and enough material to credit them as one of the genres. The genres should read Rock•country rock•hard rock•soft rock•folk rock. If I provide a proper source and make that edit, 2 things. One, will I be blocked from editing, and 2 can you please leave it there and not change it since I am right about my case? Thank you Franny3249 (talk) 11:56, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

If you provide sources on this page, then editors will look at them and agree if a change should be made. Whether or not you think you are "right" about the edit is only part of the picture - it depends whether it is supported by reliable sources, and whether other editors agree with you. If you haven't read all the information in the welcome message on your talk page about how to contribute constructively here, I suggest you do so. Thanks. Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:15, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia even states in the musical style section of the article that Rolling Stone magazine stated that the Eagles combined “Country tinged vocals with hard rock guitars and lyrics.” Ultimate Classic Rock has also stated that “The Eagles were an extremely diverse group of musicians during the '70s, essaying tracks ranging from country rock to hard rock.” The link for this is https://ultimateclassicrock.com/most-underrated-eagles-songs/. Now if I may add hard rock to the genre list that would be great because I know it is true and there is factual evidence to prove it. Franny3249 (talk) 15:03, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

The Eagles are one of the most popular rock bands ever but when I click on the "hard rock" link in your version of the infobox it takes me to an article that doesn't mention the Eagles at all. This doesn't serve the readers well at all. Maybe you should focus your efforts on contributing something to that article regarding the Eagles significance within the "hard rock" genre, then summarize that essay in the Eagles article and only then add it to the infobox, which serves as a summary of the contents of the article. Ohnothimagain (talk) 23:11, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

The two sites to check are https://ultimateclassicrock.com/most-underrated-eagles-songs/ and on the eagles wiki page under “Musical Style” where it states by rolling stone “country tinged vocals with hard rock guitars and lyrics.” If theirs a link to the word hard rock on this article don’t click on it it’ll probably bring you to the hard rock page on Wikipedia, but these are my two sources now may I please add this as a genre to the page please without it getting taken down? Thank you Franny3249 (talk) 12:52, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

I see no indication that "ultimateclassicrock.com" meets the criteria outlined at WP:IRS.

While Rolling Stone is a reliable source (if you were citing it directly, which you aren't), it does not say the Eagles are a hard rock band, which is what you are trying to add. "Tom has a French accent" says that Tom's accent is French. It does not say Tom is French. "With hard rock guitars and lyrics" says their guitars and lyrics are hard rock. It does not say the Eagles are hard rock. - SummerPhD^v2.0 17:17, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Franny3249 has now been indefinitely blocked as a recurring sock of DinoP5568135. - SummerPhD^v2.0 21:06, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Good work people. The best thing would be to include the quote about "...with hard rock licks" in the musical style section, especially dated, because those licks weren't "hard rock" before Joe Walsh joined, lol. Billyshiverstick (talk) 04:30, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 April 2021

Change Glen Frey start date from 1973 to 1971. He was a founding member and on the original album, released in 1972. 24.239.74.157 (talk) 11:58, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Terasail^[✉] 14:38, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 September 2021

"Change ARE to IS in band description first line. The Eagles is a singular group, not plural" 68.69.80.70 (talk) 02:19, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: this doesn't make grammatical sense. Yes, it's a proper noun - but one which is plural, so plural language should be used. Elli (talk | contribs) 04:11, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

Timeline of Joe Walsh's replacement of Bearnie Leadon is incorrect...

In the article this phrasing is misleading...

In 1975, guitarist and vocalist Joe Walsh replaced Leadon, and the album One of These Nights became their first number one album in the US and top 10 album in many countries.

Walsh did replace Leadon but Leadon was one of the artists that recorded One of These Nights. Suggest this is edited slightly to clarify the timeline.

In 1975 the album One of These Nights became their first number one album in the US and top 10 album in many countries. Also in 1975, guitarist and vocalist Joe Walsh replaced Leadon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.195.231.14 (talk) 12:39, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

 Done - thanks for the suggestion! (Please remember to sign your posts on talk pages by typing four keyboard tildes like this: ~~~~. Or, you can use the [ reply ] button, which automatically signs posts.) GoingBatty (talk) 01:56, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Deacon Frey is linked to Glen Frey

under Band Members — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mishaxz (talk • contribs) 23:04, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Yes. The exact wikilink is Deacon Frey, which displays "Deacon", the son of Glenn. The link points to the "Personal life" section of the Glenn Frey article, which is where Deacon is most prominently described. (All he gets, in fact, is "Deacon Frey, since his father's death, has toured with the surviving Eagles.") Deacon does not currently have his own article. — JohnFromPinckney (talk / edits) 01:59, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Not "The" Eagles

The article needs to start with the official name of the band, which is simply "Eagles". But it should also indicate that people refer to the band as "The Eagles", especially since the body of the article does. What is an acceptable wording of this? In my life, I have heard maybe two people refer to them as "Eagles", but my "almost always" edit was reverted. How about "usually"? Sm5574 (talk) 12:17, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

Please voice any disagreements (or agreements) by 30 August, 2022. Sm5574 (talk) 13:58, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

This topic has been ongoing since 2004. The following archived sections provide most of the discussion:

• Talk:Eagles (band)/Archive 1#The band name
• Talk:Eagles (band)/Archive 1#"Eagles is an American rock band"
• Talk:Eagles (band)/Archive 1#The
• Talk:Eagles (band)/Archive 1#Eagles vs.The Eagles
• Talk:Eagles (band)/Archive 1#Fresh Start
• Talk:Eagles (band)/Archive 2#WP:LAME: "Eagles vs the Eagles"
• Talk:Eagles (band)/Archive 3#Rename article to "The Eagles (band)"
• Talk:Eagles (band)/Archive 3#An "Eagles" guideline?
• Talk:Eagles (band)/Archive 3#"Eagles" vs. "The Eagles"
• Talk:Eagles (band)/Archive 3#Requested move 6 January 2017
• Talk:Eagles (band)/Archive 4#Just “Eagles”

The last thread asserts that "community consensus is to include "The" or "the" before "Eagles" (except in certain grammatical circumstances) in sentences as this is grammatically correct when referring to bands with this kind of name." So, any move to change this consensus will need a new majority in favour of some other structure. As for publishing usually referred to as "The Eagles", that would need some reliable sources to back up what is for now just an opinion. In conclusion, WP:ONUS requires "The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content." ATM, there is no consensus for your suggested wording. WWGB (talk) 06:10, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

I am not suggesting any change to any consensus. I am saying that the title of the page does not match the text of the page, and that bears explanation. If the title of the page were (incorrectly) "The Eagles (band)" then no explanation would be warranted. As it is, the title is correct, but the page does not refer to them as such, and offers no explanation as to why. But if you absolutely insist on a reference for something so blaringly obvious, how about this one: https://www.grunge.com/816059/how-the-eagles-got-their-name/ Sm5574 (talk) 15:00, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

Do we really need to have this issue raised yet again?! Just like many thousands of articles, the article name is one thing and correct English grammar in the opening sentence and elsewhere is another. It is usually correct grammar (depending on context) to put a definite article ("the") before the name of any entity with a plural noun (such as "Eagles") as the entity's name. That is why we correctly write "The Eagles ..." in the opening sentence but don't bold "The" because it isn't part or the band's official name. Not putting "The" before "Eagles" in the opening sentence and elsewhere is simply incorrect grammar. Afterwriting (talk) 15:39, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

There's nothing technically grammatically incorrect about referring to the band as Eagles than there is in referring to Journey instead of "The Journey", it's just that "Eagles" sounds wrong to native English speakers. But that is irrelevant to the point at hand. I have not proposed at any point that anything be changed. At all. The only thing I have proposed is that the article explain why the band name (which it specifically says does not have "the" in it) is constantly referred to as "The Eagles". Wikipedia is supposed to be a technically correct reference, yet this article is consistently technically incorrect, without any explanation at all as to why. "Because that how everyone says it" would be a perfectly valid explanation. It doesn't even have to be in the lede, but there should be one on the page. Sm5574 (talk) 15:50, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

You are simply wrong about this. It is "technically grammatically incorrect" because (as I already pointed out) "Eagles" is a plural noun and usually requires "the" before it in a sentence. The name "Journey" is not a plural noun name so it shouldn't usually have "the" before it in a sentence. What don't you understand about these straightforward grammatical principles? Afterwriting (talk) 15:58, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

There is also no requirement that the article name must be the first word(s) in the opening sentence. In most cases this is the case but sometimes, as with this article, it isn't appropriate. Afterwriting (talk) 16:02, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

First of all, I'm not wrong, because pluralization of proper nouns doesn't whether the use of an article is required. Let's say I was going to a meetup called "Eagles". Or perhaps to a club with that name. It would be perfectly grammatically correct to say, "I'm going to Eagles on Friday." So it isn't about the fact that the proper name is "Eagles".

And second, you aren't listening to what I'm saying. I never said anything at all about what the first word of the article is "required" to be. Yes, that was in my initial proposal, only because it made the most sense with what I was writing. I very clearly stated above that this didn't even need to be a change with the lede. Or did you even bother reading what I wrote? Sm5574 (talk) 16:40, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

I have read what you've written and, frankly, I don't consider your arguments convincing. I don't see how there is any important reason to explain to readers in the opening sentence that the band's official name is just "Eagles". This is already adequately made clear by: (1) the article name itself, (2) the group's name in the info box and (3) the bolding of "Eagles" (and not also "The") in the opening sentence. If it is going to be mentioned at all then the opening sentence is not the most appropriate place for this. As for your comments about a club called "Eagles", your argument isn't valid because such a place would be a singular entity (a "club", not a group of clubs) whereas the band called "Eagles" is a plural entity (a group of people). The grammatical principles differ for singular and plural entities. Afterwriting (talk) 17:18, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

First of all, you're stuck on this whole opening sentence thing, which I have explicitly stated multiple times that this isn't what I'm talking about. Second, a band is a singular noun. Just like a family. You keep making my point by proving that you don't understand how English actually works. Bu you know what? You win. I feel myself becoming stupider by trying to reason with someone who absolutely refuses to listen to reason, who keeps spouting the same irrelevant nonsense as if it's a rebuttal. It's people like you who are ruining Wikipedia, gatekeeping it from simple and obvious changes because you get some kind of power trip knowing that you at least have control over something, even if it isn't anything meaningful. So there you go. You keep your grip over this little corner of the universe. I've got more important things to do, than spend my time growing old with you. Sm5574 (talk) 11:47, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

The band name "Eagles" is not a plural noun. It is a proper noun. "Eagles" as a band name, is not a word that denotes a quantity. It is not "those" Eagles or "the" Eagles. It is simply "Eagles." Sinestra (talk) 02:04, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

The word is very definitely a plural noun which also happens to be used as proper noun by the band as their name. So it is obviously both a plural noun and a proper noun in this instance. End of argument. Yahboo (talk) 13:09, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Randy Meisner lead vocal

FYI

 – Added section header. GoingBatty (talk) 14:23, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Take it to the limit was not the only randy meisner lead vocal. He sang 2-3 songs on most of their albums. 2600:6C42:7AF0:7610:892C:8825:2775:1F67 (talk) 10:07, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Hi there! The article states "Take It to the Limit" is "the only Eagles single to feature Meisner on lead vocals". (I added the emphasis on single.) Do you have specific suggestions on how to improve the article? Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 14:26, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

"possible eighth album" by 2012?

It's 11 years later. It's safe to say that there will not be an eighth album released by the year 2012. Maybe it's time we give up on that idea and change the wording of that section. 65.51.145.131 (talk) 02:02, 12 June 2023 (UTC)