Talk:Blackhawk (band)

Requested move

 * 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 no consensus to move. JPG-GR (talk) 01:00, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I am requesting that this page be moved to BlackHawk because, according to the disambiguation at Black Hawk, this group and their debut album are the only things that use the CamelCased spelling. With an appropriate hatnote, I don't think that such a move would be confusing. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 03:25, 12 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose - sorry; I think that it is better as it is. Occasional users will not be particularly precise in their search terms and this could prove an annoying hurdle in their quest for the page they want. TerriersFan (talk) 20:25, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose - If we ignore the camel case, it becomes quite vague (and camel case is, as we all know, a poor disambiguator). Status quo is clear and functional considering the number of things that are Black Hawk, Blackhawks, Blackhawk, BlackHawk etc. Narson (talk) 20:59, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 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.

Vote
Since I've gotten some flack for moving this page against consensus, I would like to know from other editors: Does this really need a (band) at the end? This diff seems to indicate that I'm not alone here. Support if you think that it's fine as is, Oppose if you think the (band) should be re-added. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 19:59, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
 * This is ridiculous. It needs no specifier tag because it's the only instantiation of this spelling of the name. DS (talk) 00:56, 3 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose - Blackhawk and BlackHawk have identical spelling, it's only the capitalisation that is slightly different – this hardly qualifies as a disambiguator. Occuli (talk) 03:02, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Personally, I don't think it matters since there's a link to the dab page anyway, but eh. Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 03:53, 3 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Support The group BlackHawk is the only instance of CamelCased spelling per the disambiguation page, therefore the "(band)" isn't necessary. Eric444 (talk) 11:53, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
 * SupportEric444 said it best...and first. Ecoleetage (talk) 00:21, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * SupportI think that BlackHawk has always been their name so I would use that name too. BravesFan2006 (talk) 02:13 PM, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Support based on what Eric444 said. --Caldorwards4 (talk) 19:23, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

BlackHawk
Given the discussions above why is the article now at Blackhawk (band)? Was there another discussion? Occuli (talk) 23:43, 4 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Nope, it was a unilateral decision. --Lost Fugitive (talk) 00:16, 5 May 2009 (UTC)


 * And BlackHawk is used throughout the article (except for the first word). And also on all the album covers - eg Spirit Dancer - except for the 2nd one (which is in uppercase). It seems obvious that it is BlackHawk and the move should be reversed. Occuli (talk) 10:01, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Derivation of BlackHawk
According to an article entitled "Musicial past shines through for BlackHawk" from the Bangor Daily News on November 21, 1997, "the name was inspired by a word Stephenson saw painted on a semi-trailer." This runs counter to the statement in the article. Should I change the article to reflect the above source? --Lost Fugitive (talk) 00:31, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Splitting
This band's page is long enough that it should be split into two. The biography and the discography should be separated. I measured, and they have enough singles, and albums, and their biography's long enough to take action into splitting. Ryanbstevens (talk) 02:13, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

BlackHawk, second time
How do we go about moving this back to BlackHawk, the way the band actually styles its name? --Khajidha (talk) 13:00, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Date problems
The articles states that the band signed with Arista and released their first single in 1994, then goes on to say they did both in 1993. Does anyone know which is correct? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.81.95.142 (talk) 03:44, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Requested move 2 March 2024

 * 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: not moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) –  19:32, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Blackhawk (band) → Blackhawk (duo) – WP:MUSICDAB approves use of (duo) if the act is a two-member lineup. The current lineup is Henry Paul and Dave Robbins with no additional members, thus meaning Blackhawk is currently active as a duo. However, their most famous songs were under a three-piece lineup with two of the three members also being instrumentalists, meaning the (band) disambiguator was valid for that lineup. Should the article name therefore reflect the current lineup or the historic one? Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 18:21, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

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.
 * Oppose. Unless there is another band named Blackhawk vying for the title, there's nothing wrong with the current arrangement, as Blackhawk's notabilility derives from its time as a band.  —  AjaxSmack  01:34, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose – "Band" works for either lineup, and if they were better known for their old lineup, we shouldn't privilege the current one (per WP:RECENTISM). Graham (talk) 03:41, 3 March 2024 (UTC)