Talk:Blackhawk (band)

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: *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)
thread_title:  Vote 

message: Given the discussions above why is the article now at Blackhawk (band)? Was there another discussion? Occuli (talk) 23:43, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Nope, it was a unilateral decision. --Lost Fugitive (talk) 00:16, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  BlackHawk 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Derivation of BlackHawk 

message: 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)
thread_title: Splitting

message: 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)
thread_title:  BlackHawk, second time 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Date problems 

message: :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) – Hilst [talk] 19:32, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Blackhawk (band) →  – 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)
thread_title:  Requested move 2 March 2024