Talk:Black Fast (band)

Notability
You can post here concerning whether or not this fits Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Breckham101 (talk) 01:46, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Genre.
Slayer gets to be called "Thrash metal" in their lead. Vektor even gets "progressive thrash metal." Just like those two bands, Black Fast is also near indisputably labeled by RS's as "thrash metal" or some descriptive variation/fusion of. I don't understand why calling them "thrash metal" in the lead is inappropriate.

pinging involved users and ips:    GhostOfDanGurney (talk) 17:55, 2 August 2018 (UTC)


 * The genre in the introduction is supposed to encompass all the sourced genres. Black Fast has been described as thrash metal, progressive metal and blackened thrash metal. All of these genres are derivative forms of heavy metal, meaning that by calling them a "heavy metal band", you are describing all the styles that they have been described as. Where as, if you were to call them just a "thrash metal band" you would be disregarding how they've been called progressive metal. For example, take a band like Trivium, their first two albums were metalcore, their next three albums were thrash with some other genres thrown in there, their sixth and seventh albums were traditional heavy metal and their most recent album is a mix of heavy metal, progressive metal and thrash metal. If were to call Trivium a metalcore band, you would be disregarding all of the material after their second album. If you called them a thrash metal band, you would be disregarding their first, second, sixth and seventh albums. But by called them a heavy metal band, you would be encompassing all of the genres they've ever played, because all of those genres are forms of heavy metal. Issan Sumisu (talk) 18:06, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Citing Trivium, a band that willingly crosses genre boundaries on a single album, is a horrible example for you to continue an edit war. Black Fast has released three albums, all of which are cited as thrash metal. You list one source that doesn't even use the actual term "progressive." That same source also used the term "technical metal" as a way of comparison to Metallica and Megadeth. Not Dream Theater and Opeth. Until you respond to my points about Slayer and Vektor, you have not convinced me at all. GhostOfDanGurney (talk) 18:21, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree with Issan, although heavy metal is a genre and not an umbrella term, the band has been described in too many genres. Overall just stick watch sources say. ~SML  •  TP  18:26, 2 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Technical metal is literally cited on the progressive metal page as being a synonym of progressive metal. Saying that's a bad source because it says technical metal, is like saying that a source calling a band punk pop is a bad source for pop punk, they're referenced as synonyms. And just because all of a band's albums are cited as one genre, doesn't discount any other source genres, all of Megadeth's albums have been described as thrash metal, but that doesn't disregard the fact that they've also been described as a speed metal band. Issan Sumisu (talk) 18:29, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Like I said, they used the term "technical" as a way to compare the band to Metallica and Megadeth, two other thrash metal bands. Context is what is important here. GhostOfDanGurney (talk) 18:35, 2 August 2018 (UTC)


 * That does not disregard the source in any way. It described them as a tech metal band, you are using original research, we have to stick to the sources. Issan Sumisu (talk) 18:42, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Alright, let's find obscure concert reviews by a random local newspaper for every other band and use that to change every other band here to "heavy metal." The sources that were already cited all ranged from "progressive blackened thrash metal" to "mid-period thrash with Death influence." One single concert review that clearly made an error in phrasing their comparison shouldn't be enough to warrant not calling them "thrash metal" in the lead. GhostOfDanGurney (talk) 19:02, 2 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Again, you're reaching your own conclusion through original research, which Wikipedia does not permit, this is considered disruptive. Issan Sumisu (talk) 19:04, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Please follow what Issan is saying. I was like you when it came to genres, but over time I matured. Your account is three months older than me, you should mature too.  ~SML  •  TP  19:06, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Calling someone disruptive is grand, when you've crossed the bright line already, Issan. Ghost, you are either on it, or have crossed it as well. 209.171.88.188 (talk) 19:10, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
 * 209 is right, let’s stick to how it was until we all reach concsencus.  ~SML  •  TP  19:14, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I met exemption number four, as I was keeping to wiki's guidelines. Issan Sumisu (talk) 19:15, 2 August 2018 (UTC):

Hey Issan, I really didn't need the generic warning template on my talk page. If I was being disruptive, I wouldn't have brought the matter up here, now would I have? GhostOfDanGurney (talk) 19:37, 2 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Even after you went to the talk page, and I explained why what you were doing was disruptive, you continued to make the same edit, I was hoping that by putting the warning on your talk page, which I should have already done, you would stop repeating the edit. Issan Sumisu (talk) 19:41, 2 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Ive locked the page from editing due to the large number of reverts. It’s locked for three days, but I’ll unlock it sooner if there’s a policy-based consensus to do so. Sergecross73   msg me  20:43, 2 August 2018 (UTC)