Talk:The Prayer Chain

Untitled

Added some other stuff to the discog. 13:45, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

This Prayer Chain article needs a bio if anyone is willing to put some time into writing one for it. C&R 14:04, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Religious Burp's recent edits

I mean the ones like this:http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=The_Prayer_Chain&diff=prev&oldid=655775792 I have been accused of being a "control freak" and made changes "without merit". Apparently "Having sections helps easy use of article." I won't address the personal attack. Let's look at the from guidelines and manuals of style instead. WP:BODY, part of the Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Layout, states, "Very short or very long sections and subsections in an article look cluttered and inhibit the flow of the prose." So while having sections does help navigation (not necessarily use) short ones is to be avoided. Two paragraphs, the second just a sentence, in "Early History" and the same in "Shawl era". "Post Break-up" had three paragraphs. Mercury era, while having several duplications of information and extended quotes, was longer.

Second, MOS:HEADCAPS: "Use sentence-style capitalization, not title-style capitalization, in section and table headings. Capitalize the first letter of the first word, but leave the rest lower case (except for proper names and other items that would ordinarily be capitalized in running text). Thus Section headings, not Section Headings; Previous club, not Previous Club." So here the sections should be Full-length albums, not Full-Length Albums, etc.

Now, WP:QUOTEFARM suggests not overusing quotes. This is overuse. Time to report for breaking WP:3RR. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:29, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

These sub-sections are obviously in the process of being expanded. Formatting the article with subsections and quotations from the band is no different than how the U2 article is formatted. Unless you are willing to change that article in the same way you are way trying to power-trip on this one, leave it be in the interest of information and easy-use. If you want to change capitalization, go for it. But if you do wide-scale changes & omissions, I'll revert it. Religious Burp (talk) 03:37, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

They're not obviously in the process of being expanded.

The Prayer Chain are not U2. They don't have as much written about them as U2 does. They don't have the volume of work that U2 does. The U2 article has long sections,

I am not on a power trip, I'm on a "I have been editing on Wikipedia for a lot longer than you have and know about manuals of style, formatting and other general editing experience and I'm trying to share it with you" trip. WP:AGF. Unless you're willing to change your "this is my article" attitude, you'll get blocked. I explained what the project is trying to achieve. If you want to write a blog on the band, there are plenty of places for that, but Wikipedia isn't the place. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:09, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

They'd be expanded if you weren't unnecessarily removing those expansions.

Apologies if 4 sub-sections for their History is "cluttered" to you. Explains why you have such a hard time with sourced information being added.

The Prayer Chain aren't U2. U2 have numerous articles about them on wikipedia, about all their albums and even individual songs. This is the one wikipedia article about The Prayer Chain, so why is it a problem adding information about their history and albums to this article? The band have an evident cult following, were pioneers in the Christian Music industry and are still revered. It's not disproportionate having a bit more information about them on wikipedia, even if you don't think much of them.

But your "I have been editing on Wikipedia for longer and I'm so wonderful at it" shows you aren't power-tripping then. You are ego-tripping. I don't have a "this is my article" attitude, which is why I'm not the one removing content. Blogs can be written about the band, but wikipedia is often the first go-to for people researching information. So what is wrong with having information here, and a user-friendly format for that? Walter Gorlitz doesn't like it, that's what's wrong. Religious Burp (talk) 09:40, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

By the way, your "superior, I know how to write better than you" edits are just poor writing. Sentences that you changed to make them "less-cluttered" like "Their first version of the album, initially titled Humb, was rejected the label, and the band were asked to produce more a commerical product." contains errors that stop it being a readable sentence as well as spelling errors. "Commerical" is spelled "commercial". "rejected by the label" would make more sense than "was rejected the label". As would "...produce a more commercial product.." rather than "...produce more a commerical product...". Furthermore, by just referring to "the label" rather than Reunion, you don't differentiate between Reunion & Rode Dog, who were both record labels for them. Sorry to break this brilliant vision you had of yourself. Religious Burp (talk) 10:02, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

The wikipedia article on Jars of Clay also uses sub-sections when describing the band's history, many of them only containing a short paragraph. Are you going to remove those too, Walter? Let me guess, your argument is that The Prayer Chain isn't Jars of Clay. Religious Burp (talk) 14:03, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the spelling tip. I can't seem to find where I wrote that. Sorry.

I'll fix JoC shortly then as it's another article on my watchlist.

I'll make a suggestion. You can make a copy of your preferred version of the article in your own space. I can even help with that. I suggest User:Religious Burp/The Prayer Chain. You can edit it there to your heart's content and when it reaches a state of quality that you can live with, let the members of the WikiProject Christian music or WikiProject Musicians review it and we can move or merge it here when it's ready. Take some time to read what I linked in my first comments here. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:27, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Spelling error found and fixed. Thanks. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:36, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Not only did you make that spelling mistake (not to mention errors in the whole sentence, which is just an example of your poor-editing and is still largely unfixed), you changed it to that 4 times. That is vandalism. An editor should know how to proof-read. Goodness knows I've tried to fix it. Religious Burp (talk) 23:23, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Sorry. I see you want to cooperate and make the article better by criticizing the editor rather than the edits. That's not going to go over well, but feel free to keep at it. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:25, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Both the editor & the edits are wrong. I've spelled out how in one random sentence, that was perfectly fine before you edited it, you had 4 errors in it after you edited it. 3 of those errors were very obvious to anyone who knows about writing. You reverted back to that bad edit 4 times. That is a sign of a pig-headed editor. The two can't be separated, they are bad edits by a bad editor. I want to make the article better by adding content, making it user-friendly, making it interesting using sourced information and doing good writing, the four things you are against. So there is no point "cooperating" with you because you would be no help, you just enjoy being a wrecking ball. You want to do bizarrely idiotic things like requesting a citation for songs that are clearly on their albums. If you don't know anything about the band, don't edit the page! Religious Burp (talk) 06:19, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

If this is your response to me basically saying that you don't know how to edit according to Wikiedpia's manuals of style and other guidelines, don't edit, fine. It doesn't fly though. Until you say something constructive I won't be responding. Cheers. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:26, 11 April 2015 (UTC)