Talk:Channel Pressure

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Albums, an attempt at building a useful resource on recordings from a variety of genres. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.AlbumsWikipedia:WikiProject AlbumsTemplate:WikiProject AlbumsAlbum articles

Electronic music Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Electronic music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Electronic music on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Electronic musicWikipedia:WikiProject Electronic musicTemplate:WikiProject Electronic musicelectronic music articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Tracks[edit]

User:EditorE dude, the "Tracks" section is just a grotesque effluence of overly detailed gushing, no one is ever going to attempt to get past the first paragraph without getting headache, and all of that information is already summarized generally, and accessibly, earlier in the article. Wiki guidelines state that information should not be overly specialized or too specific for a passing reader to grasp.

Plus...are you trying to kill the experience of actually hearing the record by describing it all to hell?? Missing the forest for the trees imo, the point of Wiki is to be a helpful resource, not to compile every possible written fact about relatively obscure subjects. This article is literally longer than the one for Replica!!!! (which is a perfect size already, please don't get any ideas.) gentlecollapse6 (talk) 22:26, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but what are these arguments about article length and "overly detailed gushing" and "no one is ever going to attempt to get past the first paragraph without getting headache?" I'm sorry, but there are a lot of album articles like 21 that have tons of analysis from independent sources about the album and its style, and it all is still essential to the subject. Heck, the article about Ravedeath, 1972 failed the GA nomination in a heartbeat because it lacked in the type of "nerdy" information from reliable sources that you don't want in Channel Pressure. I'm not seeing how the work I've put into this article is different from articles with similar amounts of "nerdy" analysis from independent sources. I'm not here to frustrate you and I don't mean to say this to show that your trying to mess up the article, you have good faith here, but in my experience of reading and editing articles about albums and songs, this is pretty much how Wikipedia articles work. It's just detailed info about the style and sound of the album, it's pretty much essential Featured Article material in my eyes. Maybe I could be wrong, but I'm just saying this from experience. editorEهեইдအ😎 14:37, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe spend less time worrying about getting a Featured Article with your name on it, and start worrying about accurately representing subjects on Wikipedia. Form matters as much as content, and restraint can say a lot more than extraneous detail. As editors we're supposed to use our judgement not to, say, write a 5000 word article about a relatively obscure album. It's the work of an overzealous fan sticking his interests in the face of everyone else. And...who the fuck cares about featured articles? This isn't an article on H2O, it's an article on a cool, slightly obscure side project that you've now made totally un-obscure by wringing every piece of writing you could find on it, thereby misrepresenting its scholarly significance in general.

I genuinely think you should trash the whole "tracks" section, you basically just paraphrased their track-by-track discussion article, which is ridiculous and annoying. You can link to it in one sentence, and let readers go explore for themselves, instead of hand feeding them every little bit of information.

Also, Selena Gomez is like, a massive, million-selling pop star, and Ravedeath was written about and praised significantly more than CP. Your emphasis on this record is misleading and obsessive. (I don't even understand how you had the patience to put all this information together...for what? You're not getting a grade, and you're ruining other people's abilities to explore a subject independently by dumping and explaining every last damn thing about it you could find about it. Summarize the important and notable points of the available journalistic sources, and proportionately so, and thats it )gentlecollapse6 (talk) 15:01, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I will have to say, though, I appreciate your edit of the personnel section. I have to agree that section looks so much better know. :) editorEهեইдအ😎 18:31, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Might I suggestsed you check this out, from Wiki guidelines. gentlecollapse6 (talk) 05:59, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've had experience editing plenty of other Wikipedia articles and I can tell you this guideline is not excuse-able of your edits by any stretch. Your lead is very weak and my lead is not "half of the article body." It's not too specific and still only covers the main points of each subject. Just because the MOS saids to only give the article's main, "accessible" facts does not mean it is acceptable for it, including the lead, to be so puny. The accessible wiki guidelines including the WP:MOS example you're bringing up here do not support going as so far as to make start-class-length summaries of info about the LP. This is a Wikipedia article, this is all encyclopedic stuff regardless if you think it's "nerdy" or "fan vomit." The arguments about the article being "inaccessible" because of my edits are clearly all in your head. I'm starting to question the faith of what you're doing. editorEهեইдအ😎 09:54, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Friend, I've done far more reasonable and constructive editing on here than you'd like to admit, and your lead, which spends almost as much time discussing the minutiae of the album's recordings process and composition (do we really need Lopatin's offhand "j-pop" comment in the lead of the article? Why is this even important besides the fact that you think it's cool?) is once again overly detailed, overstuffed, and also contains some plainly bad writing. Acknowledge when someone constructively checks your own narcissistic tendencies for the good of a page, I'm not demolishing the article or the important information contained in it, I'm scaling it back from the heavyhanded information-overload of a teen fan who clearly wants it to be his little memento to an album he's poured over. Dude, it's cool to like something but there's a line between that and being a geeky wiki Stan. Get outside for some fresh air. gentlecollapse6 (talk) 19:15, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you would actually be right of me being a "teen fan" of this LP (I'm 18, actually), but that is not why I'm doing this. It's OK if you find what I'm adding "plainly bad writing," but removing essential stuff from it doesn't fix it. You're really viewing what I'm doing in the wrong direction, buddy. editorEهեইдအ😎 19:42, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I'm tired of this. Gonna get some other reasonable editors to back up consensus on this thing being a monstrosity. gentlecollapse6 (talk) 19:17, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I can definitely say that at least we're on the same page of being "tired of this." editorEهեইдအ😎 19:40, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]