Talk:Contemporary worship music

message: This page was originally "praise song", but I've moved it to its current title. Both "praise song" and "worship song" redirect here. I think this is a better structure. I'll be doing some work on contemporary worship next. I hope this is OK - it doesn't look like there's been much work on it recently. I am aware that the term "contemporary worship music" could be used for other musical genres and those in the know may wish to expand this article to include them. Sidefall (talk) 11:35, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

message: I've made a series of adjustments to try to improve the article.  It could do with considerably more.  But I thought I'd leave it at that for the moment so that other editors can check that my edits are (in general at least) improvements rather than detractions. Feline Hymnic (talk) 12:11, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  A little overhaul 

message: I have added the "Infobox music genre" to this page and populated it with info from this article. Feel free to edit it, expanded it or just clean it up. Hope this helps to improve the readability of this article. --Devin Murphy (talk) 21:15, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Infobox music genre

message: Should the lede of this article contain descriptions of how often this kind of music is used in various types of churches? KDS4444Talk 19:09, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I bring this up because the lede of this article (as it stands right now) seems needlessly wordy.  I had removed the last half of it in which a previous author basically wrote, "Sometimes this kind of music is heard in protestant churches, and sometimes it isn't; sometimes it is heard in Catholic churches, but in other Catholic churches it isn't used at all." A subsequent editor added this back, claiming that removing it made the lede "too short."  What do others think? KDS4444Talk 19:10, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  It's not needlessly wordy. Have you read :Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section? If you removed only that one sentence, it would not hurt. . It might need a re-write if it doesn't accurately address all article's content, but simply removing content as you did was inappropriate. Since the article is currently 20,642 bytes (including lede and references), the guideline is for "two or three paragraphs" in length. The article's prose constitute just over 2000 words or just over 9000 characters so that would require "one or two paragraphs". So, no, it's not too long. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:23, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

text: Summoned by bot - It is definitely too wordy. If it is to be included in the lead, it needs to be rewritten. Meatsgains (talk) 00:13, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for comment: Length and content of article lede 

message: The German way of new church music is Neues Geistliches Lied, songs by contemporary lyricists and composers which developed from the 1960th and made their way to the official mainstream hymnals, at least some. This is very different from pentecostal inspiration. The German article covers rather exactly what's mentioned in this lead, citation required, but I didn't translate that part, as rather too specifically German. Some sources might be used, - however, the typical problem, German Wikipedia rarely uses citations for individual facts, more books as a whole. Help with the integration of the new article is welcome. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:47, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: The other article, full of redlinks, does not need to stand alone. Its contents should be moved here. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:43, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  Red links are no argument but an invitation to turn them blue. :Contemporary worship music does not even mention "song" = Lied. The lead is narrow: pentecoastal. I would like to see your proposal of a lead before discussing to merge apples and berries. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:06, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  I did not say it was an argument. I said they should be merged as the content is sufficienlt related. Walter Görlitz (talk) 13:18, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  Perhaps I have a language problem. Contemporary worship music is a broad topic which should included efforts in all genres of music, in different languages and cultures. NGL is a narrow topic, that if included, would have undue weight. The present lead covers only two narrow aspects of the broad topic: pentecostal developments (Contemporary Worship Music, which would be a different narrow topic) in the United States, as the side navbox specifies, and Catholic usage, the latter unsourced, and not in the body. Unsatisfactory, imho. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:51, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

text:  I looked further and found Contemporary Christian music, - now there NGL might fit a bit better, but still: it seems to look exclusively at English-language songs. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:28, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  From what I read at the article, the subject is clearly describing worship music, not pop music about Christian themes. In a milieu you might comprehend, Lothar Kosse is more contemporary Christian music, although some of his music has been used as worship songs in the English world. I don't see why the merge to this article, in a section reflecting the developments in Germany, is controversial to you. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:51, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  NGL 

message: This list is so short that it doesn't deserve its own page on Wikipedia...at least, not yet. ««« SOME GADGET GEEK »»» (talk) 17:03, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed merge with [[List of contemporary worship songs]]