This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourcedmust be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Wales, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Wales 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.WalesWikipedia:WikiProject WalesTemplate:WikiProject WalesWales
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Hip-hop, a collaborative effort to build a useful resource for and improve the coverage of hip-hop on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.Hip-hopWikipedia:WikiProject Hip-hopTemplate:WikiProject Hip-hopHip-hop
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Brighton, an attempt at creating a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use resource about Brighton and Hove. If you would like to participate, please visit the project pageBrightonWikipedia:WikiProject BrightonTemplate:WikiProject BrightonBrighton
I've done an article update by separating the career section into many sub sections, I didn't delete text, I only amended the structure of the article, as it was jumbled without any headings, and I amended the intro which was too long for the article as it simply was repeated. Also, I fixed the reference error, listing unused references was incorrect, so I've left the duplicate refs for the article.
If anyone has any thoughts, please use talk... To reiterate, I didn't delete text, even the intro, I simply moved paragraphs. If you have objections, please take your time to go over the article and see it's just been restructured, nothing serious relating to the body of work. Cltjames (talk) 23:30, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm currently experiencing issues with my eyes that are severely impacting my ability to edit or use the computer at this time. I am getting medical care and things are improving. I should be able to edit again fairly soon.
- The lead section is actually supposed to be information covered in the body of the article. That is it’s entire purpose. Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section
- The article could have been broken up into sections without reformatting it. I had plans to do that prior to the issue with my eye stopping me
- The reason the information is “jumbled” is because Ren’s health, music, and life are intimately tied together. His music is about his health and life. It's hard to extract one from the other. It was also decided by several editors to keep the information together. Look at the talk page archive. The fact that they go hand in hand is covered by several of the reliable sources this article used. The way the article currently reads makes it difficult to follow.
- I do like the idea of having a section for significant events, such as Fire in the Booth, to be that are important but don’t have enough coverage by reliable sources to write anything other than it happened.
- A section on just his health with more in-depth coverage could be made without having disturbed the rest of the article.I have some sources that could assist in this endeavor. That section was frequently removed by editors not familiar with Ren and why the section was important. It will probably happen again. Kiwatts (talk) 09:10, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Kiwatts don't know what to think, you make a point, but the article should fall inline with other's style, and I broke it down to make it readable, because before it was too crowded into one paragraph. I feel it is improved, not deconstructed. And as for the lede, it is like a blurb, not a section, it made more sense to move a bulk into a section than to have it only in the lede. Again, the article has better clarity and falls inline with other article styles. Cltjames (talk) 09:58, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As far as the lead section - It was in more than one paragraph and the manual of style is the format to use for articles. Take a look at the link provided, what it says and the reasoning behind it. Kiwatts (talk) 10:08, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Kiwatts my point was, the key information is still there. and it is not repetitive from the article. Otherwise, I feel the style of writing falls in line with other articles now, what do you think ? Cltjames (talk) 10:14, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The lead is supposed to contain information that is in the main article. "In Wikipedia, the lead section is an introduction to an article and a summary of its most important contents."..."The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic. It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies" ..."Apart from basic facts, significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article." There are noteworthy and important points that are missing. Kiwatts (talk) 18:13, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine, all I was saying is there was too much bulk, it's meant to read like a blurb not a section, so I trimmed it. Feel free to reintroduce some text, but remember I felt it was too long a lede for a smaller article, and maybe keep it to a medium. And otherwise, as another editor has mentioned, the article structure is correct now, again feel free to fine tune, but please try and keep the structure like it is now, in a clearer set up. Cltjames (talk) 20:49, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
They were suggesting a different structure. One that I think makes more sense. It similar to the original structure we had, with some exceptions. Kiwatts (talk) 21:53, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have a problem with sections. Go back two years ago when I was trying to prove notability so the article could exist. You will see I had sections. It was decided by others it was best to remove them. As I said I had planned to put some back in, but I have a medical issue currently. I will revisit this later. Kiwatts (talk) 22:05, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know if you are referring to my comment about the section structure but I was actually suggesting a different structure more in line with other articles. Albums could also be listed under Discography (I think they were before) instead of as a Breakthrough albums section while the Career section could cover some main points about the different albums. They can't really be all regarded as "breakthrough" albums in any case. I think "Hi Ren" would be best described as Ren's breakthrough song that has made him known to a larger audience worldwide. So while I think that having different sections is a good idea, I think the structure still needs some work. Mackey79 (talk) 15:17, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Mackey79 I would agree, I did what I could in one day, but definitely, the article needed restructuring and can still do with another draft. I am currently busy and will leave it for a month or for someone else to do it. Cltjames (talk) 15:52, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I believe bots were responsible for keeping/rescuing the unused references. Although it may have been done by some of the seasoned editors reviewing it at the time. Kiwatts (talk) 09:22, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Just a quick comment on the sections. The usual sections in Wikipedia articles seem to be Early life, Career and Personal life, sometimes with sub-sections for relevant topics, In Ren's case Health could be a sub-section of Personal life. And the sections that are now separate under the headlines of Early career, Breakthrough albums and Miscellanous career should perhaps be sub-sections under career or included in the main text under Career. It would maybe help keep the structure more concise and similar to other articles. In some articles the Career section is also divided by years, I don't know how well that would work in the Ren article. Mackey79 (talk) 13:26, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
