Talk:Crush

This disambiguation page is within the scope of WikiProject Disambiguation, an attempt to structure and organize all disambiguation pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, you can edit the page attached to this talk page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project or contribute to the discussion.DisambiguationWikipedia:WikiProject DisambiguationTemplate:WikiProject DisambiguationDisambiguation articles

Responsibility

Hey folks, I'm responsible for this travesty of an encyclopedia article, I'm starting to think it would go better on an informal site like everything2.com or something. I just wanted to put something up when I found that the link Crush only provided an article on the Bon Jovi album of the same name. Feel free to rewrite or purge this article as you deem proper. --Nelson

Potter crush

A crush is a short-lived and unrequited love or infatuation, prevalent among teenagers. A crush also refers to the object of this infatuation.

Huh? Ginny Weasley had a crush on Harry Potter when Ginny was 11 and Harry was 12. Brian j d 01:53, 2005 Feb 27 (UTC)

According to one of the entries on Dictionary.com, it can be any age. Brian j d 02:01, 2005 Feb 27 (UTC)

Band page

Can someone please make a band page and pull it off this page. Yanksox 03:30, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Injury

Crush injury, anyone?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.6.222.229 (talk • contribs) 18:27, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup

Re this edit: pipe links are acceptable in the descriptions of entries, although the guidelines guide against them in the "entry" portion itself. I'd try to avoid the "see: " phrasing for the simpler one using the pipe link in the description. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:01, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

subsequent blue links

Regarding this edit, please see MOS:DABENTRY. Only one term per entry, in this case Crush 40, should have a blue link. Nick Number (talk) 17:57, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"organized"

Froid, why did you move song and album entries to be out of order? -- Fyrael (talk) 15:13, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

To the contrary; I placed them in proper order, and your reversion ruined it. So I corrected that. Individual artists should be alphabetized by surname; groups by the first word of the group's name. Also, "Fictitious entities" is universally more accurate than "characters", because there are times when entries are to inanimate entities. Froid (talk) 16:02, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorting by last name is much less apparent to readers, especially in a list that has mix of groups and individuals. It's much slower to parse. And when there are only characters in that section there's zero reason to make it more generic. -- Fyrael (talk) 16:07, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You are edit warring rather than discussing before making reversions. Your approach to the music section is not universally followed on Wikipedia (which alternative approach I am following), and it differs from the approach libraries would take and from the approach on Wikipedia and elsewhere with regard to, for example, written works. Furthermore, your wholesale reversions are ruining other edits that you have not expressed objection to, and in those respects may be construed as vandalism. If you feel strongly about the album and song edits, then edit them individually, rather than reverting the entire page. And regarding characters v. entitities: think it through. It is better to take approaches that permit consistency among Wikipedia pages than to choose headers specific to individual pages but not suitable for others with similar but more varied content.Froid (talk) 16:22, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And you know very well that other DAB editors disagree with you about overly genericizing the characters sections, which is why there's always someone cleaning up after you. -- Fyrael (talk) 16:11, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

LOL. Your comment did not have your desired effect. SMH. Froid (talk) 16:22, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]