Talk:Crush (relationship)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


In a hurry or I'd add it myself, but in case I forget here's a ref for its etymology, that usefully includes first usages in this specific sense. HereNumber36 (talk) 00:41, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

List of links[edit]

Regarding the large list of links I removed from the article.. Please see WP:LINKFARM for reasons why. This article isn't a guide to relationships, and if those links belong in the article they should be cited in the article, not listed at the bottom. SpigotMap 22:19, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Oh..... so the only problem is the way they are formatted? Lovely...... Now were getting somewhere. Well instead of deleting an entirely valuable list, why not move them to the takepage so they can be easily accessed? What possible reason could you have of deleting this very valuable content without a trace?--Coin945 (talk) 06:35, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Brilliant Sources[edit]

Many of these sources are unreliable sources and we can weed them out as I go through, but essentially these are the awesome sources I think we'll use to work on the article. It took absolutely ages to find them on google because so many things are called "crush" and I had to qualify the search in various ways.



Okay, I agree it is a nice list of sources, but perhaps use your sandbox or another sub page to store them, article space isn't the place to "store" random information. Regardless, it's all still in the article history. SpigotMap 23:57, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
But, as is the very nature of Wikipedia, doing this then allows others to come along and add their own expertise to this article's growth. What's the point me me hiding all these great sources and preventing others from working on this article too? Seems rather selfish to me...--Coin945 (talk) 08:32, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Because a list this large is against policy. See WP:NOTLINKS and WP:External links. They should not be in the article, the articlespace is not the place to "store" information and if editors want to use these links as references, they can get them from this talk page. The general reader has no use for this enormous list of links. How much more can really be added to this article that would need to use these? SpigotMap 23:33, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
if editors want to use these links as references, they can get them from this talk page - ehemm... that's exactly where the sources are atm. I'm not quite sure what you're arguing here.... :/ I'ts not like we're debating whether these links should bed in the article or not. All i did was add a great list of sources and offer them to other editors and now I'm playing 20 questions with you...--Coin945 (talk) 10:30, 19 June 2012 (UTC)


Wow... this is one of the two worst articles I've ever seen on Wikipedia. This either needs to be completely rewritten, or deleted. I think that the subject (in a way, sadly) keeps it from being deleted because it achieves notability. And frankly, I don't have the intense interest in the subject to help rewrite it, so you can count me out. I do have suggestions: The key to rewriting may be in the love article (?). Maybe some things related to this subject in that article, that have been touched upon, can be expanded upon in this one. Just a thought. But completely in a different tone. The only reason I mention the love article is because there's no way in h**** that that article is written with this tone. That tone injected into this one might help save this. That's what's killing this article (tone, that is), and making it an embarrassment to Wikipedia. The other worst one was a Hinduism article that was a complete unending, stream of consciousness, rant I guess you could say. This one's roughly as bad. It sounds like a teenager, IP user got a hold of this article. Blecckhh!! Lighthead þ 01:55, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

@Lighthead.. I agree with a lot that you said there.. I would like to see this as a re-written sub-section on Human Affection, with other relationship types, such as a dalliance, a sometimes brief, but ongoing romance that never quite becomes a relationship. Also Flirting, sibling-crush (innocent fond-love) and the afore mentioned unrequited love.

if there are any volunteers..

Dava4444 (talk) 07:13, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

There is already a proposal for merge at the head of the article, and it has been logged here none of which prevents any willing editor from taking bold action. It looks as if there is an emerging consensus to tear this article down/apart. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 08:18, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

What is this?[edit]

The entomology is unrelated to the subject (it would be a little closer if it talked about the association between the concept of being crushed and the emotional distress), and the subject itself is based on modern day slang. It seems to be written about infatuation, but there really isn't any difference between infatuation at a young age or otherwise in terms of psychology. This isn't encyclopedia material either, since it's more of a teenage girl's self-help guide to relationships. Grammar is something that can be fixed, but not when the subject doesn't have any factual basis. One last thing, encyclopedias don't usually recommend books to read to "get the girl". I opt that the article should be deleted. I may be overly critical, but there are quite a few things wrong with this article. I think it could do well as a WikiHow page, though.Burriloom (talk) 01:59, 19 February 2013 (UTC)Burriloom

The more I read this 'article' the less I find in it that can be salvaged for a merge. When I say 'less' I mean nothing. It has a valid title, but that is it. So I am opting to redirect to its merge target as a bold move. I will not quarrel with someone who reverts, but I hope then that they will discuss it Fiddle Faddle (talk) 08:03, 19 February 2013 (UTC)