Talk:Bliss

"Surnames" pls not hidden, and meaning into the lead
hi. I honestly don't understand why you keep on pushing the Bliss (surname) item to an invisible spot on line 97 (!) under "Other uses". I have offered a quite elegant compromise solution, in case that your beef is with a "People" section with, for now, just one item – although, as I have written, I see no reason to stick pedantically to a guideline created by fellow editors and subject to constant amendments, which here is opposed to both logic and user-friendliness, which are by far the most important guidelines in any encyclopedia.

What isn't "even arguably correct"? I have offered - again, as a compromise solution after your first intervention - this wording:
 * Bliss is a common noun meaning 'supreme happiness', and a surname. It may refer to:....

Now one by one.
 * 1) Bliss is a common noun meaning 'supreme happiness': 100% correct. Almost all the items in the list are derived from it. There might be one abbreviation, but even that one plays with the meaning "bliss" as happy w/o reservation.
 * 2) All items not directly derived from the common noun, are surnames or derived from such.

The Bliss (surname) page lists almost 60 people regarded as notable. Don't you believe that people (i.e. users) are more interested in other (notable) people, than in B productions with 10 sequels, fictional characters, yachts, adult computer games and alike? Let's agree that not more interested, but as interested. An then, just because there is this collective page, on which all people by this surname other than the one composer (!) are listed, has to disappear under "Others"? No way.

I came here looking for F.J. Bliss and couldn't find him. I thought he has no article. So it's a conclusion from my own experience that the page is faulty, not an attempt at being smart or disturbing other people's work. As it was & is, the page has a big defect. I'm trying to fix it.

Explaining the main meaning of the term in the first line is very common. Since here we have two main meanings (or one and a half, if the name is itself derived from the common noun), we can put both in the lead. It can't possibly disturb any user, but helps many. Win-win. That's why I started by saying that I honestly don't understand why you reverted my second edit. I won't insist for the first, but the second, very logical and user-friendly (explains the term AND offers orientation), is perfect for the purpose. Arminden (talk) 22:52, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
 * We're certainly coming at this from different angles, because I consider the current version to be the compromise. There are some prominent editors on the DAB project that like to always put People and Places sections ahead of everything else, but I (and many others on the project) don't agree that those have some kind of inherent notability. I don't find it so offensive that I can't leave it there though.
 * As for the introductory line, I actually hadn't realized that I removed your dictionary definition during my edits. I'm fine with that being there and apologize for getting sloppy. I'm quite opposed to having the (name) in there though, as we usually reserve that kind of placement for the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, and I don't think the name list fits that at all. I totally disagree that it's a "main" meaning. If you look at the page views for the entries on here, there are many articles that get hundreds or thousands of views per day, as opposed to the name list, which gets about 4. And yes, of course the individual people articles have much more views than that (especially Alexa Bliss, who is very popular), but that only means users are finding their way straight to those articles without needing to hit the name list or the disambiguation page and further suggests that Bliss (name) doesn't need to be extremely prominent here. And sorry for not being clear with that "not arguably correct" thing, which was just me referring to our guidelines about what should go in the first line.&#32;-- Fyrael (talk) 18:10, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

I think we basically agree on almost everything. It was the complete revert, with both the term explanation in the lead and the "hiding" of the name item, that I had a big issue with. The rest I can easily agree on. Full reverts are tricky, the baby often ends up in the sewage along with the bathwater.

It might be my problem more than other people's, but I'm not sure it is: I'm much more likely to remember surnames than given names, especially common ones (Fred, Louis, Jürgen, Pedro), so if I'm looking for the archaeologists team Bliss & Dickie (that's how they're always mentioned), I'm likely not to remember that it's F.J. Bliss. That's when I'm looking up such pages, and here I didn't even think to look under "Other uses". "People" doesn't need to be first, but especially with such a widespread name, it deserves far better than disappearing under "Other uses". Meanwhile I've discovered that a) it's sometimes also used as a given name, and b) there's a sub-category of judges called Bliss. Which is, from experience, very common: when things are organised in a more logical and visible way, inaccuracies pop out and can be fixed and it helps with the overall accuracy. So there are two lines now under "People", not just one. Cheers, Arminden (talk) 19:34, 2 March 2021 (UTC)