Talk:Crush

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. Brianjd 01:53, 2005 Feb 27 (UTC)

According to one of the entries on Dictionary.com, it can be any age. Brianjd 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)

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

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)

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)

"organized"
, why did you move song and album entries to be out of order?&#32;-- Fyrael (talk) 15:13, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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.&#32;-- Fyrael (talk) 16:07, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * Hahaha, yes, totally vandalism. I could well have reverted your entire original edit, since it's quite debatable whether any of it is constructive. I instead chose not to do a full revert and just restored the sections that you definitely didn't improve. At any rate, I will hopefully before end of day be starting a discussion on the project page about your "alternative approaches" and then we will see what consensus shows.&#32;-- Fyrael (talk) 17:01, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
 * 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.&#32;-- Fyrael (talk) 16:11, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
 * LOL. Your comment did not have your desired effect. SMH. Froid (talk) 16:22, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
 * What are you even talking about?, among others, is constantly fixing your "Fictitious entities" nonsense.&#32;-- Fyrael (talk) 17:01, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Heh, yes. Cleaning up after Froid provides steady stream of activity. older ≠ wiser 17:53, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

, your most recent edit highlights part of why it's so ridiculous, in a list of artists with one- and two-word names, as well as groups and individuals (which it's not always easy to distinguish between), to toss a handful of entries out of the otherwise obvious order. I was trying to not argue about this because it doesn't really matter in the end, but come on. How can you possibly think it's more readable this way?&#32;-- Fyrael (talk) 16:37, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Things you don't understand or agree with are not necessarily ridiculous. Sorting correctly even when difficult is better than not. See also the obvious (not ridiculous) order of artists in, say, Category:A&M Records artists. JHunterJ (talk) 20:18, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Of course sorting correctly is better. I've never suggested not sorting correctly. We're very obviously talking about which is the correct way to sort this. Could you please explain how you believe that what you've done is more readable or usable? It seems to me that a user encountering this list would find what they're looking for much quicker if it was alphabetized by the order in which they see the words, especially considering the mixed nature that I described.&#32;-- Fyrael (talk) 20:37, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Never mind, it's just not worth the effort. One awkward DAB isn't the end of the world.&#32;-- Fyrael (talk) 05:10, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Crush on me
Crush is a strong feeling that people feels about others like love

By Ntshatsha Sibulele 41.114.155.160 (talk) 12:01, 6 April 2023 (UTC)