Talk:Rusher

Untitled

Rusher: Fanaticas de la mejor boyband Big Time Rush (BTR)

TheCampingRusher

I have attempted to remove "TheCampingRusher" from this disambiguation list. The justification for their inclusion (provided in edit summaries) has been:

• A single Kotaku article that refers to them as "Rusher" (as well as their full alias) a few times
• A brief mention of the subject (using their full alias) in 2b2t#History

From WP:D, I'm wondering what the applicability of this is for a title case alias (e.g. TheCampingRusher):

To prevent disambiguation pages from getting too long, articles on people should be listed at the disambiguation page for their first or last name only if they are reasonably well known by it.

If this does apply to certain aliases (precedent?), then I'd argue that there is not enough coverage of the subject to establish that they are "reasonably well known" by the alias variation "Rusher".

If this does not apply, then I think WP:PARTIAL does. In which case, I'd argue that the aforementioned lack of coverage does not pose "significant risk of confusion" between "TheCampingRusher" and the other disambiguation subjects.

BLDM (talk) 04:57, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Hi. I think this is about a YouTube channel more than it is about a person. We don't even know his name, so I don't think any of this about "first or last name" applies.

Regarding partial, I'm looking at what it says next For example, Louisville Zoo is not included at Zoo (disambiguation) because people outside Louisville would not readily identify it as the "Zoo", and including all zoos in the world in the disambiguation page is impractical (though List of zoos is listed in the "See also" section). Add a link only if the article's subject (or the relevant subtopic thereof) could plausibly be referred to by essentially the same name as the disambiguated term in a sufficiently generic context—regardless of the article's title. These examples seem very clear. "Rusher" is not a generic name of which "TheCampingRusher" is a subset. We can't put every zoo ever on the Zoo page, because that is generic. No one would put in "Zoo" and expect to find one specific zoo (well, maybe someone might. whatever). TheCampingRusher is abbreviated to Rusher. My point here is that this abbreviation isn't a genericization / informational loss. It isn't comparable to any of the examples given for what PARTIAL means. There are not multiple YouTubers that all contract to "Rusher" (and even if there were, I would look at the next few paragraphs in PARTIAL with the examples about the Carolinas).

The reason to include it is simply MOS:DABMENTION: If a topic does not have an article of its own, but is mentioned within another article, then a link to that article may be included if it would provide value to the reader. which seems clear and straightforward and applies here. Leijurv (talk) 07:28, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

I think this is about a YouTube channel more than it is about a person They are referred to as a single YouTuber (a person) - if the subject had their own article, it'd be a BLP with the name listed as an alias.

If a topic does not have an article of its own, but is mentioned within another article, then a link to that article may be included if it would provide value to the reader. Please look at the example immediately below that. This still seems like a case of WP:PARTIAL where "Rusher" is being extracted from the alias without significant demonstrated usage or risk of confusion with the other disambiguated subjects.

BLDM (talk) 18:41, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Would it work if we reworded the bullet here to instead read TheCampingRusher, a YouTube channel known for its 2016 video series on the Minecraft server 2b2t?

Regardless, "Rusher" is not a first name or last name. When I read that, I understand the spirit of it to be the fact that every conceivable first or last name disambiguation page would be chock full of everyone who has that first or last name. Rusher as a moniker, though, isn't comparable to a standard last name. It's closer to a stage name, or something like that.

Regardlessregardless, let's look at the other entries in this disambig, under "People". We have a redirect to America's Next Top Model (season 4) with one source for a contestant whose last name is "Rusher". We have a German music producer, but none of the three sources appear to say the word "Rusher" (it's possible that I'm missing a German translation though), but with a fan Facebook page and a discogs that says Rusher. We have a stub about an Olympic rower whose only reference is a 404. We have a fine looking article about a wrestler whose nickname is "Rusher Road". We have a political columnist whose last name is Rusher.

I think TheCampingRusher fits into this list just fine. It doesn't stand out as being a name while all the others aren't, it doesn't stand out as being less sourced, it doesn't stand out as being less notable.

Regarding risk of confusion: it's perfectly reasonable that someone who knows it as just "Rusher" might arrive here. I'm not sure what you mean by saying there is no risk of confusion with the other subjects. The lack of demonstrated usage is the most fair point. However, as I said previously, the demonstrated usage is not that far off from the other bullets in the list. Leijurv (talk) 22:28, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

No, they're referred to as a person (not a channel) in references - I don't think changing the text is appropriate or would solve the underlying issue.

I think the "only if they are reasonably well known by it" portion is what's relevant here regarding disambiguation of names. I don't see why that wouldn't apply to a partial portion of an alias (even though it does specifically mention first/last names).

It doesn't stand out as being a name while all the others aren't, it doesn't stand out as being less sourced, it doesn't stand out as being less notable. Yes, I currently don't see a problem with the categorization (People) nor notability.

Regarding risk of confusion: it's perfectly reasonable that someone who knows it as just "Rusher" might arrive here. Maybe, but again the lack of demonstrated usage does not establish the "significant risk of confusion" necessary for their inclusion on this page. Do we add them to Camping (disambiguation) too because someone might know them by that portion of the alias? That (and in my opinion, their inclusion on this page) is what WP:PARTIAL is trying to prevent.

I'm not sure what you mean by saying there is no risk of confusion with the other subjects. Reiterating the above: the usage of "Rusher" to refer to the subject is not established so we must consider it unlikely that someone will come to this page looking for "TheCampingRusher".

BLDM (talk) 06:48, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Okay, so Rusher is notable, but not by the name "Rusher"? We don't add this to Camping because I don't see any source shortening it to "Camping". How about this passage from the Kotaku source. Most of these players were of course fans of TCR, meaning they considered themselves ‘Rushers,’ not shitlords or trolls. At first, these newcomers were mostly tourists, taking in the same breathtaking and bizarre sights that TCR had so gleefully exposed in his video. But really, conflict with 2b2t veterans was inevitable. The server buckled under the strain of so many players—even a tiny fraction of Rusher’s fanbase could completely overwhelm 2b2t’s hardware and make it unplayable. And if the server managed to survive the overload, most of its roster was filled by Rushers, not veterans. Long-timers of 2b2t are usually hostile to most newcomers (which they call ‘newfags’), so they took to killing Rushers whenever possible. Rushers, who outnumber the original players heavily, responded by destroying bases, resources caches and dismantling large monuments that had stood peacefully for years. This prompted veteran players to start treating Rushers more seriously, as much as giving a shit about anything went against the spirit of the server. FitMC, a self-proclaimed veteran leader and popular YouTuber, has lead some of the most successful responses to Rusher aggression, calling Rushers “clowns” and “punks” and generally mocking their playing ability. The Camping Rusher, to his credit, seems to want to preserve the server: he has discouraged his fans from destroying cool builds or from being too disruptive. He even donated a large chunk of money to 2b2t to offset the effect of his fans overwhelming the server’s hardware. Still, the newcomers were not a good fit with the existing culture of the server: they’ve tried to make certain areas ‘friendlier’, and often treat the server as a loose Factions-style map. Nothing The Camping Rusher could do would make 2b2t’s veterans respect the presence of newbies, and they’ve even taken to calling Rusher a ‘Jewtuber’ in retaliation. Note all the times that it's shortened to just Rusher. Leijurv (talk) 21:56, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

As stated before, the Kotaku article is the only cited source that refers to them by that name (and only 3 times by my count), and it still uses the full name more. In most cases that article is referring to the fanbase as "Rushers" (a different subject). Again, I don't see how those few usages are significant enough for disambiguation. BLDM (talk) 23:15, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

And what's the problem with that? It's an established nickname / abbreviation / whatever you want to call it, in a reliable source. It's more established than most of the other entries already on the list, most of which don't establish at all that they're referred to just as "Rusher". Like seriously the first bullet on this list that I decided to check, cites only this which doesn't even say "Rusher" at all, it just says Brandy. Leijurv (talk) 05:53, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

And what's the problem with that? It's an established nickname / abbreviation / whatever you want to call it, in a reliable source. Do you think those few abbreviated mentions in a single article present significant risk of confusion with the other disambiguated subjects? Does this establish that they are "reasonably well known" by the abbreviation?

It's more established than most of the other entries already on the list, most of which don't establish at all that they're referred to just as "Rusher". Let's fix those too then! Other bad entries on this list shouldn't be used as justification for another one.

BLDM (talk) 06:05, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Let's fix those too then! Other bad entries on this list shouldn't be used as justification for another one. Oh my goodness. I'm establishing a baseline. Your point about partial seems to claim that we need to comparatively look at this list and see if there's significant risk of confusion with the other entries on the list?

But. I still think that is a complete misreading of WP:PARTIAL. Do not add a link that merely contains part of the page title, or a link that includes the page title in a longer proper name, where there is no significant risk of confusion between them. The "them" here is the partial name and the full name, not the subject and the other subjects. You should only add a partial fragment of something when the part could refer to the whole. So, can it?

Add a link only if the article's subject (or the relevant subtopic thereof) could plausibly be referred to by essentially the same name as the disambiguated term in a sufficiently generic context—regardless of the article's title. Keeping in mind WP:EDITDISC and this: Is TheCampingRusher referred to just as Rusher? In the context of a YouTuber, could just the word "rusher" identify his channel? I invite you to maybe try googling like "youtuber rusher" or similar phrases. Can you find any other YouTuber by that name? You can also try who is rusher and notice that TheCampingRusher appears on the each of the first few pages, and I don't see any of these other people. (to be clear, we do have a WP:RS for the abbreviation / nickname, I'm just trying to demonstrate whether it represents risk of confusion and whatnot, which does fall under WP:EDITDISC). Leijurv (talk) 07:19, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Your point about partial seems to claim that we need to comparatively look at this list and see if there's significant risk of confusion with the other entries on the list? Sort of? It's more a question of whether we can establish that readers are likely to arrive at this page looking for the subject.

The "them" here is the partial name and the full name, not the subject and the other subjects. You should only add a partial fragment of something when the part could refer to the whole. So, can it? Sorry, not sure I understand what you're saying here.

In the context of a YouTuber, could just the word "rusher" identify his channel? Any alias abbreviation could be used to identify the subject ("TheCamping", "Camping", "Rusher", "TCR", ...). However, we must establish that he is reasonably well known by those abbreviations for inclusion on the appropriate pages.

I invite you to maybe try googling like "youtuber rusher" or similar phrases This is not a search index - how google resolves that query is not of significance here. I took a brief look at the results and most of them don't even use the abbreviated name. Try searching "TheCamping youtuber" (similar results) to see why we shouldn't rely on this.

BLDM (talk) 15:37, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

It's more a question of whether we can establish that readers are likely to arrive at this page looking for the subject. I'm a little confused. Is this a pivot? I agree that there is no point having a useless entry - TCR should only be listed on this page if we can reasonably conclude it would be helpful. Specifically, that someone who may know of TCR as just "Rusher" could reasonably arrive here looking for TCR. What I don't agree is that we need to establish that someone could confuse TCR with the other entries on this Rusher disambig list, that just doesn't make sense to me.

Sorry, not sure I understand what you're saying here. The WP:PARTIAL page talks about "significant risk of confusion". I think you may have misread this as needing to establish significant risk of confusion between TCR and the other entries on the Rusher disambig. I think it's actually saying that we need to establish significant risk of confusion between "TCR" and "Rusher" (the part vs the whole). If no one would refer to TCR as just Rusher, we shouldn't list TCR on Rusher. If no one would refer to Louieville Zoo as just "Zoo", we shouldn't list Louieville Zoo under Zoo.

Any alias abbreviation could be used to identify the subject Right. That's why we have a WP:RS that uses the abbreviation of "Rusher", but none that use the abbreviation of "TheCamping" or just Camping.

how google resolves that query is not of significance here I was not establishing that that this is one possible abbreviation, the WP:RS does that. I was trying to establish that there is risk of confusion between "Rusher" and "TheCampingRusher". For example, see his new channel here. It is entitled "Rusher - Fortnite" and the background says "TheCampingRusher". I'm not suggesting we cite this. I mean, well, we could, by WP:SELFSOURCE since there is a WP:RS establishing that this is his channel, but this is just WP:EDITDISC so. Leijurv (talk) 21:44, 7 September 2020 (UTC)