Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 March 8

< March 7

March 9 >

March 8

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on March 8, 2022.

Fairytale Love

• Fairytale Love → Fairytale (Eneda Tarifa song)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Possibly a working title, not mentioned on the target or related articles. Suggest delete unless there is a better target in which this would be useful. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 18:28, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Ulster people

• Ulster people → People of Northern Ireland  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

More commonly used to refer to Ulster Scots people. Retarget to Ulster Scots people. Olchug (talk) 18:28, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Strong oppose This is astonishingly ill-informed. Ulster Scots are only one grouping within the people of Ulster and are a minority thereof. (That said, the current redirect is questionable as Northern Ireland is only part of Ulster). Mutt Lunker (talk) 18:42, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

I never said that all the people of Ulster are Ulster Scots. I just stated that the term 'Ulster people' usually means Ulster Scots people. Naturally, the term can also mean simply a resident of Ulster.--Olchug (talk) 18:43, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

It absolutely doesn't mean that, ever, let alone "usually". Your multi-article campaign of the last two hours is becoming a menace. Mutt Lunker (talk) 18:49, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Please study this. And count when 'Ulster people' means Ulster Scots people and when it means just resident of Ulster. Olchug (talk) 18:50, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Nothing supportive that I can see. It's up to you to do the work as you're advancing the proposition. Cite quotes. Mutt Lunker (talk) 18:56, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

for example The Ulster People: Ancient, Medieval and Modern, Ban-gor. 10 Lunney, L., 1994,“Ulster attitudes of Scottishness: The eighteenth century and after” Olchug (talk) 19:03, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

What about it? Mutt Lunker (talk) 19:05, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Check this source. There 'Ulster People' means 'Ulster Scots people'. Olchug (talk) 19:08, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:SOAP

• Wikipedia talk:SOAP → Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Soap Operas  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Wikipedia:SOAP and its talk page, each redirect to very different places. Currently:

WP:SOAP → Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion

WT:SOAP → Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Soap Operas

-- DB1729 (talk) 11:10, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

• Comment our soaps community use WP:SOAPS plural rather than the singular WP:SOAP, so I'd advise retargeting WT:SOAP to the guideline since we already have WT:SOAPS to redirect to the soap community talk page. – DarkGlow • 11:18, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
• Retarget to match WP:SOAP. There are no incomming links intended for the WikiProject (there are at WT:SOAPS) so it seems unlikely that this will cause any significant disruption. Thryduulf (talk) 12:23, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Delete WT:SOAP. No need to redirect to a talk page for a section imo, and ambiguous. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 05:25, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 15:29, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Draft:Aplusk

• Draft:Aplusk → Ashton Kutcher  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Delete Only edit is the creation by now-blocked user, and of course not mentioned in the target. Should be a prohibition on de novo creation of redirects in the draftspace, like this one was. UnitedStatesian (talk) 06:20, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

• Ashton Kutcher's twitter handle, would have made sense if it was not in draftspace. Delete as an improper draft redirect. Jay (talk) 15:49, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Western leftism

• Western leftism → Baizuo  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

I'm not sure the target page can be considered the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC or that it's a neutral destination. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 07:06, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

• Comment the target notes this redirect in a hatnote and suggests readers might be interesting in the general left-wing politics article. Google results show the current target to be the single most common thing referred to, but nowhere near primary topic over various different leftist groups/people/ideologies/parties in the cultural West with exact meaning depending heavily on context. I need to think more about this. Thryduulf (talk) 09:32, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:13, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Sope Willams- Elegbe

• Sope Willams- Elegbe → Sope Willams Elegbe  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Name of redirect is not viable with the space but page contains some historic content and actually pre-dates existing article page. The redirect Sope Willams-Elegbe already exists with content. Djm-leighpark (talk) 03:49, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:11, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

• Sope Willams- Elegbe started as a draft Nov 12, 2020 and Sope Willams Elegbe started as an article on Feb 22, 2021, both from the same editor Zend2020. The article may have been a copy of the draft, although the article creator did not mention the source. If there is nothing additional at the redirect's content to merge to the target, we can delete it since the nom has attributed User:Pallet182 (the only other editor till Feb 22, 2021) at the target's talk. Or is there a standard format for attribution at the talk page?

If there is no support for delete but the typo at the redirect title is a concern, we can move it to Sope Willams-Elegbe, but we need to delete that redirect first, and that is another content fork mess. Jay (talk) 06:48, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Mass formation

• Mass formation → Group Psychology and the Analysis of the Ego  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Used in a wide variety of contexts in academic literature, from fluid dynamics to microbiology to applied medicine. Not well-described anywhere on Wikipedia, although "Mass formation psychosis" is discussed in some detail at Robert_W._Malone#COVID-19. Given the circumstances, I think that deletion to allow for search results is appropriate. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:23, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Do you have a number of substantive examples of "mass formation" being used in other fields as a standalone phrase (i.e., not as "XXX mass formation", which is usually to be parsed as "[XXX mass] formation" not as "XXX [mass formation]" and therefore irrelevant)? Google hits at the moment reveal overwhelming support for this being used in the context of "mass formation psychosis" (correctly parsed as "[mass formation] psychosis"), which is a term apparently invented by Mattias Desmet (not Robert Malone) based on the real term "mass formation" used by Freud in this book. There's no question that--regardless of its veracity--"mass formation" is a significant concept in public discourse at the moment and that this book is its origin... Bueller 007 (talk) 19:31, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

The most common result after discarding "[XXX mass] formation"-form results is for mass formation in medical contexts: [1], [2], [3]. These are just a small sample, I scrolled through 6 pages of GScholar results for "mass formation" -water (as "water mass formation" is the most common result for the [XXX mass] form) and found no results about psychology, group or otherwise. Can you provide any scholarly examples where "mass formation" is invoked without the phrase "psychosis" to refer to the social psychology usage? _signed, Rosguill ^talk 15:13, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Given the current association with COVID misinformation, any change to an article (or disambig) should probably be workshopped in draft space first. Bakkster Man (talk) 19:41, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 19:24, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

• Delete: the expression can refer to numerous phenomenons as pointed out in the nom. Furthermore, it can also refer to the biological phenomenon of how a mass of fat is formed, or to the geological phenomenon of how a mass of rock or sand is formed. Veverve (talk) 11:52, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
• Delete per above. --Thesmp (talk) 17:16, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
• DABify. If there are a bunch of expressions that this term refers to, then making a useful disambiguation page seems better than just deleting it. — Mhawk10 (talk) 23:02, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix ^(talk) 00:08, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

• Relisting comment @Mhawk10: What would a disambiguation look like? Do you have examples of articles that "mass formation" may refer to? -- Tavix ^(talk) 00:10, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
• Keep/make a proper article about the phenomenon who tells it exists, who tells it is a hoax. Also a redirect page if the term is also used in other fields. Desmet (the professor who translated the term from massavorming (Dutch) and Massenbildung (German) and connected it to covid has published his Dutch book. The book is just out and already sold out 2x, in reprint now. In the Summer the English edition occurs. He refers in the book to Elias Canetti, Gustave le Bon, Hannah Arendt as the fundament for the descriptions of what 'mass formation' (Freuds Massenbildung in German) is. The experts mentioned by Reuters (and copied by many msm-channels) can be put under a paragraph 'Criticism about the existence of the term'. Or put in the introduction as a source that the term is speculative. Denying the Belgium professor and head of the clinical psychology department doesn't really solve the case. In fact, the paradox here is even, that Reuters and the cited experts are under a spell of mass formation even, according to Desmet (now it gets weird, but you have to read the book to understand that jump). https://www.amazon.co.uk/psychologie-van-totalitarisme-Mattias-Desmet/dp/946401539X/ref=sr_1_4?qid=1646307290&refinements=p_27%3AMattias+Desmet&s=books&sr=1-4

Or include the term in Crowd psychology or Group dynamics with a good description. Everybody knows sheep form a mass formation when they get scared. One guy on the dancefloor triggers the other people to join, etc.. It is weird that this is denied. Mass formation is not mass psychosis, it exists and we all know that. Le Bon is mentioned as the first source in the article group dynamics. Desmet refers to him as the one who described the phenomenon as well.

In addition this graphic novel explains very well how the term massavorming/mass formation popped up actually in Belgium and the Netherlands. It describes the recent history of Desmets media appearance and how it is connected to Ad Verbrugge (professor philosophy at Leiden University and prominent Dutch thinker with 10 books): https://medium.com/@yurilandman/dissident-in-20-21-yuri-landman-aa3b8c7e9585 Note: of course that graphic novel is not a RS about the term itsself, but it gives good info about the historic background what actually happened with Desmet and the media, and it can be a source for that. Reuters is not a RS for that history. 2A02:A443:5030:1:140:6FB2:699E:BDF3 (talk) 11:58, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This discussion is all over the map.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:10, 8 March 2022 (UTC)