Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 March 8

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

March 8[edit]

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

Pleiodon[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was disambiguate. I've left an HTML comment in the draft noting, per Awkwafaba, that the bivalve is actually the primary topic. (non-admin closure) -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 04:23, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pleiodon is a valid genus of mollusc and should not redirect to a genus of grass that was briefly known under this preoccupied name, an article for the mollusc does not yet exist, but can be created easily Armin Reindl (talk) 09:56, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per WP:REDLINK --Lenticel (talk) 01:56, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambig - until a stub is created for the mollusc, the page should be a disambiguation page. When the mollusc page is created, there can be a hatnote. Also, the name was not preoccupied if it was only used for an animal previously, as that would be a separate nomenclature system. There are tons of examples of genera of plants and animals with the same name, we shouldn’t treat this instance any differently. --awkwafaba (📥) 12:58, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • dabify per awkwafaba -- 65.92.246.142 (talk) 13:47, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 19:55, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 23:10, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Disambiguate as suggested; this is a common occurrence. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 09:19, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate for now, as suggested by awkwafaba, who also describes prospective development correctly. William Avery (talk) 11:46, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Elder Llywelyn[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 March 27#Elder Llywelyn

Shelby Harris (supercentenarian)[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 March 17#Shelby Harris (supercentenarian)

∾[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 March 27#∾

Fairytale Love[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 March 16#Fairytale Love

Ulster people[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 March 17#Ulster people

Wikipedia talk:SOAP[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was retarget to Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not. Liz Read! Talk! 05:22, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

  • Retarget per Thryduulf. The term is disambiguated with a hatnote at the target, so there is no problem should a wayward soap opera aficionado happen to arrive there. Paradoctor (talk) 00:01, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per Thryduulf and Paradoctor. ---CX Zoom(he/him) (let's talk|contribs) 14:36, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Draft:Aplusk[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 06:31, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

  • 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)[reply]
Delete "Draft:Aplusk" is not remotely likely as a search term, not encyclopedic in any way. Paradoctor (talk) 00:14, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Western leftism[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 March 15#Western leftism

Sope Willams- Elegbe[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 March 16#Sope Willams- Elegbe

Mass formation[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. This is without prejudice against recreation as a disambiguation or as a proper article. -- Tavix (talk) 18:53, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

  • 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)[reply]
  • Delete per above. --Thesmp (talk) 17:16, 15 February 2022 (UTC) WP:STRIKESOCK. -- Tavix (talk) 18:47, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

  • Comment To me, this should point to Higgs particle, as the Higgs field provides the rest mass to particles in physics. There's also Einsteinian relativity, where kinetics provides mass to particles. And medical oncogenesis, forming masses. -- 65.92.246.142 (talk) 06:37, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete given that several usages of the subject term comprising the two words have been offered, but there is no DAB drafted, we don't know if it is feasible. If there is interest for this to be made a DAB in future, it may be started afresh. In the context of Mattias Desmet, as the term is a translation from German, and there is a draft Draft:Mattias Desmet underway that discusses the subject in a section, when the draft is approved it'll be part of mainspace, and this term if not a DAB by then, can be revisited. Jay (talk) 09:04, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and consideration should be given to creating a disambiguation page to replace it. Gusfriend (talk) 02:06, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2022_March_8&oldid=1079488149"