Talk:Pixie dust

Aside from the apparently dated information presented as current ("this summer" etc.), the article seems to be mashing two subjects into one (technology and mythology) when they would be better served as seperate articles. --Numsgil 01:41, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This page should be tagged. It needs heavy editing. - 67.171.225.67 01:36, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe even deletion. I know there isn't enough to say about the Disney conception of the stuff to make an article about it. - JasonAQuest (talk) 15:20, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fact vs. Fiction

This article says right in the opening sentence that it is about a fictional substance. Please don't add information about something in the real world that goes by the same name. Create a separate article about it if it's notable enough. - JasonAQuest (talk) 18:06, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect

I don't know why this is tagged for the Occult and Paranormal wikiprojects, because there's nothing related to that in this article. I don't even see any evidence that pixie dust is "real" in the sense of being something that was found in legend or folklore before J.M. Barrie made it up for his Peter Pan story. In other words, it doesn't appear that anyone seriously believes (or believed) it exists, even in an occult or paranormal context. Furthermore, this article seems to act as nothing more than a magnet for unsourced anecdotal trivia about how somebody somewhere called something "pixie dust". So I propose redirecting this to Tinker Bell or Disney Fairies. - JasonAQuest (talk) 17:22, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've redirected to Tinker Bell, which is what all of the sort-of-information in the article was about. - JasonAQuest (talk) 20:40, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've restored the redirect, because the material dumped back into this article was a mixture of unsourced original research, nonsense, and material that belongs in the articles about Peter Pan and Tinker Bell. I've salvaged the few bits of actual info and placed them in the appropriate articles. I've seen no justification restoring this as an article; it is not a subject that warrants one. - Jason A. Quest (talk) 01:36, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm redirecting this to the disambiguation page because "pixie dust" now has multiple meanings.--Chris (talk) 06:43, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No it doesn't. It's been used in various places as a metaphor. Just because someone says "X is like pixie dust" or "X is so magical that we call it 'pixie dust'" that doesn't make it a popular use of the phrase. This is not a list of every possible thing that's been called "pixie dust". Please see WP:DAB: "A disambiguation page is not a list of dictionary definitions." - Jason A. Quest (talk) 12:19, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Again, after removing the redundant items, cruft, and a barely-notable X-Men character (referenced in a hatnote on the Tinker Bell article), we're back to a simple redirect. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 22:31, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]