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. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:48, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Land of Bengali language → Bangladesh  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Implausible search term. But even if allowed to stand, it should be retargeted to Bengal. See also WP:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 March 28#Land of independent Bengalis. Nickps (talk) 16:26, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:XY. Is this meant to refer to the language spoken in the land of the Bengali, or to the land where the Bengali language is spoken? Both are implausible, anyway. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:32, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This would be a plausible search term if it was the literal meaning of "Bangladesh" but according to Bangladesh#Etymology the country name means "Land of Bengal" or "Country of Bengal". Names of Bengal#Terminology in detail gives the meaning of "Bangladesh" as "Bengali country", which is closer but per the rest of that section not "Land of Bengali language". Thryduulf (talk) 18:40, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete since the language is not exclusive to the target, though the language may have originated at the target. Steel1943 (talk) 21:00, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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).

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. ✗plicit 14:06, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Brenda from Bristol → 2017 United Kingdom general election  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Brenda from Bristol is a woman who is the star of a viral video and subsequent meme ("You're joking, not another one") related to the 2017 UK general election [1] but there is no mention of her in the article, nor was there when the redirect was created in September 2020 (WikiBlame isn't working so I don't know if she or the video/meme has ever been mentioned) so the redirect is unhelpful. I've not found any mention elsewhere. Thryduulf (talk) 13:14, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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).

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 no consensus, retarget. Per WP:TRAINWRECK, there were basically two different discussions taking place that left editors at a fundamental divide, re: the necessity of a capitalized "Stadium" redirect. Despite this, there was general consensus that if a target were to exist, it would go to the disambig page for Superdome, which contains a number of titles that can reasonably be interpreted as "stadiums". (non-admin closure) Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 23:57, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Superdome (Stadium) → Caesars Superdome  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 
• Superdome (stadium) → Caesars Superdome  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

I believe this to be an ambiguous term and, as such, it should be redirected to Superdome, where there are four stadiums that go by/have gone by this name. Bringing this here due to a dispute on the target with Abhiramakella. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:02, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Burswood Dome and the Sydney SuperDome are arenas, not stadiums. Abhiramakella (talk) 17:33, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete the correct title Superdome (stadium) already redirects to the DAB since "stadium" isn't a proper noun its arguably an WP:RDAB redirect. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:04, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Stadium is a proper noun. Abhiramakella (talk) 16:39, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  The usage of "[Ss]tadium" in the disambiguator is not a proper noun. In other words, the subject at Stadium (capitalized in Wikipedia because the first letter of a title always needs to be capitalized), the subject referenced in the disambiguator, is not a proper noun. Steel1943 (talk) 22:03, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget per nom. The capitalisation of the disambiguator does not magically make this somehow implausible. Thryduulf (talk) 22:04, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I agree, the capitalization is not something I was at all considering. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:33, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per Crouch, Swale. The very low pageviews since its recent creation leads me to believe this is not a common typographical choice or error. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 22:33, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Crouch, Swale and WP:TROUT the redirect's creator for creating a redirect with a disambiguator containing improper capitalization ... since they have recently created several such redirects. Steel1943 (talk) 23:23, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:RDAB as per Crouch, Swale. A note that RDAB specifically lists capitalization of (Disambiguation) as something to delete. Lunamann 🌙🌙🌙 The Moooooooniest (talk) 23:47, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Keep as per Abhiramakella. While 'stadium' is not, in fact, a proper noun, Abhiramakella is correct in that the Caesars Superdome is the only stadium we have information on that is referred to by the moniker "Superdome". While it is true that 'arena' and 'stadium' are often used as synonyms, technically, a stadium is open to the sky, while an arena has a roof. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 01:45, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Wait, hold on, Caesars Superdome has a roof. Withdrawing vote entirely now, is Caesar's Superdome a stadium!?!? 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 01:50, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  A stadium can have a roof. Abhiramakella (talk) 17:37, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  ...then what the heck is the difference between the two? If it's a distinction without a difference, then this needs to go to the DAB. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 19:36, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This redirect should be kept to Caesars Superdome because that is the only stadium in which that was nicknamed "Superdome". Abhiramakella (talk) 16:54, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This in no way addresses why you capitalized the disambiguator unnecessarily, and then apparently created the redirect with proper disambiguation capitalization, Superdome (stadium), about a month later. Steel1943 (talk) 17:01, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Capitalization errors happen often. Just because a page name has an incorrect way of capitalization does not mean that it should not be redirected to a page. Abhiramakella (talk) 17:30, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Our search function automagically detects capitalization differences, and without this redirect, the search function would treat a query for "Superdome (Stadium)" as if it were a query for "Superdome (stadium)" and redirect appropriately. Lunamann 🌙🌙🌙 The Moooooooniest (talk) 17:50, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Using incorrect subject capitalization on disambiguators can be problematic, considering that means the incorrectly-capitalized title can be linked (which is bad in the case of disambiguators since it doesn't hint to the editor that a correction needs to be made to the title), and it can obscure other functionalities in Wikipedia, such as assessing page views of a redirects' usage. I think Lunamann hit the nail on the head there: typing a differently-capitalized title in the search function will result in going to the closest capitalization match, which would be "Superdome (stadium)" if the nominated redirect is deleted and can validate deleting the nominated redirect over keeping it, considering all else I have stated. (Not sure if this is enough for me to advocate changing WP:RDAB to accommodate this, but it sure is leading me that direction.) Steel1943 (talk) 22:12, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think with the exception of the fact redirects not including the word "disambiguation" in the title don't interfere with disambiguation link fixes the same principals apply. In the case of Ø (Disambiguation) the title is a name not a qualifier so RDAB wouldn't apply even if it was a redirect to an article. 501(c)(3) is an example or what would not be an RDAB redirect. Crouch, Swale (talk) 22:27, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe those examples should be included in RDAB, as examples of what NOT to delete. Lunamann 🌙🌙🌙 The Moooooooniest (talk) 00:56, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Steel1943 and Lunamann: Our search function automagically detects capitalization differences this is only true for some methods of finding Wikipedia content and cannot be relied on. The points about making it harder to use some tools are irrelevant - firstly we should always prioritise readers over editors and that means we fix our tools to work with the encyclopaedia rather than "fixing" the encyclopaedia (usually when it's not actually broken) to work with our tools; secondly if it were relevant it would be a reason to delete every redirect that differs only in capitalisation. When plausible miscapitalisations occur outside parentheses we keep the redirect because we recognise how valuable they are to readers, when plausible miscapitalisations occur inside parentheses we should do the same because they are equally valuable to readers. Thryduulf (talk) 01:26, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Because readers are unlikely to look for a title with incorrect capitalizations. Readers qualifying titles like Wikipedia will expect them to be the way we correctly title things. WP:UNNATURAL notes i.e. an error specific to Wikipedia titling conventions that would likely not be arrived at naturally by readers, thereby adding to the implausibility. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:30, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Readers do look for titles with incorrect capitalisations - that's why we have Category:Redirects from miscapitalizations and nobody has ever provided any evidence that they distinguish between words inside and outside of parentheses. The fact that these redirects keep getting created is yet more evidence that people do arrive here naturally and so do benefit from their existence. Also note that what you quote is referring to things like missing parentheses not capitalisation. Thryduulf (talk) 21:47, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RDAB makes reference to "(Disambiguation)". Crouch, Swale (talk) 21:57, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RDAB is an essay expressing opinions that reflect very varying levels of consensus for it's disparate points. On this point it is harmfully wrong. Thryduulf (talk) 23:21, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

...One more place where WP:COSTLY is itself costly, huh? I've already written a counterargument piece regarding WP:PANDORA lol, am waiting on an opportunity to use it 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 01:37, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think the point is that there is a limit to redirects being cheap and creating them for incorrectly capitalized qualifiers crosses the line of not being useful while creating clutter since deleting them enables search to correct the capitalization and keeping/maintaining such redirects though not particularly costly is reduced by not having such redirects. Crouch, Swale (talk) 20:45, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are right. Abhiramakella (talk) 17:45, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 07:16, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This is another one of those discussions in which a convention has apparently been established (in this case to delete redirects with capitalized disambiguators) without any coherent rationale, and has then been challenged. Well, that means the convention must go, lest circular reasoning prevail over logic. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 17:00, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• @Hey man im josh: While the nomination was about ambiguity, and not capitalization, and the discussion turned towards the capitalization nuances, the redirect creator went ahead and changed the target of the lowercase Superdome (stadium) to Caesars Superdome as well. If your concern with ambiguity still stands, do you want to bundle that to this nomination? Jay 💬 17:17, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Jay: I do think it makes sense to bundle the two in a discussion. I hadn't actually realized an "issue" about the capitalization until the conversation went in that direction. I think the spirit of my nomination, and the concerns stated, still stand if the other user chooses to try to change the target without discussion. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:22, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Bundling in Superdome (stadium). I suggest pivoting the discussion to the redirects' targets rather than general arguments about the capitalization of disambiguators.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 06:45, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Unbundle. The fact that the discussion has focused on the capitalization means that introducing the non-capitalized version so late in the discussion (discussion has been open for almost a month now) is asking for a WP:TRAINWRECK. Steel1943 (talk) 10:18, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Agree, while they should both target the same place if kept I still don't think the title case version should be kept. Crouch, Swale (talk) 21:07, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget both to the DAB as a {{R from incomplete disambiguation}}. As noted above, Arena vs Stadium is a distinction without a difference, especially here, given the difference-maker I've seen cited is does it have a roof or not, and... all of the buildings under the "Superdome" moniker that we have information on, seem to have an eponymous dome-shaped roof.
  I would like anyone challenging this idea to please, for the love of all that is holy, tell me the difference between an arena and a stadium. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 13:19, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget both to the DAB, per Lunamann. The purported distinction between an arena and a stadium doesn't help in this instance, and even if it did most readers will be unaware of the distinction. Rosbif73 (talk) 15:48, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget both to the DAB. It's an ambiguous moniker, we have a disambiguator for it, use it. Fieari (talk) 05:36, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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).

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 no consensus with several keep !votes indicating that they may feel differently about it in the future. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 14:16, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Shōgun (upcoming miniseries) → Shōgun (2024 miniseries)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Delete in the spirit of WP:UFILM. Low page views, target released over a month ago. Steel1943 (talk) 21:22, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep for now. 59 page views in the last 30 days is not even remotely "low page views". This is a ridiculously inappropriate nomination. Thryduulf (talk) 02:04, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Hasn't hit my "10+/day average over the last 30 days" bar. Steel1943 (talk) 13:33, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  And in what universe is inconveniencing nine users per day remotely appropriate!? One a day on average is more than enough empirical evidence of use to demonstrate that deletion would cause harm. Thryduulf (talk) 13:57, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  ...And obviously, and repeatedly, my stance is not nearly as strict as yours, and I see the existence of the redirect as harmful due to the now erroneous disambiguator. (It's getting to a point where we should probably just have some long, drawn out philosophical conversation on Wikipedia and then link to that conversation for other participants and closers alike.) Steel1943 (talk) 18:06, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I understand your stance is different, but I fundamentally disagree with it. It is harmful to readers (and thus harmful to the encyclopaedia) to be left with search results (or sometimes be several clicks away from search results) that may or may not include the article they are looking for than to be taken directly to the content they want to read, which informs them that it is no longer upcoming. The sole purpose of redirects is to help readers, and we should not be deleting them until it is clear they have stopped helping people. How you can look at empirical evidence of a redirect helping multiple people almost every day and declare it appropriate to delete is both incomprehensible and offensive. Thryduulf (talk) 12:03, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. InfiniteNexus (talk) 04:55, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm very concerned at all these "per nom" comments when the nomination is factually incorrect. Thryduulf (talk) 11:56, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Thryduulf, let this one cook for a bit. In addition, and in reply to Thryduulf's concern: I rarely see such being brought up in RfD (we seem to quite blatantly flout this one, actually), but teeeeechnically we're not supposed to give "per nom" comments much if any weight, as per WP:PERNOM. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 12:35, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Per nom" !votes are completely fine when the nomination is correct, relevant and there are no other factors identified so at RfD we rightly ignore that part of the essay. The votes are not fine when there are problems with the nomination (as in this example). Thryduulf (talk) 13:57, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. -- Tavix ^(talk) 22:01, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Redstar0005 ^{talk to me!} 22:35, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 06:28, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Thryduulf. We shouldn't delete a redirect that is being used by readers with relative frequency. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 13:03, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. We can delete it in the future when the page views get lower. I don't think a simple incorrect title of "upcoming" is particularly harmful when as soon as you arrive at the destination it is clear it's been released. Skynxnex (talk) 19:22, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep for now, without prejudice for renomination a little later when usage dies down. A few more days/weeks won't hurt, and I'm sure usage will die down soon enough. Just don't jump the gun. Fieari (talk) 04:23, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• The show is still airing and the target has received 2.5 million pageviews this month, so I'm essentially turning a blind eye. Technically a misleading redirect, but like, eh. The final three episodes are still upcoming, I guess. Not really fired up about cusp deletion. (Technically the show did not release "over a month ago" during the initial nom statement, as it had a Feb 27 series release compared to a Mar 27 RfD, an exact month which toes the recommended line of WP:UFILM to the maximum, i.e. 28 days of release compared to UFILM's recommended 30. Will certainly !delete this redirect later, but for now it's like... 😶‍🌫️). Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 06:49, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Also bundle Shōgun (upcoming TV series). Jay 💬 13:54, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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).

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. ✗plicit 14:06, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Next Goal Wins (upcoming film) → Next Goal Wins (2023 film)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Delete per WP:UFILM. Minimal page views, target article's subject was released over a month ago. Steel1943 (talk) 21:52, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep for now. This isn't as clear cut as the Great Expectations one below, but it's still getting hits in the same pattern as it has been getting for months indicating that it is still being used. Thryduulf (talk) 02:00, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. InfiniteNexus (talk) 04:55, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Thryduulf, non-minimal page views are proof that someone still finds this useful. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 12:39, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. -- Tavix ^(talk) 22:11, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 06:27, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Most of the recent pageviews are likely due to the RfD discussion. Before nomination, there were very few. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 13:07, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete this misleading redirect, target is not upcoming and has been released for several months. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 06:47, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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).

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 Hilbert space#Fourier analysis. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 14:14, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Hilbert Spaces and Fourier analysis → Fourier series  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 
• Hilbert spaces and Fourier analysis → Hilbert space  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

WP:XY; but possibly retarget to Fourier analysis. 1234qwer1234qwer4 01:32, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:XY Johnjbarton (talk) 02:01, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Refine to Hilbert space#Fourier analysis, where this is discussed. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 03:15, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or retarget. The page history has some potentially useful content, and it's not clear whether any was merged in the process of redirecting. See [2] Tito Omburo (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 09:34, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Tito Omburo Just merge that content into Hilbert spaces if you think it is useful. I do not: no references. Johnjbarton (talk) 14:54, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, ok, changing to delete. Tito Omburo (talk) 18:55, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Bundle with Hilbert Spaces and Fourier analysis, then retarget/refine both as per Presidentman. These need to be judged together, given how close they are to each other-- either they need to target the same place, or both should be deleted. As for target/deletion, we have a place where the intersection of the two concepts is discussed-- therefore, as per WP:XY, we should target there. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 11:03, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

One of these redirects has a history, while the other is a redirect left upon a move (and can harmlessly be deleted without much further discussion). So they aren't exactly the same. Tito Omburo (talk) 12:17, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Refine to Hilbert space#Fourier analysis per Presidentman and Lunamann. A7V2 (talk) 04:41, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 06:14, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bundled these discussions, as the comments were essentially identical. If anyone disagrees, feel free to revert this edit without notifying me. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 06:20, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Don't really feel like this had to be relisted, but I'm fine with the proposed target fwiw. 1234qwer1234qwer4 11:34, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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).

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 keep. Thanks for adding a mention! (non-admin closure) Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 23:51, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Despite all my rage → Bullet with Butterfly Wings  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Lyric not mentioned in page (we've had a lot of these at RfD recently). Rusalkii (talk) 21:42, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep? This is one of those "people might not know the title of the song, but they remember the chorus" songs, partially because it's a song whose title never shows up in the lyrics. Given the second half of the chorus line ("rat in a cage") DOES show up naturally in the article, I can see the article being rewritten to fit the full line in ("Despite all my rage, I'm still just a rat in a cage"). In addition, starting the search with "Despite all my rage..." would arguably be more plausible of a search than simply searching for the ending four words of the line (..."rat in a cage"). 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 23:40, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:13, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, and find a reliable source (which should not be hard) I have added a New York Times article that comments on this noteworthy lyric. BD2412 T 03:05, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Per Lunamann, and it seems the lyric has been added as well. Fieari (talk) 04:25, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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).