This article is within the scope of WikiProject Correction and Detention Facilities, a project which is currently considered to be defunct.Correction and Detention FacilitiesWikipedia:WikiProject Correction and Detention FacilitiesTemplate:WikiProject Correction and Detention FacilitiesCorrection and Detention Facilities articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Canada on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CanadaWikipedia:WikiProject CanadaTemplate:WikiProject CanadaCanada-related articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.WomenWikipedia:WikiProject WomenTemplate:WikiProject WomenWikiProject Women articles
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The result of the move request was: moved. Clear consensus below that the proposed tell is less ambiguous than the current title. (closed by non-admin page mover) estar8806 (talk) ★ 17:59, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
support per nom—blindlynx 18:45, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per WP:DIFFCAPS as totally unnecessary. Prison for Women gets about 65 times as many hits as Prison for women[1], meaning almost no one is winding up on the wrong article, and for the rare reader who might be, there's already a hatnote. Station1 (talk) 19:09, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support I think this is a case where the title is simply too generic, and per WP:RECOGNIZABLE the proposed change will benefit readers. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:58, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Incarceration of women has 1,086 views compared with only 332[[2]] for this one. Suggest disambiguating this title. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:02, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
But prison for women got only 9 views for that same time period.[3] - Station1 (talk) 17:49, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirects are never going to get as many pageviews as real articles because of link traffic. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:55, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's true but the impact is minimal. The vast majority of views for most articles come through external and internal searches. With such a huge discrepancy between prison for women and Prison for Women, even if we assumed most views come from links, the article would still get 20 or 30 times the hits. Station1 (talk) 19:23, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
External searches are also going to be biased against redirects. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:24, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's why if you google "prison for women" you'll see our article Incarceration of women. Fewer than 1% of that article's views, fewer than 2 per week, come through the prison for women redirect. If that redirect is almost useless, why would Prison for Women as a redirect be any more useful, especially since we have an article about a topic actually called Prison for Women that gets 16 hits per day? Station1 (talk) 04:36, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
