Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 May 21

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 23:45, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Jersey Wiki → 2021 Jersey dispute  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Unlikely search term for the target, delete unless a justification can be provided. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:22, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Don't see what Wiki has got to do with the dispute. Jay (talk) 15:26, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. While appending "wiki" to the search term on Google or other external search engine can be a way to signify you are looking for the Wikipedia article, that is not a useful search term internally as it would apply equally to every other article. Given we have articles about wikis with common words as the first part of their name (e.g. Meatball / MeatballWiki, Rational / RationalWiki) this search term is equally likely to be looking for an article about a Wiki devoted to Jersey (Jerripedia exists but is not notable) or perhaps New Jersey. Thryduulf (talk) 19:43, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This appears to be a misguided attempt to anticipate what search terms people might use on Google etc. when looking for the article. Clearly we should not have a redirect for every subject on Wikipedia with the word 'wiki' appended to it. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 10:51, 27 May 2021 (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.

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 23:46, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Fernsehen → Television  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Inappropriate use of WP:RLOTE as it is a common word or concept (German for "television") Eyesnore 17:58, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment should this redirect to Television in Germany? AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 09:42, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I don't think it should be retargeted to Television in Germany, because Germany isn't the only German-speaking country (for instance, I think Television in Austria would be an equally valid target). —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 07:49, 23 May 2021 (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.

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 Deleted per G7. Hog Farm _Talk 01:59, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Kezhual → Casual (subculture)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] *Kazhual → Casual (subculture)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Kezhualy → Casual (subculture)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Kazhualy → Casual (subculture)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Kazhuals → Casual (subculture)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Kezhuals → Casual (subculture)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Thesee spellings are not mentioned at the target; internet search results are primarily Russian transliterations of "casual" that do not appear to be related to this subculture. Delete unless a justification can be provided. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:57, 21 May 2021 (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.

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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request undeletion of these articles. ✗plicit 04:03, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Year in Review 10th Century → 10th century  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

• Year in Review 11th Century → 11th century  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

• Year in Review 12th Century → 12th century  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

• Year in Review 13th Century → 13th century  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

• Year in Review 14th Century → 14th century  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

• Year in Review 15th Century → 15th century  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

• Year in Review 16th Century → 16th century  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

• Year in Review 17th Century → 17th century  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

• Year in Review 18th Century → 18th century  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

• Year in Review 19th Century → 19th century  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

• Year in Review 20th Century → 20th century  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

• Year in Review 21st Century → 20th century  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

• Year in Review 10th Century BC → 10th century BC  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

• Year in Review 11th Century BC → 11th century BC  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

• Year in Review 12th Century BC → 12th century BC  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

• Year in Review 13th Century BC → 13th century BC  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

• Year in Review 14th Century BC → 14th century BC  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

• Year in Review 15th Century BC → 15th century BC  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

• Year in Review 16th Century BC → 16th century BC  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

• Year in Review 17th Century BC → 17th century BC  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

• Year in Review 22nd Century BC → 22nd century BC  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

• Year in Review 2nd Century → 2nd century  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

• Year in Review 3rd Century → 3rd century  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

• Year in Review 4th Century → 4th century  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

• Year in Review 5th Century → 5th century  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

• Year in Review 6th Century → 6th century  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

• Year in Review 7th Century → 7th century  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

• Year in Review 8th Century → 8th century  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

• Year in Review 9th Century → 9th century  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

• Year in Review 2nd Century BC → 2nd century BC  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

• Year in Review 3rd Century BC → 3rd century BC  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

• Year in Review 4th Century BC → 4th century BC  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

• Year in Review 5th Century BC → 5th century BC  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

• Year in Review 6th Century BC → 6th century BC  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

• Year in Review 7th Century BC → 7th century BC  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

• Year in Review 8th Century BC → 8th century BC  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

• Year in Review 9th Century BC → 9th century BC  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Unlikely search terms. Were used for navigation back in 2002 before being redirected, but these aren't useful redirects. Elli (talk | contribs) 17:54, 13 May 2021 (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.

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 Jonas (TV series)#Casting. (non-admin closure) feminist (+) 03:52, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Robert Feggans → Jonas Brothers  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not mentioned in the target, or any other article, with the exception of Sonny with a Chance (season 1), which wouldn't be a useful target. Having inquired at the target talk page, there doesn't seem to be any interest in adding a mention there. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 19:34, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Jonas (TV series)#Recurring where there is a description. Jay (talk) 09:12, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The description seems to be of a fictional character he plays (albeit a semi-autobiographical one), which tells the reader next to nothing about Feggans himself; I'd probably still favour deleting. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 16:45, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • How about Jonas (TV series)#Casting where it says he is their real life bodyguard playing the fictional bodyguard. Jay (talk) 17:42, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget per Jay given no mention. The Talk page conversation (or lack of) is now at Archive 2 (and so unlikely to attract any further attention). Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 12:42, 14 May 2021 (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.

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 Holy Spirit in Judaism. Uanfala's suggestion is not without merit, but this has been open for a month, and this is the best consensus we have now. --BDD (talk) 01:13, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Rooah → Spirit  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not mentioned in target article (the article now at spirit (animating force) used to be a the base name, and it's not mentioned there or explained anywhere on Wikipedia as far as I can tell) (t · c) buidhe 22:37, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete An old version claims rooah to be a variant spelling of ruach, in which case WP:RFOREIGN applies. Certes (talk) 23:52, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why not redirect to the article that covers the concept then? That's Holy Spirit in Judaism (which is the target of Ruach). – Uanfala (talk) 14:37, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    If there's any evidence that rooah is Hebrew for Holy Spirit then yes, that would be a valid target because the language is relevant to the topic. Certes (talk) 14:52, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Well, ruach is the Hebrew word for 'spirit' (as documented in the article), and rooah is a straightforward alternative/incorrect anglicisation of that word. – Uanfala (talk) 13:23, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Holy Spirit in Judaism per Uanfala. Rooah is an alternative to Ruah which already refers to Ruach. Jay (talk) 22:53, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Holy Spirit in Judaism per User:Uanfala and User:Jay. JIP | Talk 22:30, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• JIP and Jay: Ruah is a disambiguation page, and as far as I can see rooah is a plausible misspelling for any of the other entries there. – Uanfala (talk) 14:54, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  And rooah could also be an alternative to ruh which is the Holy Spirit in the Quran and is consistent with the Hebrew Bible. So probably Retarget to the base article Holy Spirit. I have added this Rfd at that talk page to see if there is any interest. Jay (talk) 18:15, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Retarget to Holy Spirit in Judaism per Apaugasma's explanation of the "-akh/-ah" ending. Jay (talk) 18:24, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Holy Spirit in Judaism: the Hebrew word ruach/ruah and the Arabic word rūḥ are cognates (both meaning "wind", "breath", "spirit"), but the "-akh/-ah" ending is typical for Hebrew. I don't think someone looking for the Arabic rūḥ would naturally transliterate "rooah", but in Hebrew yes. Apaugasma (talk|contribs) 23:06, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to the dab Ruah. If rooah is a plausible misspelling for ruah, then I don't see any reason why it should be more plausible as a misspelling for one given ruah rather than another. The Hebrew ruach is one of several entries on the dab page. – Uanfala (talk) 20:35, 28 May 2021 (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.

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 Perfect 10 (disambiguation). The move that was being discussed here is out of the scope of RfD and should be requested at WP:RM if necessary. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris ^talk! 18:44, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Perfect Ten → Perfect Ten (album)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Ambiguous title; retarget to dab at Perfect 10 (disambiguation). 162 etc. (talk) 15:20, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Move Perfect Ten (album) to Perfect Ten. There is only one topic on WP titled "Perfect Ten" (which is different than "Perfect 10" per WP:SMALLDETAILS), and most people typing out "Ten" will probably want the album. At the time Perfect Ten (album) was created in 2019, it should have been written right over the redirect. This will simply reverse the longstanding redirect. A hatnote will take care of the rare reader wanting "10". Station1 (talk) 15:29, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"10" and "Ten" can easily be confused for each other. 10 (disambiguation) is not a standalone page, it redirects to the main dab at Ten. Likewise, "Perfect Ten"/"Perfect 10" should share a disambiguation page, and this album is not the primary topic. 162 etc. (talk) 15:37, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

10 and Ten are not directly relevant, as we're dealing with a specific idiomatic term. The usual form for the term "Perfect 10" is with a number. Several articles are titled that way. The album spells out and capitalizes Ten. It's likely someone bothering to type out and capitalize the T in "Perfect Ten" wants the album. Station1 (talk) 15:48, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Support nomination. The written form of an audio art is hardly conclusive for written format. --Richhoncho (talk) 15:33, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per Richhoncho. Titles that are indistinguishable by sound are ambiguous – and especially if they are about topics that are experienced by audio. — BarrelProof (talk) 01:27, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support retarget. If "Ten" is sufficiently distinct from "10", then the album article should be at this title rather than using parenthetical disambiguation. Given that that's not the case, this makes more sense redirecting to the DAB. -- Tamzin (she/they, no pref.) | o toki tawa mi. 04:14, 23 May 2021 (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.

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. The other names listed below are mentioned in the article, so I won't delete them now, but no prejudice against a new RfD for them. --BDD (talk) 17:21, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Opel Meriva Life → Citroën Berlingo#K9  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not mentioned at the target, delete unless a justification can be provided. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 16:53, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, hoax created by vandalism account.  Mr.choppers | ✎  17:32, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please also delete Opel Combo Life, Vauxhall Combo Life, Opel Combo Cargo, also created by the same blocked user. Thanks,  Mr.choppers | ✎  17:34, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete G3 as a hoax. Dominicmgm (talk) 18:23, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh wait... it's a real variant. Maybe it should warrant mentioning in the Opel Meriva article? Dominicmgm (talk) 18:28, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Life" was just an equipment level of the regular Meriva; it doesn't merit a redirect. Especially not since this entry is an effort by a sock puppeteer/vandal to create non-existant rebadged cars (it was never a version of the Citroën Berlingo). See also Opel VXR8, Daewoo Polonez, Daewoo Polonez Kombi.  Mr.choppers | ✎  20:24, 11 May 2021 (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.

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. --BDD (talk) 00:54, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Cheko no Kechō → Jiří Procházka  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• チェコの怪鳥 → Jiří Procházka  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Cheko no kechō → Jiří Procházka  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not mentioned at the target, delete unless a justification can be provided. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 16:46, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment the name was deleted on May 9 [1] with a weird edit comment about "Simple"; I don't get what the edit comment is referring to. -- 67.70.27.105 (talk) 02:27, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Czech martial artist with no connection to Japan dudhhr_Contribs 20:55, 1 June 2021 (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.

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. No consensus between the current status quo and disambiguation, defaulting to keeping the status quo. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:50, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Gender violence → Violence against women  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

• Gender-based violence → Violence against women  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

• Gendered violence → Violence against women  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Gender violence also includes Violence against men and Violence against LGBT people. Sharouser (talk) 02:39, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Disambig (or setindexify) at Gender-related violence (to match Category:Gender-related violence). A few of the articles in the category would also make sense on the dab/set index (e.g. Online gender-based violence). Thryduulf (talk) 12:01, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Violence against men is sexual violence. Same with LGBT, but with LGBT being a broad term, gay bashing is different from trans bashing, the former being sexual violence, and the latter gender violence. The title of Online gender-based violence is misleading as the article talks only about violence against women. The proper title could have been "Online violence against women". Jay (talk) 15:33, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Violence against LGBT person is also gender violence. We should create gender violence as an article. [2] Sharouser (talk) 14:48, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Agree that we need an article. We can request one at WP:Requested articles/Social sciences#Sociology. Jay (talk) 16:47, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• European commission says that "Gender-based violence can take different forms and mostly affects women and girls" Non-binary person or Man can be victims of gender violence. Sharouser (talk) 14:54, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Literal meaning of GV does not exclude violence against men or LGBT. Sharouser (talk) 14:54, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Disambiguate per Thryduulf and Sharouser comments. A separate article can be created later. -- 67.70.27.105 (talk) 02:22, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. As explained at Violence against women these terms are normally used interchangably with "violence against women". The meaning of a phrase does not have to match its literal definition. Kaldari (talk) 05:50, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  That they are sometimes (incorrectly) used interchangably does not mean they always are - see the multiple articles in the category that are not (exclusively) about violence against women. Thryduulf (talk) 10:42, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Disambiguate per Thryduulf. While is notable that sometimes this term is used to refer to only one subset of its more literal scope, that is true of many topics we disambiguate. A reader typing in "gender violence" has no reason to expect to be taken to an article only on violence against one gender. -- Tamzin (she/they) | o toki tawa mi. 15:16, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Thryduulf: I've drafted a DAB, semiärbitrarily at Gender violence. If this closes as DAB, that page can be moved to Gender-related violence per you. -- Tamzin (she/they) | o toki tawa mi. 15:23, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• (edit conflict) Keep all - I don't disagree that there should be a dab or WP:SIA describing other forms of gender-based violence, but it should be hatnoted from this primary topic. It is a sad reality that the overwhelming majority of incidents of gender-based violence are directed at women, of all races and orientations and other intersections. It's true that there are other prominent forms of gender-based violence, but even with those, persons who identify as women are overrepresented as victims. Falsely equating violence against men with other far more prominent and typically much more brutal forms of violence is a common men's rights movement and male supremacist argument; Wikipedia should not engage in that. Ivanvector's squirrel (^trees/_nuts) 15:26, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Nobody is doing any false equivalence, but denying that people other than women are victims or that women are the only ones who can be victims of gender-based violence is just as bad as what the MRAs are saying. Especially as violence against LGBT people (regardless of their gender expression) is, proportionately by population size, at least as frequent and severe as against women. The concept of "gender violence" is broader than violence against women, and we should no more redirect this broad topic to a narrower than we would any other out of an (understandable but misguided) desire to avoid being potentially associated with semi-related arguments made by MRAs (see WP:RGW). Thryduulf (talk) 20:35, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  I think you're focused on the wrong part of my comment, but point taken about RGW. But yes, there is a false equivalency here in elevating violence directed specifically against men and LGBT individuals to the level of prominence and worldwide epidemic as violence specifically against women. There are also serious problems worldwide with violence against people of different gender and sexual orientations specifically because of those traits, and I am not trying to downplay that at all. You say that as a proportion of population that homophobic and transphobic violence is as prominent as misogynist violence, and I'm sure you're right, but consider that women make up more than half of the entire world population, and one in three will experience gender-based violence in their lifetime (ref: World Health Organization), which by straight math on the world population we can extrapolate to be in the neighbourhood of 1.2 billion victims. Contrast with our article on demographics of sexual orientation suggesting that roughly 10% of individuals are non-heterosexual: even if the same one-in-three stat applies to the entire estimated population of LGBT individuals worldwide, we end up with roughly 250 million victims, and a significant portion of that population are also women or people who identify as women.

  As evidence I tried to look up stats on violence against women versus other forms of gender-based violence, but I'm not getting any results that aren't specifically about forms of violence where women are the victims, even when statistics were also included for gender-based violence against non-women victims. Among the best that I could find was this Initial findings from the Survey of Safety in Public and Private Spaces by Statistics Canada in 2018. This study reports individuals' self-identified gender, and although they did not publish statistics for nonbinary individuals, the authors say that was because of a small sample size, with more detail expected in 2020 but I haven't found that report. The Highlights section is worth reading in its entirety, but I'll just reproduce these snippets here: "Previous research indicates that disabled women, Indigenous women, girls and young women, lesbian and bisexual women, and gay and bisexual men are more at risk of experiencing violence" (bullet doesn't say but I assume this is "more at risk" versus the study's baseline, and this statistic is cited to 11 different studies between 2015-2019), and "women were more likely to have been sexually assaulted (3% versus 1% of men) and men were more likely to have been physically assaulted (4% versus 2% of women)."

  This was a long way of coming around to my point: that redirects should help readers find the information that they're most likely looking for, and for these terms it's violence against women, even when the reader might also be interested in another form of gender-based violence. I'm not against creating a page which describes other forms of gender-based violence, in fact I think that's a good approach after spending a couple hours on this on Google, but this topic deserves for that page to be a fulsome introduction and overview of the topic(s), rather than the flat list we would get out of a disambiguation page. If we're going to do that then I prefer it be located at Gender-based violence and the category renamed, since that phrasing seems to be much more prominent in the sources I looked at. Ivanvector's squirrel (^trees/_nuts) 21:55, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, unchanged. I echo what 'Ivanvector's squirrel' said about how this is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and how we should avoid WP:FALSEBALANCE. The idea that violence against LGBT people is gender-based violence, per se, rather than its own type, appears to be WP:Original research. Indeed, the vast majority of LGBT people are men or women; implying that is a separate gender seems rather sketchy. Most important, though, is what the most reliable sources say, and here is what Google Scholar turns up: 1. Extent and nature of the problem - Gender-based violence includes a host of harmful behaviors that are directed at women and girls because of their sex, including... [3] In 1993, the United Nations General Assembly defined violence against women as “any act of gender-based violence that results in, or is likely to result in, physical, sexual or psychological harm or suffering to women” (United Nations, 1993). The United Nations referred to “gender-based” violence to acknowledge that such violence is rooted in gender inequality and is often tolerated and condoned by laws, institutions and community norms; it is not only a manifestation of gender-inequality, but often serves to enforce it (Heise, Ellsberg and Gottemoeller, 1999). Gender-based violence comes in many forms throughout the life cycle; this review focuses on the two most common types: physical intimate partner violence and sexual violence against women by any perpetrator. (2005 review) Primary prevention programs address the underlying attitudes, norms, and behaviors that support GBV. The ultimate goals are to end violence, empower women and girls, and promote nonviolent, equitable, and respectful relationships. [4] This 2020 paper uses the term and is about violence against women. Again and again Google Scholar shows that the term is specifically about violence against women and girls. One quote above shows why - it's rooted in systemic gender inequality. The sources are clear and we must follow them. Crossroads ^-talk- 03:00, 1 June 2021 (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.

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 move Corbyn (name) to Corbyn. (non-admin closure) feminist (+) 12:02, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Corbyn → Corbyn (name)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Was targeted to Jeremy Corbyn for a long time, recently retargeted to Corbyn (name). I'm personally indifferent to where it should go, but I think this should be discussed first. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 07:33, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• It was only between 2015-2020 the surname "Corbyn" would definitely have referred to Jeremy Corbyn amongst most of the British public - Jeremy Corbyn was a backbencher between 1983 and 2015 and most people wouldn't have heard of him. Since stepping down as leader of the Labour Party, Jeremy Corbyn hasn't really been in the spotlight apart from stating the odd comment about something here and there. Since 2020, Jeremy Corbyn's brother Piers Corbyn has been receiving a lot of publicity for his conspiracy theories about Covid-19 and his views about vaccines and lockdowns. If you look at the history of the Piers Corbyn article, you will see that the article has been greatly expanded over the last year or so. Piers Corbyn even tried to become the Mayor of London! The surname is associated with both brothers these days rather than just Jeremy Corbyn.--OZZY19455 (talk) 10:35, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• https://www.google.com/search?tbm=bks&q=Corbyn&pws=0 first page seems to be split 50:50, so it doesn't seem likely that Jeremy would be more likely to be the topic of interest for his surname than all the others combined, esp. in the long term. It should be noted, though, that the article title is a bit odd - if there's no potential for anything other than a name there, and no potential for surname and given name to be split, it should just be named "Corbyn". --Joy [shallot] (talk) 10:49, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Jeremy Corbyn remains by some way the best known person with this name, still a lot more important than his brother. PatGallacher (talk) 11:43, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  @PatGallacher: Is he? According to whom? 'Corbyn' isn't synonymous with Jeremy Corbyn. In fact, in 2021, I would argue that it depends on whom you ask as to whether or not Corbyn means Jeremy Corbyn or Piers Corbyn. The latter has had tons more coverage in the press over the last year or so, although I would argue for the wrong reasons. Prior to 2015, Jeremy Corbyn was pretty much a nobody - a backbencher radical rebel who wasn't that well known to the British public - whereas his brother Piers Corbyn has been involved with politics, weather predictions and climate change denial for decades. Since stepping down as the leader of the Labour Party, Jeremy Corbyn is only in the press when it's got something to do with the Labour Party like right now.--OZZY19455 (talk) 21:38, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• If the redirect is kept as it is, a WP:ROUNDROBIN move should take place. — J947 ‡ ^{message ⁓ edits} 22:32, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Disambiguate between Jeremy Corbyn, Corbyn (name) the name article, Corbyn, Stacey & Company (which existed as Corbyn before 1772), Labour Party leadership of Jeremy Corbyn, Corbyn: The Strange Rebirth of Radical Politics which has the short title "Corbyn";;; and see alsos for Corbyn Head Hotel, Corbin (disambiguation), Corbins, Corban (disambiguation), Corben, and a wiktionary link -- 67.70.27.105 (talk) 09:59, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Move Corbyn (name) to Corbyn which is what should have been done instead of redirecting Corbyn to Corbyn (name). The fact that the redirect was retargeted (albeit incorrectly) and from comments on this RfD entry, it is not clear that Jeremy is the primary topic. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 12:49, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Move Corbyn (name) to Corbyn. I don't think we need a dab just to handle WP:PARTIAL matches.—Bagumba (talk) 08:36, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Move Corbyn (name) to Corbyn per the above. Seems like the logical solution.

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.

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 L. Ron Hubbard per WP:SNOW, such an obvious retarget doesn't require a discussion. (non-admin closure) — J947 ‡ ^{message ⁓ edits} 01:29, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• L. Ron Hubbard (author) → Written works of L. Ron Hubbard  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Shouldn't this redirect to L. Ron Hubbard, if it's kept at all? I did not expect it to link here. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 12:25, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to L. Ron Hubbard and tag {{R from unnecessary disambiguation}}, per WP:ASTONISH. Redirect is reasonably well-used. Ivanvector's squirrel (^trees/_nuts) 14:14, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to L. Ron Hubbard, obviously. JIP | Talk 22:32, 21 May 2021 (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.

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 13:13, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Harassed a Reporter(My Name Is Earl) → My Name Is Earl (season 2)#ep43  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Typo in title (no space) and there is already the redirect Harassed a Reporter. Gonnym (talk) 10:36, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Unlikely typo. Would be WP:COSTLY to maintain typo redirects like this for every parenthetically-disambiguated title. -- Tamzin (she/they, no pref.) | o toki tawa mi. 19:41, 23 May 2021 (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.

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 13:13, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Buried Treasure(My Name Is Earl) → My Name Is Earl (season 2)#ep37  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Typo in title (no space) and there is already the redirect Buried Treasure (My Name Is Earl). Gonnym (talk) 10:32, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per !vote in above section. -- Tamzin (she/they, no pref.) | o toki tawa mi. 19:42, 23 May 2021 (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.

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. (non-admin closure) —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 14:10, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• American Broadcasting Companies → American Broadcasting Company  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

This redirect, formerly a disambiguation page, might be better targeted to American Broadcasting-Paramount Theatres. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 10:08, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as is. It's an alternate legal name for the network. The current target is appropriate. oknazevad (talk) 19:46, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• disambiguate restore the dab page with the two entries pointed out here. -- 67.70.27.246 (talk) 21:37, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Disambig. Restore the dab page with the three entries that were there. Jay (talk) 17:39, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Retarget to American Broadcasting-Paramount Theatres#American Broadcasting Companies. After anon 2600's message below, I understand that "American Broadcasting Companies, Inc." is/was a valid company name.

  For DAB there is already a American Broadcasting Companies (disambiguation) (which is also a redirect to the same target, so that probably needs a separate Rfd). Jay (talk) 13:49, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  I have my eye on American Broadcasting Companies (disambiguation): I was going to wait until this RfD is closed. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 07:45, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as is. I think Ok has a valid point. The last time I watched the ending credits for an episode of General Hospital, an ABC network show, the copyright notice referenced "American Broadcasting Companies, Inc.", because that show is, for the most part, produced by the network itself. 2600:1700:C960:2270:6883:8981:DA9D:984D (talk) 21:31, 2 May 2021 (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.