Talk:Red Snow

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Red Snow article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Military history: Technology / Weaponry / British / European

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion not met

Associated task forces:
/
	Military science, technology, and theory task force
	Weaponry task force
	British military history task force
	European military history task force

United Kingdom

	United Kingdom portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United Kingdom 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.United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject United KingdomUnited Kingdom
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Proposed move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not moved) Mike Cline (talk) 12:53, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Red Snow → Red Snow (weapon) – So that the disambiguation page "Red Snow (disambiguation)" can take its place per Wikipedia:Disambiguation. The weapon is not a primary topic. --Bensin (talk) 14:16, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support. The doctrine of "primary topic" is applied too zealously in our titling decisions. In the present case it is entirely unhelpful. Noetica^Tea? 00:31, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose unless there is some indication for the change of primary topic. (Applying guidelines one editor disagrees with should not be cast as zealotry.) -- JHunterJ (talk) 15:48, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Some statistics:

Red Snow (the weapon): viewed 1,892 times in 201203 [1]
Watermelon snow (linked from the disambig page): viewed 3,228 times in 201203 [2]
30 Days of Night: Red Snow: viewed 675 times in 201203 [3]
redsn0w: viewed 20,376 times in 201203 [4]

--Bensin (talk) 05:12, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good! Here are points to note, in taking account of those statistics:

There is zero reason to assume most of the views at Red snow were from readers interested in the weapon. After all, the title gives no indication.
Watermelon snow (probably often sought under the name "red snow") receives many more views than Red snow (the article about the weapon).
Redsn0w (probably often sought under the name "red snow") receives vastly more views than Red snow (the article about the weapon).
The pageview evidence gives no indication that subject of the weapon article qualifies as a "primary topic". It gives strong evidence against that.

Noetica^Tea? 01:55, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think this conflates "red snow" and "Red Snow", and consequently page views for Red snow and Red Snow, the former not yet having been quantified here. ENeville (talk) 18:20, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose – The only other article ambiguous with "Red Snow" (in Title Caps) is:

Red Snow (The Twilight Zone): viewed 560 times in 201203 [5]

Even if all those page views are subtracted from Red Snow (the weapon) as click-throughs in search of the television episode, typed in with the Title Caps, the weapon article still has many more page views. I would observe that red snow redirects to Red Snow (disambiguation), which seems to obviate arguments based on alternative capitalizations, since lower case would be the default used in searches absent a more particular topic sought.

Given the various capitalizations of red snow that are listed, including for "red snow", I would think that the dab page should be moved to red snow. ENeville (talk) 21:26, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Does that mean that you prefer the proposed arrangement to the existing arrangement, ENeville? Do we agree on this: we should not assume that the typical reader – with sketchy information, looking for the certainty that an encyclopedia can provide – is somehow magically prepared already with information about capitalisation in the target title. Noetica^Tea? 01:55, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure exactly what question is posed, but I offer this: the average person searching on Wikipedia will enter "red snow", and get redirected from red snow to a dab page at Red Snow (disambiguation). I think the dab page should reside instead at red snow. I also think that someone who takes the trouble to enter "Red Snow" is looking for a proper noun, consistent with naming policy at WP:TITLEFORMAT. Given that only two article titles are ambiguous in the "Red Snow" namespace, and the article on the weapon is viewed at least twice as often (even accounting for click-throughs) then it is primary per WP:PRIMARY and should stay at Red Snow. ENeville (talk) 18:15, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.