Talk:Cytherea

This disambiguation page is within the scope of WikiProject Disambiguation, an attempt to structure and organize all disambiguation pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, you can edit the page attached to this talk page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project or contribute to the discussion.DisambiguationWikipedia:WikiProject DisambiguationTemplate:WikiProject DisambiguationDisambiguation articles

Erm. "Cytherea" should be a redirect straight to Aphrodite, the other things on this page are insanely obscure (a synonym - i.e. invalid name - for an orchid, an insect genus that doesn't even have its own article. (And the name for Callista chione is even worse -- this name has been known to be invalid -- because preoccupied by the insect (1794 vs 1806) -- since 1891 at least.)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Vultur (talk • contribs) 13:09, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Synonyms aren't invalid names. The incoming wikilinks are few, but split between intending an article not yet listed here (Kythira) and the person Cytherea (person). I think the reader is best served by the base-name disambiguation page. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:08, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, makes sense. (I'm surprised by the lack of wikilinks to the goddess; I hadn't thought 'Cytherea' was particularly rare or obscure.) I'll fix the links that should go to Kythira. Vultur (talk) 00:30, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would be okay with redirecting to Aphrodite, with Cytherea (disambiguation) linked from there. The only one that is (a) typically called just "Cytherea" and (b) comes close in prominence, is the porn star. She gets far more hits on a normal Google search than the goddess, for obvious reasons, but not a single relevant hit on Google Books or Google Scholar, compared to the thousands for the goddess, and a few dozen or hundred for some of the others. The other entries that are known as just Cytherea are much less common in reliable sources. If the dab page were to remain here, I'd think it would be due to the actress, rather than any of the other entries.--Cúchullain ^t/c 20:29, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I read it:

Google Web: porn star
Google News: few hits, so none or porn star
Google Scholar: none -- nothing gets more than all others combined
Google Books: none -- nothing gets more than all others combined

-- JHunterJ (talk) 20:47, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[1] gets nearly 6800 hits on gbooks and over 1,800 on gscholar. [http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=cytherea%2Bflower&tbo=u&tbs=bks:1&source=og&sa=N&tab=sp#sclient=psy&hl=en&tbs=bks:1&source=hp&q=cytherea%2Borchid&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&pbx=1&bav=on.1,or.&fp=82a567adc72d263b Cytherea+orchid got 386 hits on gbooks and 207 on gscholar, and a few hundred more relevant hits, mostly old sources if you search for "cytherea+flower", etc. The film and the insect get a few hundred each. The porn star gets few if any relevant hits on gbooks or gscholar. --Cúchullain ^t/c 21:40, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

... which are less than half of the corresponding hits on Cytherea alone on Scholar or Books, which is why I read it not more than all others combined. -- JHunterJ (talk) 23:11, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]