Talk:Bright

This page may need to be watched

I noticed this Brights movement wasn't on the page even though the page itself directs the user to this page.--184.21.215.174 (talk) 01:18, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Requested move 15 September 2015

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. The consensus is that brightness is not the clear primary topic for bright. Jenks24 (talk) 11:09, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

---

Bright → Bright (disambiguation) – Retarget Bright to Brightness per WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT. As stated on the disambiguation page, the subject at Intelligence also has strong ties to the word "bright"; however, as sort of a vague synonym as opposed to an adjective that directly describes the noun which it is part of ("bright" vs "brightness"), our readers can be served with a hatnote at the top of Brightness directing them to Intelligence, as well as the disambiguation page. Steel1943 (talk) 00:57, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

• Support. I think brightness (in the sense of intensity of visible light) is the primary topic. "Bright" meaning "intelligent" is not exactly unusual, but it's sort of a metaphor, and I don't think it would occur to too many people either to wikilink "bright" in that meaning, or to enter it in the search box with that meaning. --Trovatore (talk) 01:17, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose per WP:NOTDICT and WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. With two competing dictionary definitions and a number of legitimate encyclopedic topics listed on the diambiguation page, there is no primary topic. There is no evidence presented in the nomination that readers searching an encyclopedia for "bright" are looking for an article on "brightness". —  AjaxSmack  02:48, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment. I think NOTDICT is a red herring here. No one is proposing to make the entry a dictionary definition. It's just a question of whether the links and searches for the "brightness" sense predominate over the others combined. --Trovatore (talk) 03:12, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
    • ​Well, if there is evidence for that, please present it. But since Wikipedia is not a dictionary, we should not assume that readers are seeking a dictionary definition and that "brightness" is "highly likely—much more likely than any other topic, and more likely than all the other topics combined—to be the topic sought when a reader searches for" "bright". —  AjaxSmack  04:14, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
      • Wikipedia not being a dictionary is irrelevant. There is nothing dictionary-like about redirecting to brightness; it's just a navigational aid. --Trovatore (talk) 04:54, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose: readers are unlikely to search for an adjective as such in an encyclopedia (as opposed to a dictionary), so the surname, place names, etc are more likely to be what they need. PamD 10:18, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose as there doesn't seem to be a clear primary topic. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 18:21, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Perhaps I should illuminate my previous comment ;) I'm basing this on my perception that the current article on brightness is not generic enough - it describes a specific concept in photometry/colorimetry. A broad concept article that would explain how the English language treats brightness as a series of concepts based but not limited to visual brightness would work here, too. I'm pretty sure many such surnames were also derived from this series of concepts and not that one specifically. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 12:09, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

---

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 or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.