Talk:Bright giant
 | This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
.jpg){kind=small}
Requested move
[edit]- 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. Jafeluv (talk) 10:30, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
Bright giant → Bright giant star – According to this CfD "Bright giant" is ambiguous. Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talkabout my edits? 13:12, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 12:23, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose. Agree with Headbomb. This does appear to be the primary topic. Looking through the results of a Google Books search, most the sources are about this topic rather than others, and the majority use just bright giant, without "star" appended. I can see why you went this way. You got clobbered over the head with how ambiguous it was at the CfD by unanimous opposes for the move of the category in the other direction. I tend to stay away from category topics but I would think the same considerations for names are generally involved, but I don't really know they are the same—whether primary topic consideration is just or near as applicable, but to the extent it is, I think they got it wrong.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:53, 4 April 2012 (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. No further edits should be made to this section.