Talk:Great

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. No primary topic. Jenks24 (talk) 07:10, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

---

Great → Great (disambiguation) – Redirect Great to Greatness per WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT. Steel1943 (talk) 00:46, 15 September 2015 (UTC) Relisted. Jenks24 (talk) 11:09, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose: few readers will look for an adjective as such in an encyclopedia, and those who do will probably be better served by the "see also"s of the dab page than by being led to the concept of "greatness". PamD 10:12, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Or, to phrase it in line with the nomination: I do not agree that "Greatness" is the Primary Topic for the word "Great" (ie that Greatness is the article likely to be wanted by a large majority of the readers searching for "Great"), so the nominator's "per WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT" is not appropriate. PamD 15:00, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

• Support, the other meanings don't seem to approach the level of long-term significance of the generic English word and the associated concept. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 18:23, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

But how many readers will search on an adjective when they want the related noun? If they know enough English to be able to benefit from an English language encyclopedia, they will know that "Great" is an adjective and that encyclopedia article titles are nouns, so will look for "Greatness" if that is what they want. PamD 14:51, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

The concept of greatness can't be surgically separated from the word great just because the two words don't match identically. The simplest explanation is that it's reasonable to expect for various relevant forms, whether short or long, to lead to the same concept. In a sense this would be similar to the rationale for WP:PLURAL. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 16:22, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Wbm1058's comment made me think, and it looks like this is another case like Bright - the proposed article actually isn't generic enough. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 00:57, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose. No compelling need to move this. Per wikt:great, the word has nine meanings, and perhaps the primary uses are simply to mean "very big" or "very good", E.g. John: "Pageviews increased 10% last month!" Dave: "Great." Only the meanings such as superior, endowed with extraordinary powers; uncommonly gifted; able to accomplish vast results; strong; powerful; mighty; noble, etc. are associated with greatness. Wbm1058 (talk) 03:36, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

So... you think we should link something like Size from this disambiguation page? --Joy [shallot] (talk) 19:28, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose per PamD. Unlikely search term. Dohn joe (talk) 13:56, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose per WP:NOTDICT and WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. "The Great" alone is at least as important an encyclopedic topic. —  AjaxSmack  14:12, 23 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.

• Support. Better for disambiguation pages to include "(disambiguation)". Great and greatness are basically the same word. The exclamation "great!" is an implied reference to greatness; the target article should be generalized a little. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:14, 1 October 2015 (UTC)