Talk:Property

"Properties" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Properties and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 June 25#Properties until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. D.Lazard (talk) 13:39, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 24 August 2022

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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: no consensus. (closed by non-admin page mover) — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 05:15, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

---

• Property → Property (ownership right)
• Property (disambiguation) → Property

– This subject does not seem to be the primary topic for the term "property". For the most part, the use of the term "property" in reference to scientific terms, specifically the subjects at the list of articles at Property (disambiguation)#Philosophy and science, seems to be rather equal cumulatively in page views to Property; the combination of the subjects Property (philosophy), Physical property, and Chemical property versus Property seem to be rather equal in page views. (Page view comparison) The amount of page views Property has compared to the other subjects seems to not be enough to show the current setup is the best to serve our readers. Steel1943 (talk) 06:56, 24 August 2022 (UTC) — Relisting. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 21:01, 31 August 2022 (UTC) — Relisting. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 23:11, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

Nominator comment: For what it's worth, I ultimately don't have an opinion about the new title for Property; I suggested the title Property (ownership right) since 1) it is a {{R from move}} as a former title of the article at Property and 2) it is the only incoming redirect to Property that has a title in the form of "Property (DISAMBIGUATOR)". Steel1943 (talk) 08:12, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose - not fully convinced that this isn't the primary topic, as the other suggested competitors (apart from the very low view philosophy topic) aren't exact matches -- Netoholic @ 15:33, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose per Netoholic and partial title match, etc. Red Slash 19:17, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
• Weak support I agree the physical meaning is more common though this article may serve somewhat as a broad-concept article for that. Crouch, Swale (talk) 08:23, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

  The broad-concept article that could subsume Physical property is Property (philosophy) and not the article about ownership. Uanfala (talk) 10:46, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose per above. MB 15:09, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
• Support. Property (philosophy) is such a fundamental concept that it alone would be enough to challenge the current primary topic and would have easily qualified as a primary topic itself. Uanfala (talk) 10:44, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
• Support. Property (philosophy) is a more fundamental concept—blindlynx 13:33, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
• Support, no clear PRIMARY.--Ortizesp (talk) 16:39, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose. The current title is the primary topic. Rreagan007 (talk) 19:38, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
• Support in principle, Property (philosophy) is just as basic and as important topic, if not more. I would prefer Property (ownership) per WP:NCDAB's clause Otherwise, choose whichever is simpler. For example, use "(mythology)" rather than "(mythological figure)". No such user (talk) 11:25, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

  "Important" is a pretty nebulous adjective, which is why we don't use it on Wikipedia. Instead, we use educational significance when pageviews don't tell the whole story. And there is very little educational significance to "property (philosophy)". The world would keep on spinning without the concept of "property" as that article describes it.

  The ontological fact that something has a property is typically represented in language by applying a predicate to a subject. However, taking any grammatical predicate whatsoever to be a property, or to have a corresponding property, leads to certain difficulties, such as Russell's paradox and the Grelling–Nelson paradox. Moreover, a real property can imply a host of true predicates: for instance, if X has the property of weighing more than 2 kilos, then the predicates "..weighs more than 1.9 kilos", "..weighs more than 1.8 kilos", etc., are all true of it. Other predicates, such as "is an individual", or "has some properties" are uninformative or vacuous. There is some resistance to regarding such so-called "Cambridge properties" as legitimate.[18] These properties in the widest sense are sometimes referred to as abundant properties. They are contrasted with sparse properties, which include only properties "responsible for the objective resemblances and causal powers of things".

• No one needs to be taught any of this. No one needs to be taught that the horsey they see in the pasture has the properties of being a horse, which also means it may have the properties of being an animal, etc... There is essentially no real educational value to this concept. On the other hand, the concept of property (as referring to things or places owned by people) is essential to literally every aspect of daily life. This request, with respect, is lunacy. Red Slash 16:28, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose -- I've been following this discussion with interest and having read the above arguments, I don't think there's enough put forward to show that the current page isn't the primary topic. For one thing, the graph linked by the nom suffers from a bit of selection bias. Look at the last seven years for Physical property. Notice that jump in September of every year? That's a bunch of undergraduates who suddenly realize they should have taken an easier elective. If you do the nom's same comparison in the summer or even the middle, instead of start, of an academic semester, suddenly the current page appears to be the primary target. Nom just happened to look at the single month where Physical property becomes one of the most read articles on campuses around the world. As regards the second suggested guideline of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, I have to agree with Red Slash that I don't think that Prop(phil) has greater enduring notability and educational value than any other topic associated with that term as a few editors have put forward. Neither article is in great shape, but the current Property page is far more useful to the average reader, imo. Being "more fundamental" seems to be a bit of a cop out, and perhaps even subjective and unprovable? For lawyers, the concept of property is pretty damn fundamental. (Also, apparently Property is a level 3 Vital Article and none of the other suggestions are above level 5. I would find this utterly irrelevant, but maybe someone else cares.) Alyo (chat·edits) 17:32, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
• Looking at seven years of pageviews for this topic ("social sciences", perhaps?), philosophy, physical property, chemical property, and just for fun, real property, none are more likely than all the other topics combined—to be the topic sought when a reader searches for "property". No consensus has formed (yet) for which topic has substantially greater enduring notability and educational value than any other topic associated with "property" (emphasis added). Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 23:41, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Quotes from WP:PTOPIC. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 23:44, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.