This article is within the scope of WikiProject Economics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Economics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EconomicsWikipedia:WikiProject EconomicsTemplate:WikiProject EconomicsEconomics articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Anthropology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Anthropology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AnthropologyWikipedia:WikiProject AnthropologyTemplate:WikiProject AnthropologyAnthropology articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the subject of History on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Historyhistory articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Human rights, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Human rights on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Human rightsWikipedia:WikiProject Human rightsTemplate:WikiProject Human rightsHuman rights articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
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.
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)[reply]
"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. RedSlash16:28, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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.
level-3 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
,_early_1900s,_Central_Africa,_Democratic_Republic_of_the_Congo,_Pende_people,_wood,_fiber_-_Cleveland_Museum_of_Art_-_DSC08700.JPG){kind=small}
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)