This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Immovable property redirect. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This page was proposed for deletion by Rajabi.abolghasem ( talk · contribs) on 15 September 2019. |
This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||
|
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
...Immovable property?
I've heard about many castles moved piece by piece from their original locations to new grounds, much like the fictional castle of the Disney gargoyles... What can be said about that? I think it could deserve it's own article with dates and costs et al.
Any legally or actually immovable property can be moved (destroyed) by an irresistible force, such as an object falling from the sky or another planet or a large meteorite colliding with Earth, or it can be taken apart into pieces by humans and carried over to another place, but that's philosophy. Also, that would be considered a "destructible property" rather than an "immovable property". Legally and actually a house with land under it can not be moved, without destroying it or taking it into pieces, since immovable property includes also the geo location of the property, which is unique and therefore can not be moved by any earthly force. "Im movable" term mans "moving in one piece, intact, without doing any damage to the object, nor taking it apart". This article is all about real life, here on Earth. And although Earth is constantly moving by turning around on it's axis and flying around Sun in space (also our Galaxy is on the move as well), yet "immovable property" is considered attached ("sticky") to the soil, to the ground that it stands on and not attached only by construction materials and by Earth's gravitational force, but also legally by ownership law and the abovementioned geographical coordinate. I will agree if you say that my English is far from perfect, you are welcome to correct it.
Audriust ( talk) 19:43, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
Editor "69.128.60.106", maybe the original author of this article (?), has chosen to revert my total re-writing of the piece.
In doing so, I removed a lot of vague and wandering repetitious sections and wrote a properly-flowing narrative.
The original article was not an article AT ALL: starting with the name of the article - then a definition - then how it is used - then where it is used - etc. etc.
If this editor now wishes to change the article as written (short of adding back in some external links), he/she MUST first justify this action on the TALK PAGE RIGHT HERE and get consensus from other editors that this is the correct thing to do.
THIS ANONYMOUS EDITOR IS WARNED THAT IF HE/SHE CONTINUES WITH EDIT WARS (i.e. constant reversion), HE/SHE MAY BE BLOCKED FROM EDITING ON WIKIPEDIA. Viva-Verdi ( talk) 02:28, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
The original "article" is a rambling, repetative series of sentences or statements. It is poorly written to boot; one thing does not logically flow from another.
Viva-Verdi ( talk) 13:56, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
Hi Viva-Verdi:
Audriust ( talk) 18:52, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
P.S.: I did try to add referring links using wiki link addition tool, but it was not working at all. It timed-out with a blank page. I'm going to try it again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Audriust ( talk • contribs) 18:55, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
P.S. I have made the article something in between, between my earlier posted version and your version, deleting some duplicated sentences, regrouping the rest, using most of your sentences. I'm still going to attempt to add referring links where applicable.
Audriust ( talk) 19:15, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
The first internal link in the lead, 'immovable object', links to irresistible force paradox. The sense in which this page uses the term 'immovable object' (an object that can't be moved without destroying it/taking it apart) is not the same as the way it is used in the irresistible force paradox, where it is absolutely and totally immovable. So I suggest removing it and will do so myself (in a few days; if I don't forget) unless there is a reason not to.
71.202.36.15 ( talk) 02:06, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
Note: I decided to create an account. The above signature/edit is mine. Milo 42 ( talk) 02:11, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
I wonder why Wikipedia has Double Standards? When I posted a link to www.immovableproperty.com/ it was immediately deleted. It contained important and educational Q&A (FAQ). Now the www.immovableproperty.co.za/ link under "References" from South Africa does not have any useful nor educational contents in it, just a "For Sale" or "Coming Soon" page; apparently the author is either selling the domain or advertising and taking subscriptions. There is a section "External Links" yet the South African page is listed separately "References". What kind of "reference" that website is, with no contents? How come it is not deleted from Wikipedia? Is Wikipedia run by kids? I demand answers. Audriust ( talk) 14:17, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Immovable property redirect. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This page was proposed for deletion by Rajabi.abolghasem ( talk · contribs) on 15 September 2019. |
This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||
|
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
...Immovable property?
I've heard about many castles moved piece by piece from their original locations to new grounds, much like the fictional castle of the Disney gargoyles... What can be said about that? I think it could deserve it's own article with dates and costs et al.
Any legally or actually immovable property can be moved (destroyed) by an irresistible force, such as an object falling from the sky or another planet or a large meteorite colliding with Earth, or it can be taken apart into pieces by humans and carried over to another place, but that's philosophy. Also, that would be considered a "destructible property" rather than an "immovable property". Legally and actually a house with land under it can not be moved, without destroying it or taking it into pieces, since immovable property includes also the geo location of the property, which is unique and therefore can not be moved by any earthly force. "Im movable" term mans "moving in one piece, intact, without doing any damage to the object, nor taking it apart". This article is all about real life, here on Earth. And although Earth is constantly moving by turning around on it's axis and flying around Sun in space (also our Galaxy is on the move as well), yet "immovable property" is considered attached ("sticky") to the soil, to the ground that it stands on and not attached only by construction materials and by Earth's gravitational force, but also legally by ownership law and the abovementioned geographical coordinate. I will agree if you say that my English is far from perfect, you are welcome to correct it.
Audriust ( talk) 19:43, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
Editor "69.128.60.106", maybe the original author of this article (?), has chosen to revert my total re-writing of the piece.
In doing so, I removed a lot of vague and wandering repetitious sections and wrote a properly-flowing narrative.
The original article was not an article AT ALL: starting with the name of the article - then a definition - then how it is used - then where it is used - etc. etc.
If this editor now wishes to change the article as written (short of adding back in some external links), he/she MUST first justify this action on the TALK PAGE RIGHT HERE and get consensus from other editors that this is the correct thing to do.
THIS ANONYMOUS EDITOR IS WARNED THAT IF HE/SHE CONTINUES WITH EDIT WARS (i.e. constant reversion), HE/SHE MAY BE BLOCKED FROM EDITING ON WIKIPEDIA. Viva-Verdi ( talk) 02:28, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
The original "article" is a rambling, repetative series of sentences or statements. It is poorly written to boot; one thing does not logically flow from another.
Viva-Verdi ( talk) 13:56, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
Hi Viva-Verdi:
Audriust ( talk) 18:52, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
P.S.: I did try to add referring links using wiki link addition tool, but it was not working at all. It timed-out with a blank page. I'm going to try it again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Audriust ( talk • contribs) 18:55, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
P.S. I have made the article something in between, between my earlier posted version and your version, deleting some duplicated sentences, regrouping the rest, using most of your sentences. I'm still going to attempt to add referring links where applicable.
Audriust ( talk) 19:15, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
The first internal link in the lead, 'immovable object', links to irresistible force paradox. The sense in which this page uses the term 'immovable object' (an object that can't be moved without destroying it/taking it apart) is not the same as the way it is used in the irresistible force paradox, where it is absolutely and totally immovable. So I suggest removing it and will do so myself (in a few days; if I don't forget) unless there is a reason not to.
71.202.36.15 ( talk) 02:06, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
Note: I decided to create an account. The above signature/edit is mine. Milo 42 ( talk) 02:11, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
I wonder why Wikipedia has Double Standards? When I posted a link to www.immovableproperty.com/ it was immediately deleted. It contained important and educational Q&A (FAQ). Now the www.immovableproperty.co.za/ link under "References" from South Africa does not have any useful nor educational contents in it, just a "For Sale" or "Coming Soon" page; apparently the author is either selling the domain or advertising and taking subscriptions. There is a section "External Links" yet the South African page is listed separately "References". What kind of "reference" that website is, with no contents? How come it is not deleted from Wikipedia? Is Wikipedia run by kids? I demand answers. Audriust ( talk) 14:17, 19 November 2011 (UTC)