Talk:Freehold (real property)

From VfD:

Freehold (real property) is a sub-substub and inaccurate — England, for example, doesn't have a concept of allodial land. The article freehold fee simple contains better information; I think it should be deleted and redirected unless a better article could come out of Cleanup (though I think that, given the article is one sentence and inaccurate, VfD was a better place for it than Cleanup). — OwenBlacker 23:52, Aug 23, 2004 (UTC)

• Umm, whut? Freehold is a disambiguation page, and Freehold (real property) notes in the very first few words ("In some jurisdictions,") that it doesn't necessarily apply everywhere (though, admittedley, 'twas you that added that). Keep. James F. (talk) 00:15, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)

  Sorry, I should have made it clearer; before listing on here, I moved Freeholder to Freeholder (New Jersey), as that's a specialist usage that I would expect is somewhat limited to NJ. I then disambig'd all links, pointing them either to Freehold or Freeholder (New Jersey), rather than Freeholder, which I redirected to the disambiguation page, rather than to the NJ page. Finally (and I might have forgotten a step here), I added the "in some jurisdictions" qualifier to Freehold (real property) (the name of which I don't like, fwiw, as we have freeholds here in Europe and don't use the term real estate ;o)

  Even with my qualifier in the Freehold (real property) page, though, I don't think that it's worth Cleanup — the content is sub-substub (imho) and still less accurate than the main article. And I'd never heard of the concept of allodial land before reading it (mainly, one would assume, because the concept is alien to English law, as the Crown holds eventual title to all property. If someone can do a decent job with cleanup, then fair enough but, tbh, I think any effort should go into the main, longer article (which I thought was Freehold, but appears not to be; I'll have to check my browser history when I get home), rather than wasting time on a substub that gives almost no information and is barely accurate. — OwenBlacker 09:07, Aug 24, 2004 (UTC)

  Oh, right; given the below, Redirect to fee simple. James F. (talk) 17:54, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)

• Perhaps this might be most profitably be made a redirect to fee simple. FWIW, obsessing about "allodial title" is crankish, the sort of thing the Posse Comitatus is into; and I see it's been inserted there as well as elsewhere. That probably needs looking into. Smerdis of Tlön 11:51, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)

  Thank you. Fee simple was the better article I was seeking, I think. Yes, I'm inclined to agree. As I mentioned, it's not necessarily that unusual that I've not heard of allodial land ownership before, as it's not a concept we have here, but I do note that Google only shows fewer than 2k hits for it [1], compared with freehold's 250k [2] (and 4 unique relevant hits on Wikipedia, against 18, fwiw). I agree: delete and redirect to fee simple is what I meant to propose. — OwenBlacker 12:33, Aug 24, 2004 (UTC)

end moved discussion