Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 23:04, 28 January 2013

India Start‑class Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Economics Unassessed

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Economics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Economics on Misplaced Pages. 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 ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Finance & Investment Unassessed

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Finance & Investment, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Finance and Investment on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Finance & InvestmentWikipedia:WikiProject Finance & InvestmentTemplate:WikiProject Finance & InvestmentFinance & Investment ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Politics Unassessed

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Misplaced Pages. 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 ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

comments

I have just now posted the first draft for New Pension Scheme. You are most welcome to offer suggestions Amitkn (talk) 22:49, 7 May 2009 (UTC) Amit Nanchahal

Requested move 1

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved since no disambiguating phrase is needed for disambiguation, per WP:PRECISION -- JHunterJ (talk) 17:23, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

New Pension Scheme (India) → National Pension System – As is mentioned in the article, the name of this scheme is "National Pension System", so the page should be named as this. There is no other WP page with this name. Aurorion (talk) 13:52, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Oppose. A completely unhelpful suggestion, entraining several disadvantages and no advantages whatsoever. "National Pension Scheme" not only appears generic, it is normally generic. The capitals do not help. Apart from that, several countries have schemes called "National Pension Scheme": Mauritius, Korea, Zambia, Kenya, Japan, and so on. A historical accident in article development on Misplaced Pages is no warrant for making titles needlessly vague and confusing, certain prevailing narrow interpretations of titling principles notwithstanding.

Noetica 23:51, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Oppose. "National Pension System" is too general, but it is still an improvement in some ways. The word "scheme" is negative in AmE and is never used to describe government programs; for this venue, it is not in keeping with a neutral point of view and should be changed, especially since it is not the actual name of the program. A better title would be "National Pension System (India)". 07:09, 1 April 2012 (UTC)Neotarf (talk)

• Support per WP:COMMONNAME, assuming that's "National Pension System", since the system is apparently 8 years old now and "New Pension Scheme" seems unlikely. If need to disambiguate exists or arises, it should be disambiguated, perhaps with "(India)", or preferably naturally with "of India" per WP:PRECISION. Until such time that other articles exist in the "National Pension System" namespace, though, this article is primary by default per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. For perspective, compare to other nation-specific but generically named government entities: National Health Service (UK), Federal Bureau of Investigation (USA), or Vice-President of the Executive Council (Australia). ENeville (talk) 21:26, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

• Comment if this is not renamed, then National Pension Scheme should redirect to National pension. 70.24.244.198 (talk) 02:53, 3 April 2012 (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. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move 2

It has been proposed in this section that National Pension System be renamed and moved to National Pension Scheme (India). A bot will list this discussion on the requested moves current discussions subpage within an hour of this tag being placed. The discussion may be closed 7 days after being opened, if consensus has been reached (see the closing instructions). Please base arguments on article title policy, and keep discussion succinct and civil. Please use {{subst:requested move}}. Do not use {{requested move/dated}} directly. Links: current log • target log • direct move

National Pension Scheme → National Pension Scheme (India) – There is also the National Pension Scheme (South Korea) (various cites, such as USA International Business Publications (30 March 2005). Korea, South Diplomatic Handbook. Int'l Business Publications. pp. 241–. ISBN 978-0-7397-5532-7. Retrieved 19 January 2013. {{cite book}}: |author= has generic name (help)). As such, a disambig is needed in the place of this article. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:55, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

• Support, of course! The title is ridiculously imprecise. And it is not reliably recognisable, even by the absurdly strict criterion at WP:TITLE:

Recognizability – Titles are names or descriptions of the topic that are recognizable to someone familiar with (though not necessarily expert in) the topic.

Someone familiar with the Indian scheme treated in this article may not recognise this title as about that Indian scheme. On an international encyclopedia, it looks generic – to everyone, including even experts. Similarly, though I know Collins Street, Melbourne very well (and it is the best known Collins Street in the world), I would not expect to find the article at Collins Street. I would expect Collins Street to be a DAB page, on an international encyclopedia; and so it is. We really do need to focus better on the needs of actual readers, not on unresearched and unverified conceptions of how to optimise article titles. See this policy imperative from WP:TITLE:

The choice of article titles should put the interests of readers before those of editors, and those of a general audience before those of specialists.

Noetica 00:53, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

• Support per RM1 opposers, and extreme ambiguity. -- 76.65.128.43 (talk) 03:00, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

• Support. As per nom.--GDibyendu (talk) 14:35, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose the merits of the nomination. This is a proper name (all initial caps) and only represents one thing here at Misplaced Pages. Parenthetical disambiguators are used to disambiguate Misplaced Pages articles from other Misplaced Pages articles, not provide an exhaustive explanation of the topic. The hatnote deals with any potential confusion ( —  AjaxSmack  00:06, 21 January 2013 (UTC)) ...

• However, why does this article have this title at all? The article's sources use "New Pension System" and "National Pension System". Shouldn't it be moved to a variation of of of those? —  AjaxSmack  00:06, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose as per AjaxSmack; we disambiguate when there is more than 2 different articles of the same name. If there are two, use a hatnote. In this case, there is only one page on enwiki relating to National Pension Scheme. A google search seems to establish that India is the primary topic for this article. Tiggerjay (talk) 00:40, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

AjaxSmack says this is a proper name, and therefore has capital letters. Well, it is a borderline case. Unlike paradigmatic proper names, it is no mere arbitrary label. Its meaning can be determined by how its components are assembled: it is first of all a scheme, then a pension scheme, then a national pension scheme. If it bore an unequivocally proper name, like "Trevor" or "Jifslo", no such analysis would be possible. Capital letters are not universally used in referring to this Indian scheme, as evidence from Indian media shows (with my underlining):

The tie up allows Muthoot Finance to operate as a service provider and offer pension plans under the national pension scheme. The national pension scheme can be availed by all Indian citizens voluntarily. It also benefits those employees who are working in unorganized sectors. National pension scheme is promoted by the government of India to provide financial security to elderly people. Rupee Times

The scheme is titled national pension scheme and Muthoot would act as a service provider for the pension plan. The scheme extends on voluntary basis to all citizens of India and would also include workers of unorganized sectors as well. Times of India

AjaxSmack also points out that sources also call it "New Pension System" and "National Pension System". Those are also meaningful and descriptive, and compete as the name for the topic of our article. So it is simply not true that "National Pension Scheme" has sufficient stability or recognisability to identify the topic as a certain scheme in India. (See my initial post, above.)

It is remarkable what efforts people sometimes go to in support of bare, unhelpful titles. We want to identify the scheme as national, to do with pensions, and a scheme. For an Indian readership that might be sufficient: they can assume it concerns India, right? But this is a worldwide encyclopedia. The tantalising missing piece of information to supplement national, for most of us, is which nation: India!

Type "national pension scheme" progressively into the search box at the top right of this screen. We get all sorts of information as we do that. See what prompts appear even after typing "national pen". But at what point do readers see a prompt showing "India"? At no point.

Serve the readers, not some editors' obsession with brevity.

Noetica 23:04, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose as per Tiggerjay. Would support a move to either New Pension System or National Pension System. Arbitrarily0  17:02, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

• Start-Class India articles
• Mid-importance India articles
• Start-Class India articles of Mid-importance
• WikiProject India articles
• Unassessed Economics articles
• Unknown-importance Economics articles
• WikiProject Economics articles
• Unassessed Finance & Investment articles
• Unknown-importance Finance & Investment articles
• WikiProject Finance & Investment articles
• Unassessed politics articles
• Unknown-importance politics articles
• WikiProject Politics articles
• Requested moves