Text and/or other creative content from this version of National Pension System was copied or moved into Pensions in India with this edit on 09:39, 21 November 2017 (UTC). The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. |
This article has previously been nominated to be moved. |
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
National Pension System article. 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 article is written in Indian English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, analysed, defence) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I have just now posted the first draft for National Pension Scheme. You are most welcome to offer suggestions Amitkn ( talk) 22:49, 7 May 2009 (UTC) Amit Nanchahal
I join Nps Pudaiyappan ( talk) 04:26, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
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 Wikipedia is no warrant for making titles needlessly vague and confusing, certain prevailing narrow interpretations of titling principles notwithstanding.
Noetica Tea? 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)
The result of the move request was: no consensus. Mini apolis 02:48, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
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)
Recognizability – Titles are names or descriptions of the topic that are recognizable to someone familiar with (though not necessarily expert in) the topic.
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.
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
Expanding recognizability of titles to those unfamiliar with the respective topics might seem like a no-brainer improvement at first, but changing our most fundamental titling criteria to allow for it, either explicitly in policy or implicitly in practice, would have the unintended consequences of destabilizing the title system of the entire encyclopedia. This would obviously be unworkable, and attempts to weaken our resolve against "unnecessary disambiguation", because they have the unintended effect of undermining title stability to such an enormous degree, must be firmly rejected at every instance.
In response to Noetica's claim above that even a person familiar with the topic would not necessarily recognize National Pension Scheme as referring to this National Pension Scheme, that doesn't matter! "Recognizable to someone familiar with" the article's topic does not mean that a title must uniquely identify its topic without possibility of referring to anything else. If it did, we would disambiguate all names that are ambiguous, and not have any primary topics. Paris, for example, would be moved to Paris, France, and Michael Jackson would be at Michael Jackson (entertainer).
That is, the titles Paris and Michael Jackson are no more surely referring to their respective primary topics than is National Pension Scheme referring to the topic of this article. Yet that's how we title articles in WP. Ambiguity is only relevant with respect to other actual uses on WP, and even then one of the uses may be deemed to be primary. In this case, we have no other uses, so this use is clearly the WP:PRIMARY TOPIC. -- Born2cycle ( talk) 21:29, 29 January 2013 (UTC) Updated -- Born2cycle ( talk) 00:58, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
Even if you limit the reasoning to topics that are not widely recognized, that still leaves the vast majority of our articles to which this reasoning applies (because most WP topics are not widely recognized - if you're not convinced, just click on SPECIAL:RANDOM a few times to see how few you recognize). And considering that, on WP, practice creates precedent which drives policy wording, it is not at all far-fetched to be concerned that applying such reasoning to a few articles here and there today is likely to lead to opening the floodgates to destabilizing our entire title space by applying the same reasoning to all of our articles. -- Born2cycle ( talk) 17:47, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
If I refer to an article about "Paris", I may very well be referring to the legendary figure of the Trojan War, but that doesn't mean we can't put the city at Paris. Just because someone might be referring to some other or generic scheme with "National Pension Scheme" does not mean we can't put this scheme, the only topic on WP to which it can refer, at National Pension Scheme.
If this reasoning is sufficient basis to add more descriptive information to this title, then it's sufficient basis to add more descriptive information to every primary topic title on Wikipedia. While this one title is not all that important, that underlying issue is critical. -- Born2cycle ( talk) 16:43, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
Again, we who are familiar with the French city don't know that a particular references to "Paris" necessarily refers to the city (in this case it doesn't), since it is ambiguous and has other uses, but that doesn't mean the recognizability criterion isn't met, or that we can't use the title "Paris" for Paris.
The criterion is recognizability. You guys seem to treat it as unmistakable identifiability. -- Born2cycle ( talk) 23:05, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
If the best known "Internal Revenue Service" can and should be at Internal Revenue Service, despite the existence of another "Internal Revenue Service" (that has an article on WP), why can't the best known (and only, on WP) "National Pension Scheme" be at National Pension Scheme? -- Born2cycle ( talk) 23:29, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
As for disambiguation: all things being equal, one shouldn't disambiguate when it's not necessary, but things are not always equal, and what's necessary depends on more than just the strict application of the rule of minimum disambiguation. WP:TITLE notes that good article titles seek to balance a number of goals, and that such titles should put the interests of the reader ahead of the specialist concerns of editors. The proposed change is an improvement that accomplishes this. ╠╣uw [ talk 01:20, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
This is the point with "big". Are people really looking for the topic about the relatively large size when searching for "big" in WP? The assumption is no, they are not. Any disagreement with this assumption should be based on an argument, that, if sound, would also warrant creation of an article about that topic. So, in practice, the consideration of topics that don't have articles in WP is moot.
And that's the point here. If people are seriously looking for other topics named "national pension scheme", then we should have articles for them, and then the arguments about disambiguating this title would be appropriate. But as long as those articles don't exist, the point is moot. -- Born2cycle ( talk) 05:04, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
That this is so is not irrelevant or moot: titles exist to serve the reader, and if in this case it's likely that readers (even those familiar with the subject) may not understand which of the numerous identically-named national pension schemes the title "National Pension Scheme" refers to – something that does seem likely for the reasons already explained, and notwithstanding the presence or absence of other articles – then the title should be clarified. ╠╣uw [ talk 11:22, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
The only use of "National Pension Scheme" with notability sufficient to be on WP is this one. Therefore, not only is it the primary use, it is the only use, by definition.
You say the title does not seem very recognizable. To whom? To someone unfamiliar with the Indian Scheme? Again, that's irrelevant. This is it's name. It's recognizable to anyone familiar with it. We have myriads of titles that do "not seem very recognizable" in the general sense. Just start hitting SPECIAL:RANDOM and you'll quickly encounter article titles like 2004 Birthday Honours, Abidemi Sanusi, Wallace's Isle, Castillo de San Pedro de la Roca, First Market Bank, Cloud.bg, Motema, Eupithecia nuceistrigata, Bring 'Em Back Alive, The Origin of Fire, Sausar, Group signature, ... I don't know about you, but none of these seem very recognizable to me. I, for one, don't recognize any of them. So the fact that this title, National Pension Scheme, "does not seem very recognizable" is not a factor that distinguishes it from most of our titles. It's not reason to change it. If it were, we would have to change the majority of our titles. Perhaps that's a can of worms you favor opening, but, I, for one, certainly do not. -- Born2cycle ( talk) 21:30, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
I know you strongly disagree, as you're free to. You've made your position very clear through your own statements as well as your persistent rejection and dismissal of my own, which in fairness I've made an effort to keep up with. I'm not asking you to agree, but merely articulating my own support for the proposal and the reasons for it; I would, however, ask that you respect the existence of reasonable opposing views, particularly in RfCs which are meant to freely solicit editors' input. ╠╣uw [ talk 02:48, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
Trying to research pensions in India, what if the person is an invalid, or unemployed, or poor? Once they hit old age / retirement age do they just ... starve? Or is there an old age pension? Is there unemployment benefits for the poor and homeless over there? These things should be in the further reading / related sections if not in the article. 121.211.33.244 ( talk) 20:10, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
NPS also gives you so small amount of pension that you cannot survive. For example one employee got Rs. 1296 pension. How can she survive in such a small amount? Lalit Sadavarti ( talk) 01:55, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
As on 20/02/2023, this article has the following multiple issues.
Working towards improving the article. Inviting other interested editors to join in. Anand2202 ( talk) 11:24, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
Text and/or other creative content from this version of National Pension System was copied or moved into Pensions in India with this edit on 09:39, 21 November 2017 (UTC). The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. |
This article has previously been nominated to be moved. |
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
National Pension System article. 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 article is written in Indian English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, analysed, defence) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I have just now posted the first draft for National Pension Scheme. You are most welcome to offer suggestions Amitkn ( talk) 22:49, 7 May 2009 (UTC) Amit Nanchahal
I join Nps Pudaiyappan ( talk) 04:26, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
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 Wikipedia is no warrant for making titles needlessly vague and confusing, certain prevailing narrow interpretations of titling principles notwithstanding.
Noetica Tea? 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)
The result of the move request was: no consensus. Mini apolis 02:48, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
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)
Recognizability – Titles are names or descriptions of the topic that are recognizable to someone familiar with (though not necessarily expert in) the topic.
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.
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
Expanding recognizability of titles to those unfamiliar with the respective topics might seem like a no-brainer improvement at first, but changing our most fundamental titling criteria to allow for it, either explicitly in policy or implicitly in practice, would have the unintended consequences of destabilizing the title system of the entire encyclopedia. This would obviously be unworkable, and attempts to weaken our resolve against "unnecessary disambiguation", because they have the unintended effect of undermining title stability to such an enormous degree, must be firmly rejected at every instance.
In response to Noetica's claim above that even a person familiar with the topic would not necessarily recognize National Pension Scheme as referring to this National Pension Scheme, that doesn't matter! "Recognizable to someone familiar with" the article's topic does not mean that a title must uniquely identify its topic without possibility of referring to anything else. If it did, we would disambiguate all names that are ambiguous, and not have any primary topics. Paris, for example, would be moved to Paris, France, and Michael Jackson would be at Michael Jackson (entertainer).
That is, the titles Paris and Michael Jackson are no more surely referring to their respective primary topics than is National Pension Scheme referring to the topic of this article. Yet that's how we title articles in WP. Ambiguity is only relevant with respect to other actual uses on WP, and even then one of the uses may be deemed to be primary. In this case, we have no other uses, so this use is clearly the WP:PRIMARY TOPIC. -- Born2cycle ( talk) 21:29, 29 January 2013 (UTC) Updated -- Born2cycle ( talk) 00:58, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
Even if you limit the reasoning to topics that are not widely recognized, that still leaves the vast majority of our articles to which this reasoning applies (because most WP topics are not widely recognized - if you're not convinced, just click on SPECIAL:RANDOM a few times to see how few you recognize). And considering that, on WP, practice creates precedent which drives policy wording, it is not at all far-fetched to be concerned that applying such reasoning to a few articles here and there today is likely to lead to opening the floodgates to destabilizing our entire title space by applying the same reasoning to all of our articles. -- Born2cycle ( talk) 17:47, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
If I refer to an article about "Paris", I may very well be referring to the legendary figure of the Trojan War, but that doesn't mean we can't put the city at Paris. Just because someone might be referring to some other or generic scheme with "National Pension Scheme" does not mean we can't put this scheme, the only topic on WP to which it can refer, at National Pension Scheme.
If this reasoning is sufficient basis to add more descriptive information to this title, then it's sufficient basis to add more descriptive information to every primary topic title on Wikipedia. While this one title is not all that important, that underlying issue is critical. -- Born2cycle ( talk) 16:43, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
Again, we who are familiar with the French city don't know that a particular references to "Paris" necessarily refers to the city (in this case it doesn't), since it is ambiguous and has other uses, but that doesn't mean the recognizability criterion isn't met, or that we can't use the title "Paris" for Paris.
The criterion is recognizability. You guys seem to treat it as unmistakable identifiability. -- Born2cycle ( talk) 23:05, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
If the best known "Internal Revenue Service" can and should be at Internal Revenue Service, despite the existence of another "Internal Revenue Service" (that has an article on WP), why can't the best known (and only, on WP) "National Pension Scheme" be at National Pension Scheme? -- Born2cycle ( talk) 23:29, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
As for disambiguation: all things being equal, one shouldn't disambiguate when it's not necessary, but things are not always equal, and what's necessary depends on more than just the strict application of the rule of minimum disambiguation. WP:TITLE notes that good article titles seek to balance a number of goals, and that such titles should put the interests of the reader ahead of the specialist concerns of editors. The proposed change is an improvement that accomplishes this. ╠╣uw [ talk 01:20, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
This is the point with "big". Are people really looking for the topic about the relatively large size when searching for "big" in WP? The assumption is no, they are not. Any disagreement with this assumption should be based on an argument, that, if sound, would also warrant creation of an article about that topic. So, in practice, the consideration of topics that don't have articles in WP is moot.
And that's the point here. If people are seriously looking for other topics named "national pension scheme", then we should have articles for them, and then the arguments about disambiguating this title would be appropriate. But as long as those articles don't exist, the point is moot. -- Born2cycle ( talk) 05:04, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
That this is so is not irrelevant or moot: titles exist to serve the reader, and if in this case it's likely that readers (even those familiar with the subject) may not understand which of the numerous identically-named national pension schemes the title "National Pension Scheme" refers to – something that does seem likely for the reasons already explained, and notwithstanding the presence or absence of other articles – then the title should be clarified. ╠╣uw [ talk 11:22, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
The only use of "National Pension Scheme" with notability sufficient to be on WP is this one. Therefore, not only is it the primary use, it is the only use, by definition.
You say the title does not seem very recognizable. To whom? To someone unfamiliar with the Indian Scheme? Again, that's irrelevant. This is it's name. It's recognizable to anyone familiar with it. We have myriads of titles that do "not seem very recognizable" in the general sense. Just start hitting SPECIAL:RANDOM and you'll quickly encounter article titles like 2004 Birthday Honours, Abidemi Sanusi, Wallace's Isle, Castillo de San Pedro de la Roca, First Market Bank, Cloud.bg, Motema, Eupithecia nuceistrigata, Bring 'Em Back Alive, The Origin of Fire, Sausar, Group signature, ... I don't know about you, but none of these seem very recognizable to me. I, for one, don't recognize any of them. So the fact that this title, National Pension Scheme, "does not seem very recognizable" is not a factor that distinguishes it from most of our titles. It's not reason to change it. If it were, we would have to change the majority of our titles. Perhaps that's a can of worms you favor opening, but, I, for one, certainly do not. -- Born2cycle ( talk) 21:30, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
I know you strongly disagree, as you're free to. You've made your position very clear through your own statements as well as your persistent rejection and dismissal of my own, which in fairness I've made an effort to keep up with. I'm not asking you to agree, but merely articulating my own support for the proposal and the reasons for it; I would, however, ask that you respect the existence of reasonable opposing views, particularly in RfCs which are meant to freely solicit editors' input. ╠╣uw [ talk 02:48, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
Trying to research pensions in India, what if the person is an invalid, or unemployed, or poor? Once they hit old age / retirement age do they just ... starve? Or is there an old age pension? Is there unemployment benefits for the poor and homeless over there? These things should be in the further reading / related sections if not in the article. 121.211.33.244 ( talk) 20:10, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
NPS also gives you so small amount of pension that you cannot survive. For example one employee got Rs. 1296 pension. How can she survive in such a small amount? Lalit Sadavarti ( talk) 01:55, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
As on 20/02/2023, this article has the following multiple issues.
Working towards improving the article. Inviting other interested editors to join in. Anand2202 ( talk) 11:24, 20 February 2023 (UTC)