Talk:National Pension System

comments

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)

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 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)

• 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

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. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no consensus. Miniapolis 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)

• 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^Tea? 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 Wikipedia. Parenthetical disambiguators are used to disambiguate Wikipedia articles from other Wikipedia 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^Tea? 23:04, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

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

• Support – conciseness should not trump recognizability and precision. The present title is uselessly ambiguous and uninformative; it is supposed to indicate the topic of the article, and it fails to do so. Dicklyon (talk) 23:44, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose - as per Tiggerjay. There are UK-specific articles on similar topics such as State Earnings-Related Pension Scheme, State Second Pension, NHS Pension Scheme and National Employment Savings Trust - and none of them has '(UK)' appended to the name. So, just because this article is specific to India, there is no need to append '(India)' to it. Well, till similar articles are created for other countries, where a national scheme with same name exists. As per search results are concerned, end users do not search for random text and hence citizens of country X, where such a scheme do not exist, are not expected to search for such a text, as they probably haven't heard about it. Wikipedia is not a search engine such as Google. To make up my view on the other issue, I checked various sites under gov.in and nic.in, which are websites maintained by Government of India or is agencies. Also, I searched with <new/national>pension<scheme/system> under site:<nic.in/gov.in> and I got max search results for "new pension scheme". I checked the history of this wikipedia article and found that it was created with name "New Pension Scheme" and then some user changed content to use the name "National Pension Scheme" without citing proper source for his claim that the name of scheme has got changed (I couldn't find any), and then the page was moved to "National Pension Scheme". It seems this wikipedia page should move to New Pension Scheme, some refs to support this name are 1 and 2.--GDibyendu (talk) 05:50, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose per AjaxSmack. Don't disambiguate for articles that don't exist. --BDD (talk) 21:23, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose - The remarkable stability of our titles stems from the scope of the recognizability criterion being limited to "those familiar with". There is no goal, not in policy or in practice, to make our titles recognizable to those who are not familiar with the respective topics. Were we to adopt the goal of making titles like this one recognizable to those unfamiliar with their respective topics, which is exactly the implied basis for any proposal like this one that seeks to make titles more descriptive for any reason other than disambiguation from other uses on WP, almost every single title on Wikipedia would be put into question. Worse, for each one, there would be no clear guidance in policy or practice on what the new more recognizable title should be.

  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)

• Strong Support, and I agree with the excellent statements of Noetica and Dicklyon. I would also note that conciseness need not be in collision with recognizability and precision. A concise title is both short and conveys useful information. In its current form, the title conveys very little. Omnedon (talk) 22:05, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support The title is ambiguous. There are similarly named schemes in other countries such as South Korea, Zambia, etc. They don't have Wikipedia articles at the moment but they clearly could, and someone clicking on this search phrase could easily be looking for one of the other national systems. (Thanks to Born2cycle for calling this discussion to my attention.) --MelanieN (talk) 23:20, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support. Definitely! Titles need to work in a vacuum of context, without which they can be ambiguous. In this case, the title is highly ambiguous. Although there may be only one 'national pension scheme'in Wikipedia, there's sure to be more than one in the world outside. The title tells us nothing about to which 'nation' it is applying to. Nobody is suggesting that Paris be moved to Paris, France, and Michael Jackson to Michael Jackson (entertainer) – that's simply scaremongering based on reductio ad absurdum. There is no Paris more well known than the one in France, and no Michael Jackson more well known than the King of Pop, and that will be the case for many more years to come, if not decade. Let's just accept that the fact that there are no other articles on a national pension scheme doesn't mean we can't anticipate one, and adopt a name that's more helpful to the reader using a search box or a search engine. To do otherwise would be like the proverbial 'frog in the well' appreciating only the very narrow version of the sky available to it. -- Ohconfucius ^{ping / poke} 01:29, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Whether anyone intends for the reasoning they are using here to mean Paris and Michael Jackson (and myriads of similar articles) should be moved is beside the point. The point is that if the same reasoning is applied to those articles, that's the logical result. The reasoning applied here is that the current title needs additional descriptive information in it because the topic's name is "ambiguous". Well, "Paris" is "ambiguous" too, and so is "Michael Jackson" - we even actually have dab pages for each of those terms.

    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)

• Oppose per WP:PRECISION. If the title needs additional information for clarity, it should be added to the title (e.g., National Pension Scheme of India, India's National Pension Scheme, some other title that better titles the article about this National Pension Scheme), not framed as a disambiguation qualifier when no WP ambiguity exists (if ambiguity exists in the future, in the future a page move might be needed). -- JHunterJ (talk) 17:40, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
• Comment there has been a lot of good discussion on this page and I am thankful for the input of Noetica. I want to clarify that my oppose is not that I am against renaming this article, I fully believe that this article needs to be renamed. However, I am against the current rename of the article. From a quick read I believe everyone believes that the name needs to be changed, there is just disagreement upon how it should be changed. I believe we can break down the discussion to two main concerns here: (1) is the use of the parenthetical India necessary and the use of the word National being ambiguous; and (2) is the rename of scheme to something else. Perhaps we can discuss these a bit...

For my part I believe that the use of the word National and not meaning the US is sufficient because we have significant use of the word Nation(al) for other countries [1] [2] [3] [4] and even National High School which is in India. The title doesn't need to stand alone and the article lead serves to disambiguate the location. And since there is currently only one primary use of the term "National Pension Scheme" or "System", both on Google and Wikipedia, that there is no need for extra parenthetical disambiguation.

Regarding the use of scheme, per my prior post there doesn't seem to be any references to support the use of scheme as either the official title, nor the commonname; the references to the name from the article [5] and [6] are from the same source as the ones that Noetica uses [7] however, in the references by the article the use a proper name, compared to a non proper name used in the other artiles that Noetica found. I would suggest that you will find in the common uses of social security referring to a concept in many newspaper articles when they really are talking about the Social Security Administration or [[Social Security (United States)]. And that National pension scheme is referring to the concept rather then the proper name of the organization. Therefore, since the information available supports the use of the word "System" I would support the rename to "National Pension System"...

Tiggerjay (talk) 19:17, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Without evaluating the merits of this proposal, which may very well be overwhelming, I think it's too late in this discussion to introduce an alternative new title to the one proposed. The current proposal needs to be resolved first. --Born2cycle (talk) 19:33, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

• Support, for the reasons already well articulated above by Noetica, Dicklyon, Omnedon, etc. It's worth repeating that Wikipedia requires article titles to put the interests of the general audience of readers ahead of the interests of editors and specialists, and maintaining a title that's insufficient to be recognizable or unambiguous in any real sense doesn't accomplish that. ╠╣uw [talk] 01:13, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

I think you're misreading the policy, at least if we're talking about WP:CRITERIA. Titles only need to be "recognizable to someone familiar with (though not necessarily expert in) the topic." It's not about generalists and specialists. Titles that all readers will recognize are simply not practical. --BDD (talk) 02:53, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

No, I understand the criteria, but I (and others) suggest that even someone familiar with the Indian pension scheme may not necessarily recognize this title as specifically about the scheme in India, given its generic name, that it's sometimes referred to by other names, that other nations have similar programs, etc. ╠╣uw [talk] 13:13, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

The recognizability criterion has no implied requirement for the person familiar with a topic to be able to determine that the name necessarily refers to one particular use. There is no requirement for someone familiar with the Indian National Pension Scheme to know this National Pension Scheme is specifically is about that one, just as there is no requirement for someone familiar with the city of "Huai'an" to know that Huai'an is about the city rather than about the county or district of that name. The point is, someone familiar with Huai'an will recognize Huai'an as the name of the city, and someone familiar with the the Indian National Pension Scheme will recognize National Pension Scheme as its name.

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)

Put more simply, recognizability is about avoiding titles that are not recognizable to those familiar with the topic. That is, to meet the criterion, anyone familiar with the topic needs to be able to recognize the title. This title clearly does that, so the criterion is met as well as any could be. --Born2cycle (talk) 20:00, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

It does not do that. Even someone familiar with the pension scheme in India would not necessarily recognize this article title as applying to that pension scheme -- not in an international encyclopedia. The name "National Pension Scheme" conveys nothing about which nation. Omnedon (talk) 20:14, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Omnedon: That's correct.

Born2Cycle: You say you that the point is that "someone familiar with the the Indian National Pension Scheme will recognize National Pension Scheme as its name"; given its generic name, I don't see why that's necessarily so. ╠╣uw [talk] 21:54, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

If they are familiar with the National Pension Scheme, they will know its name is "National Pension Scheme". Therefore, they will recognize the name "National Pension Scheme". Whether they will know for sure that a particular reference to "National Pension Scheme" necessarily refers to the Indian "National Pension Scheme" is a different question, and is irrelevant to compliance with the recognizability criterion.

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)

Please note that Internal Revenue Service is also a generic name, recognizable to those familiar with the one in Guana as well as the one in the U.S., yet we don't add distinguishing information to this title. Why? The recognizability criterion is met just as well for "Internal Revenue Service" as it is for "National Pension Scheme".

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)

You again cite Paris, but that's not equivalent. The French city dominates the common use of that term to the point that it safely can be considered the primary topic. I do not think the same can be said of "National Pension Scheme". Indeed, a Google search for the term returns six different schemes (in India, Zambia, Bermuda, South Korea, Malawi, and Finland) within just the first 10 results.

As for "Internal Revenue Service", that's an excellent example to consider for contrast. Performing a search for that term I found zero references to anything other than the American agency after scanning the first 10 pages of results, which suggests that it is the primary occupant of that term in a way that India's National Pension Scheme is not. ╠╣uw [talk] 12:44, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

WP:D, of which WP:PRIMARYTOPIC is a section, clearly circumscribes the scope of disambiguation in the first line of that page: "when [a single term] refers to more than one topic covered by Wikipedia articles". Whether a term is the "primary topic" in some general sense, with respect to topics not covered by WP articles, is not relevant to determining primary topic on WP. --Born2cycle (talk) 18:45, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Actually, WP:PRIMARYTOPIC notes the significance of general usage as an important criterion to determining a primary topic: "A topic is primary for a term, with respect to usage, if it is highly likely—much more likely than any other topic, and more likely than all the other topics combined—to be the topic sought when a reader searches for that term." It further identifies Google searches as one useful gauge, and based on the results of such searches (as shown above), India's system is not the single primary topic for the term "National Pension Scheme" on those grounds.

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)

The statement you quote should not be taken out of context. The context is the scope circumscribed by the first line of WP:D. As such, references to topic refer to topics with articles in WP. The likelihood that a reader is looking for topic that has no article in WP is irrelevant. First of all, it is assumed that such a search is so unlikely that the likelihood is reasonable to ignore. If people are looking for a particular topic in WP with sufficient frequency to warrant giving it consideration in determining primary topics, then that topic should have an article in WP.

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)

Regarding primary topics, my point is that India's scheme seemingly is not the clear primary topic of the term "National Pension Scheme" in general usage, in contrast to the primary topics of other terms you mentioned such as "Paris", "Michael Jackson", or "Internal Revenue Service". In practice (and as other commentators have noted), it's vague.

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)

If it's true that "India's scheme seemingly is not the clear primary topic of the term "National Pension Scheme" in general usage", then your argument based on that is misplaced here. Instead, you should be creating articles (at least stubs) for the other topics in general usage. If you get consensus support for their creation and retention, then you can argue here that this use is not primary. But supporting this move now, without first creating those other articles, is putting the cart before the horse. --Born2cycle (talk) 19:44, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Upon what basis do you claim that it is primary? You haven't addressed his points that indicate that it is not. The title doesn't seem very recognizable. Omnedon (talk) 19:54, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

His claims about "general usage" are not relevant here; they are relevant to the issue of whether the other uses of "National Pension Scheme" have sufficient notability to have articles on WP. As of right now none of those other uses have established sufficient notability to be on WP, so we assume they don't have it.

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)

B2C: No, as I've already said I think the current title may not be recognizable even to those familiar with the scheme, and have said why. I also consider general usage to be relevant (particularly to the question of what's in the best interest of the reader), and have said why. Further, I've never favored opening a "can of worms", nor "changing the majority of our titles"; cases must be decided on their merits, as this one should be.

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)

In order to avoid JDLI arguments based on speculation about whether the name of a topic will be recognizable to those familiar with a topic, what we do is make arguments based on usage in reliable sources. If reliable sources consistently add clarifying descriptive information to the topic's name when they reference it, then we follow their lead, and do the same in our titles. That has not been shown to be the case here, so the default practice to use the commonly used name for the topic applies. --Born2cycle (talk) 16:49, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

The basic logic here is clear: why would anyone (even in India) upon seeing the title "National Pension Scheme", necessarily recognize it as being the Indian one? That title does not clearly refer to the subject of the article. Omnedon (talk) 17:14, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose as per AjaxSmack and WP:PRECISION. It seems to me that there is a certain tendency for parochialism here, if its not in the USA or GB then stick an extension on it. If this goes through then the logic would be that we also extend Rate schedule (federal income tax), why stop there? better add ", England , United Kingdom" to London ... -- PBS (talk) 13:32, 6 February 2013 (UTC
• Oppose. I suggest a move to National Pension System. This seems to be what the organization calls itself, per this document. As far as the disambiguator goes, just think of all the other titles this type of logic could apply to to. Does someone want to move National Hockey League to National Hockey League (U.S. and Canada)? Kauffner (talk) 19:59, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
• Support per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, although there are two issues here.
  1. Claims are made that, even in India, it's not known as the National Pension Scheme, but as the New Pension System or National Pension System. That would not be a reason to support or oppose the move.
  2. That, in spite of this being the only article with this name on Wikipedia, that it is not even the primary topic among those familiar with the topic. That's a stronger reason to move than the one I'm presenting, that it's just not the primary topic. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 04:31, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

     I'm baffled by your reasoning, Arthur. Please explain. If the topic of this article is not the primary topic of National Pension Scheme, that means National Pension Scheme should not be the title of this article, and it should not redirect to this article. What do you propose be done with it? Remember, if National Pension Scheme redirects to this article after it is moved to National Pension Scheme (India) as you support, the topic of this article remains the primary topic of National Pension Scheme. So objecting on PRIMARYTOPIC grounds makes no sense, unless you're saying National Pension Scheme should be the title of some other article or dab page or something. --Born2cycle (talk) 05:42, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

     You're misreading WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, as usual. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 10:13, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

     As far as I can tell, all of PRIMARYTOPIC supports my reading of it, including this: "The title of the primary topic article may be different from the ambiguous term. This may happen when the topic is primary for more than one term, ...". For example, this topic is primary for National Pension Scheme and for [[National Pension Scheme (India). I don't see anything in PRIMARYTOPIC that indicates we should use one or the other - just that each needs to be either the title, or a redirect to, the article about this topic. So, again, I don't understand your objection. --Born2cycle (talk) 01:05, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose. Is there another National Pension Scheme ? Just because it's India and not UK/USA is no reason to disambiguate. Zarcadia (talk) 00:38, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose at least for now. It may not be the most accurate title, so disambiguating it doesn't solve that problem. In other words: there is no reason to disambiguate this title, yet. If articles for South Korea and other possible titles are created then it might be a good time to disambiguate them. As there is no other article in existence to confuse it with it is the WP:Primary topic (and only topic) for this title.Synchronism (talk) 16:20, 20 February 2013 (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 or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Ambiguity; so what if the person has no money to contribute?

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)

Issues in this Article

As on 20/02/2023, this article has the following multiple issues.

• This article needs to be updated. (August 2016)
• The neutrality of this article is disputed. (December 2013)
• This article may need to be rewritten to comply with Wikipedia's quality standards. (November 2020)

Working towards improving the article. Inviting other interested editors to join in. Anand2202 (talk) 11:24, 20 February 2023 (UTC)