Talk:Social Security

This page should be renamed

The difference between this page and Social security is too subtle. Suggest "Social Security Systems"

Actuarial disco boy 11:05, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Requested move

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: not moved -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:26, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

---

Social Security → Social security (disambiguation) – "Social security", as a general concept, is not a proper noun and thus should not have capital letters. It is also too similar to Social security (with a lowercase "s" on the second word) which covers the general concept, so adding "(disambiguation)" to the title will help to distinguish this disambiguation page itself from the main article. —sroc (talk) 14:31, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

This should also be reflected in other article titles, except where "Social Security" is itself a proper name for a service, e.g.:

• Social security in Sweden (correct current title)
• Social security in France (correct current title)
• Social welfare in China (correct current title)
• Social Security in Spain → Social security in Spain
• Social Security (Australia) → Social security in Australia
• Social Security (United States) → Social security in the United States (or does this refer to a program name?)
  • History of Social Security in the United States → History of social security in the United States (or does this refer to a program name?)

Depending on how this goes, and whether each case uses "social security" in a descriptive sense or "Social Security" as a proper name, the next step may be to formally propose these moves. —sroc (talk) 14:43, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

• Comment. "Social Security" is the name of the US program. Apteva (talk) 02:53, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose – I don't see the problem with this ambiguous term going to this disambig page. Dicklyon (talk) 05:13, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
• Actually, I think this page is at its optimal location, and none of those other ones should change as long as they're talking about a specific program, which... I just did a casual look at these other pages, and only the Australian one seems that it may well be a common noun. Oppose all but Social Security (Australia), and weak support of a move to Social security in Australia. Red Slash 09:43, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

If the disambiguation page refers to Social security in Sweden (where "Social Security" is not used as a proper name) and Social Security (Australia) should be moved (as it is not used as a proper name), then why should the disambiguation page buck the trend and remain capitalised? If the US is the exception that uses "Social Security" as a proper name, then Social Security (United States) should remain capitalised, but that does not justify leaving Social Security capitalised as well. —sroc (talk) 10:34, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

@Red Slash: If Spain's uses the proper name, shouldn't it be Social Security (Spain) instead of Social Security in Spain? —sroc (talk) 10:37, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Good point about Spain. I really prefer natural disambiguation, but that's not the be-all and end-all and sometimes you have to use parentheticals instead. Good point. Support move to Social Security (Spain). As for the disambiguation page itself, capitalization is a valid disambiguator (see Talk:Red Meat and Red meat), and I'd prefer not to have a title with "(disambiguation)" in the name due to WP:NATURAL. I suppose I can amend my oppose to a weak oppose to the move originally proposed. (If the page move fails, we should still create a redirect to this page from Social security (disambiguation).) Red Slash 07:52, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

So, to summarise, what we are proposing is:

• Social security remains as an article about the topic generally, including a list of national systems
• Social Security remains as a disambiguation page for programs with the proper name "Social Security"
  • Social security (disambiguation) to redirect here
  • Social Security (disambiguation) already redirects here
• Social security in Sweden remains (removed from disambiguation page as it does not use the proper name)
• Social security in France remains
• Social welfare in China remains
• Social Security in Spain to move to Social Security (Spain) with redirect (will propose on that page)
• Social Security (Australia) to move to Social security in Australia (will propose on that page) and be removed from the disambiguation page
• Social Security (United States) remains
  • History of Social Security in the United States remains

Agreed? If so, I will propose the moves on the relevant articles' talk pages. —sroc (talk) 08:35, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

That indeed would work for me, not sure I'd remove anything from disambiguation pages, even though I see your point. Everything else seems to fit. I appreciate your good faith and efforts to make these articles better. Red Slash 23:47, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Red Slash.

• Created Social security (disambiguation) as redirect to Social Security
• Move proposed at Talk:Social Security in Spain#Requested move
• Move proposed at Talk:Social Security (Australia)#Requested move

I've also revised Social Security further to clarify that the various links being disambiguated refer to "Social Security", not "social security". —sroc 💬 12:32, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

If all of these titles merely describe kinds of social security, then Social Security is WP:DABCONCEPT to social security. bd2412 T 16:31, 21 July 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.

See also

We have a "See also" section that singles out:

• Canada Pension Plan, Canadian social insurance scheme
• National Insurance, UK social benefits scheme

Why single these out? There's already a list of various systems at Social security#National_and_regional_systems (although the direct link to this section has been deleted) which includes these and others, e.g.:

• Social Security Organization (Iran)
• Central Provident Fund (Singapore)

Why single out some and not others? This represents geographic imbalance. I propose that the "See also" section simply be deleted. —sroc 💬 00:16, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Social security in Australia

Now that Social Security (Australia) has been moved to Social security in Australia, it no longer fits the criteria for this disambig, i.e., it is not called "Social Security". Why has User:JHunterJ insisted on re-inserting it? —sroc 💬 16:19, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Feel free to nominate the redirect for deletion. Until it is deleted, it fits the criteria for this disambiguation, that is, it is called "Social Security". -- JHunterJ (talk) 18:21, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

No, it's not called that, that's why the page was renamed, so it does not fit the criteria for disambiguation. The fact that there's a redirect is irrelevant to what it's actually called. —sroc 💬 01:26, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

The redirect is called "Social Security". The redirect fits the criteria for disambiguation. The fact that there's a redirect is relevant to disambiguation. If you disagree with the redirect's accuracy or relevance, use WP:RFD. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:06, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

The redirect is helpful for old links to the old title, Social Security (Australia), despite being an inaccurate and inappropriate title for the article.

WP:PIPING states: "Subject to certain exceptions as listed below, piping or redirects should not be used in disambiguation pages." Thus, as a general rule, we should not have a piped link on a disambiguation page stating Social Security (Australia) that actually links to Social security in Australia, nor should we have a link to Social Security (Australia) which is actually a redirect.

The exception you referred to in this revert states, in full: "Linking to a redirect can also be helpful when the redirect contains the disambiguated term and could serve as an alternative name for the target article, meaning an alternative term which is already in the article's lead section." It gives an example of a disambiguation page for James Cary listing an entry for "James Carrey or Jim Carrey (born 1962), Canadian actor", linking to James Carrey which is a redirect to Jim Carrey; it gives a second example where the Jim Carrey is linked instead. It then says: "The above example of a redirect is only appropriate because James Carrey is indicated as a name in the lead section of the Jim Carrey article. If it were not, then the second example could have been used instead." In fact, the example is outdated as both that article and the disambiguation page have since been changed, but the principle is clear: linking to a redirect should only be used if the disambiguated term is in the target article's lead section. In this case, "Social Security" (as a proper name with capital letters, which is the subject of this disambiguation page) is not included in the lead of the Social security in Australia article; indeed, it is not referred to by this as a proper name in Australia, which is why the article was recently moved. Hence, this exception does not apply here.

If we were to ignore the wording of the exception and extend it to any article that refers to "social security" (as a common noun with lowercase letters) in the lead, then various other cases (e.g., Social security in Finland, Social security in France, Social security in Germany, etc.) would belong here too, and it would effectively become a list of social security services. That is not what the disambiguation page for "Social Security" is meant to be. —sroc 💬 14:13, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

If the redirect is bad, delete it. If the redirect is not bad, it's ambiguous (which is why it has the qualifier). -- JHunterJ (talk) 15:14, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Sroc, I've had a very similar conversation with JHunterJ before about redirects on dab pages (Talk:Paw Paw#Use of redirects). You'll likely find banging your head against the wall a more satisfying experience. older ≠ wiser 18:45, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Whether or not a redirect exists is irrelevant. Don't make up your own rules here (e.g., if there's a redirect, we must include it). Especially not when they directly contradict the general rule: "redirects should not be used in disambiguation pages."

The question is whether the disambiguated term (Social Security, with capital letters) is in the target article's lead section. It isn't, so it doesn't belong here.

I also note that, since the Paw Paw discussion, you added this qualification to MOS:DABMENTION: "If the title is not mentioned on the other article, there is no Wikipedia ambiguity with that topic, and that article should not be linked to in the disambiguation page." To borrow from this principle, "Social Security" (capitalised) is not mentioned at Social security in Australia as the name of any particular program, so it doesn't belong here. —sroc 💬 00:18, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

"Social Security System" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Social Security System has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 October 5 § Social Security System until a consensus is reached. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 21:42, 5 October 2023 (UTC)