Talk:Enrolled actuary
 | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
Requested move[edit]
- 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: moved per request. Favonian (talk) 20:01, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
Enrolled Actuary → Enrolled actuary –
Per WP:MOSCAPS ("Wikipedia avoids unnecessary capitalization") and WP:TITLE, this is a generic, common term such as medical doctor (MD), so the article title should be downcased. In addition, WP:MOSCAPS says that a compound item should not be upper-cased just because it is abbreviated with caps. Lowercase will match the formatting of related article titles.
The sources vary, but several use the normal lower case, such as the US [www.irs.gov/taxpros/actuaries/article/0,,id=123390,00.html internal revenue] (how could more authority be sourced?), plus others, such as [www.investorwords.com/15371/enrolled_actuary.html Investorwords] and [www.soa.org/professional.../cpd.../cpd-faqs-section-r.aspx the FAQ by the Society of Actuaries].
The US granting authority has no monopoly on the name, either: [au.incruit.com/Enrolled+Actuary-jobs here's one] from another jurisdiction.
Tony (talk) 01:43, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
- Strongest possible oppose As an Enrolled Actuary, I can assure you it most certainly is not a "generic, common term such as medical doctor". It is a specific term, used only in the United States, to refer to an actuary who has been enrolled to practice before the Internal Revenue Service. See the Joint Board for the Enrollment of Actuaries ("Find out what an Enrolled Actuary is and how to become one", "Frequently asked questions and answers about Enrolled Actuaries"). — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 02:19, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
- Generally, rudeness and hyper-titles such as yours are not respected at these forums. You've presented no linguistic evidence, and have made no comment on the authoritative sources that were cited. WP does not capitalise an item just because it's a job or a position; see chief executive officer (CEO). Another example is enrolled nurse. Oh, and the fact that you're an enrolled actuary is neither here nor there, except that it introduces the possibility of a conflict of interest; pumping up items competitively is common in organisations, but WP is meant to avoid this kind of puffery. Tony (talk) 02:23, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
- Rudeness? None was intended, but you clearly didn't read my response. I'm not asking for the article to be capitalized because it's a job; as I wrote, the government agency that mints Enrolled Actuaries uses capital letters to spell the job. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 02:31, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
- Oh, and one of your precious "authoritative sources" isn't a valid URL at all. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 02:34, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
- The rudeness comes out in interpersonal epithets such as precious; so yes, offence is taken, and I note again your personal offence at what you might be seeing as a threat to your own career identity. Almost every corporate job advertisement, and many of their documents, will cap just about every job name (notably though, not low-status ones such as cleaner). That changes nothing in WP's terms, since consensus in WP, not to mention Chicago Manual of Style and the Oxford New Hart's authorities, is not to cap without good reason. We simply don't want readers to bumpety-bump along a sentence containing this state has 5,000 Enrolled Actuaries; rather, this state has 5,000 enrolled actuaries: there can be no confusion as to the meaning. See also Enrolled agent. Tony (talk) 02:42, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
- You clearly still have not looked at my link but it's just as well; I imagine you'll dismiss it as biased. (You could look at the PDF brochure from the Enrolled Actuaries Meeting as well; biased too, no doubt.) The two sentences about 5,000 enrolled actuaries vs. 5,000 Enrolled Actuaries have quite different meanings. The first sentence begs the question "enrolled in what?" while the second sentence is a statement about actuaries enrolled to practice under ERISA. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 03:02, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, of course docs written by and for enrolled actuaries capitalize it, per WP:SSF. Dicklyon (talk) 03:13, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
- Malik, I did include the issue of "enrolled in what" in my draft response above, but removed it before saving, as unnecessary. The enrolled-in-what question is relevant, since either the range is explicitly included or it's in the background context—and if neither, we're talking about the context of this article. Tony (talk) 03:30, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
- Thank you for the link, Dicklyon. I would have thought the opposite—that specialist literature was the best source—but I guess not. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 16:37, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
- Malik, I did include the issue of "enrolled in what" in my draft response above, but removed it before saving, as unnecessary. The enrolled-in-what question is relevant, since either the range is explicitly included or it's in the background context—and if neither, we're talking about the context of this article. Tony (talk) 03:30, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, of course docs written by and for enrolled actuaries capitalize it, per WP:SSF. Dicklyon (talk) 03:13, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
- You clearly still have not looked at my link but it's just as well; I imagine you'll dismiss it as biased. (You could look at the PDF brochure from the Enrolled Actuaries Meeting as well; biased too, no doubt.) The two sentences about 5,000 enrolled actuaries vs. 5,000 Enrolled Actuaries have quite different meanings. The first sentence begs the question "enrolled in what?" while the second sentence is a statement about actuaries enrolled to practice under ERISA. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 03:02, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
- The rudeness comes out in interpersonal epithets such as precious; so yes, offence is taken, and I note again your personal offence at what you might be seeing as a threat to your own career identity. Almost every corporate job advertisement, and many of their documents, will cap just about every job name (notably though, not low-status ones such as cleaner). That changes nothing in WP's terms, since consensus in WP, not to mention Chicago Manual of Style and the Oxford New Hart's authorities, is not to cap without good reason. We simply don't want readers to bumpety-bump along a sentence containing this state has 5,000 Enrolled Actuaries; rather, this state has 5,000 enrolled actuaries: there can be no confusion as to the meaning. See also Enrolled agent. Tony (talk) 02:42, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
- Generally, rudeness and hyper-titles such as yours are not respected at these forums. You've presented no linguistic evidence, and have made no comment on the authoritative sources that were cited. WP does not capitalise an item just because it's a job or a position; see chief executive officer (CEO). Another example is enrolled nurse. Oh, and the fact that you're an enrolled actuary is neither here nor there, except that it introduces the possibility of a conflict of interest; pumping up items competitively is common in organisations, but WP is meant to avoid this kind of puffery. Tony (talk) 02:23, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
- Support – I understand the opposition of the individual who has proudly earned this official certification, but that doesn't make it a proper name. Consulting stats and books makes this very clear. Even official US govt tax regulations that define it use lower case; more. Dicklyon (talk) 02:58, 11 August 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 or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.