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 Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Economics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Economics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
I find the use of notation heavy-handed in this article. The same content could be presented more clearly without any use of actuarial notation. This material has wider importance in finance outside the actuarial context. I therefore suggest a substantial re-write to remove the actuarial notation. I can see the use of a reference to actuarial notation, but reliance upon it for the whole body of the article makes it less readable than it would be without the actuarial notation.
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.
Support, although given that this is the primary topic I've already moved the dab back to annuity (disambiguation) and turned annuity into a redirect pointing here. We could archive the talk page from there but really it should just be merged to the top of this page. It's the talk page from when this article was at that namespace. — LlywelynII 20:41, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
Support primary topic for the finance thingRedSlash 22:03, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
The original Annuity article was split and replaced with a disambiguation page; its history should be moved somewhere (or merged to Annuity (disambiguation) as it's also the history of that page) if this request is successful. Peter James (talk) 22:45, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
NOTE the annuity disambiguation page ws CUT AND PASTED to "(disambiguation)". This is not the appropriate way to move a page. IT should be done via a move request. The talk page at talk:annuity should remain with the disambiguation page. The page at "annuity" cannot be deleted without violating Wikipedia's basic licensing, it must be moved if you want to move this page there. -- 184.108.40.206 (talk) 07:37, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
Comment "annuity" became a disambiguation page in 2006! It was not suddenly turned into a disambiguation page. When the content was split into multiple articles. The disambiguation page was cut and pasted in 2015! The move of the disambiguatio page and requesting the location be deleted fails Cut-and-paste moves. To delete the edit history of the former article from 2006 violates WP:MAD . -- 220.127.116.11 (talk) 07:41, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
Comment: It's fine to make sure the page history ends up in the right place and I'm sure that will be taken care of when this move request is successful. As for the specifics, you very obviously don't know what you're talking about. This is that former article and the talk page at Annuity should have been (but was not) moved here at the time of the misguided forking. It should still be merged here. The history at Annuity prior to 2006 should be merged with this page.It was incorrectly left at Annuity when the page was originally (misguidedly) split.
If the history can't be split between this page (prior to Jan 2006) and the dab (afterwards), then it belongs with this page, since the history as a dab is (a) fairly unimportant and (b) mostly consists of periodic vandalism and reversions of the vandalism. — LlywelynII 06:24, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
I have reverted Llywelyn's cut and paste moves of the disambiguation page which are just wrong regardless of the outcome of this discussion. This request should have been granted as a multi-page move. older ≠ wiser 12:10, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
Wow, what an absolute mess. I've just spent an hour or so looking through all the old histories and here's my take on what should happen:
Annuity needs to be histsplit at Jan 2006 when it was turned into a dab page.
The talk page also shouldn't really be histmerged anywhere. I'd be content to leave it where it is until there's a consensus to move this article and then move it with the dab page to Talk:Annuity (disambiguation). A clear note would need to be left there explaining that prior to Jan 2006 it was a talk page for Talk:Annuity/old and post that a talk page for the dab page.
I think that covers everything and I'm happy to perform it myself, but as it's fairly complex I though I'd leave this here first to make sure everyone is on the same page. Jenks24 (talk) 13:28, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
@Jenks24: I think, because of the split into multiple articles, that the history at Annuity can just be left where it is. The history of the current Annuity (disambiguation) isn't of much use, it's just the creation of the redirect and other maintenance entries. It would be safe to delete it when we delete the page and move the current Annuity over it. It appears to me that the dab was not created at the same time, but that for a time Annuity and Annuity (finance theory) existed as parallel articles and were eventually merged, so the history of one is distinct from the history of the other anyway.
Also, I see now that I proposed this move after LlywelynII inappropriately cut-and-pasted the content of Annuity into Annuity (disambiguation) (please stop doing this, you're breaking things) and as such I have updated the move request. Ivanvector (talk) 14:05, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
Ivanvector, that's a point I guess – the history doesn't necessarily need to be split, the templates for attribution can just as easily point to it that way. Splitting might make thins clearer though? And, not that it's particularly important, but I can't see that Annuity was ever merged to Annuity (finance theory). Regardless, the histories if the two articles are definitely distinct as you say. Jenks24 (talk) 14:18, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
Comment First, obviously, thank you Jenks24 for taking that much time to go through everything.
I still support keeping the unified Annuity history with the article returning to the Annuity namespace. I'm really loathe to separate Annuity's history from the content of the main topic that will be returning to the Annuity namespace and I don't see how hiding the edit history at yet another variant page helps anyone but if you're right that most of the content so far was just the Encyclopædia Britannica cut-and-paste that makes up the "Annuities under European law" article we have now, I can understand how you might feel that way.
Third, while you guys are here, feel free to share your thoughts on the move itself. I suppose we could RfC if you disagree with the proposal/have no thoughts and everyone's waiting for a decision here before we move the dab to the dab page. — LlywelynII 18:05, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
Well, let me try putting it a different way. It is possible now to follow the attribution back to the original contributions, although somewhat difficult because the splits were done without attribution in the edit summaries, but we can fix that with notes on those pages' talk pages. As for the articles themselves, I think we are generally in agreement here that Annuity (finance theory) is the primary topic, and that the pages should be moved as above. The only disagreement is on what to do with the histories, but since there isn't an obvious way to fix this with history merges/splits, then leaving the histories where they are now (where they'll be after the page moves) is an acceptable outcome. Attribution requirements are satisfied and we don't risk breaking things. Thoughts? Ivanvector (talk) 18:31, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
Just a couple of notes that might clarify the way forward.
Talk:Annuity (disambiguation) is currently a redlink. A good place for a talk page to end up.
Annuity (disambiguation) has no significant history so far as copyleft goes. Perhaps we should note that there's a minor edit war there as LlywelynII reverted the first attempt to fix their cut and paste move of the DAB, but there was no third attempt, and a cut and paste of a DAB isn't really a problem anyway... the information can't be copyrighted, the format is not creative (or shouldn't be, it should just follow the MOS), so again there's no real copyleft significance to the history.
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.
@Jfhutson: can we come up with a better description of a life annuity than one that's paid while the recipient is alive? That is hopelessly vague and inappropriate for a lede section. I made an attempt by adding a second line to the lede with a description but you've reverted me. Ivanvector🍁 (talk) 18:27, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Annuity/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.
I am rating this article as a start class for WikiProject Finance because it has a decent amount of usable information. It does however need more external references. --Aka042 (talk) 01:34, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
Last edited at 18:12, 25 June 2015 (UTC). Substituted at 07:56, 29 April 2016 (UTC)