Talk:Personal equity plan

	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.Finance & InvestmentWikipedia:WikiProject Finance & InvestmentTemplate:WikiProject Finance & InvestmentFinance & Investment articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Guild of Copy Editors

This article was copy edited by Ignatzmice, a member of the Guild of Copy Editors, on 28 October 2019.Guild of Copy EditorsWikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsTemplate:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsGuild of Copy Editors articles

Questions

Can PEP's be moved to ISA's? When can money be taken out of a PEP? (age or time limits?) What are the tax ramifications of moving and withdrawing? The article should cover these, but I didn't see it. - Taxman ^Talk 15:32, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

PEPs become ISAs on 2008-04-06. See edited main article. RPTB1 (talk) 10:50, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. 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.

No consensus to move. Vegaswikian (talk) 17:18, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Personal Equity Plan → Personal equity plan –

Per WP:MOSCAPS ("Wikipedia avoids unnecessary capitalization") and WP:TITLE, this is a generic, common term, not a propriety or commercial term, 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. $Tony (talk)$ 11:04, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Proper name of a specific type of plan regulated by law. MOS says to capitalize proper names. --Enric Naval (talk) 16:10, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose -- This is a proper name, for a tax-exempt type of UK investment, according to rules defined by statute: now amalagamated into ISA. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:43, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Proper noun is being bandied about without proper definition. Why, then, is "single company PEP" not upcased? And "unit trusts"? And "general PEPs"? And "capital gains tax"?

Tony (talk)

03:48, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think the definition of proper noun that we have in the lead at MOS:CAPS is not bad; I don't know of a better definition that will keep WP based on reliable sources. For what reliable sources have to say about PEPs, I recommend this book search. It shows about 50/50 usage. Since it's not consistently capitalized in sources, we don't capitalize it in WP. Therefor: Dicklyon (talk) 05:38, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's not consistently uppercased either. --Enric Naval (talk) 22:19, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support – per the evidence I linked immediately above. Dicklyon (talk) 05:38, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Indeed: 50/50 usage would almost certainly point to downcasing on WP per MOSCAPS. $Tony (talk)$ 14:51, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support. I think there are more sources capitalizing it than not in the book search linked by Dicklyon (one of the sources that doesn't capitalize it then says the acronym is "Pep", so I don't find that one particularly reliable), but the HMRC site--which I assume is a pretty official word on this sort of thing--doesn't capitalize it. Theoldsparkle (talk) 19:03, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. 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 27 October 2019

The following is a closed 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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved as requested per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 14:08, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Personal Equity Plan → Personal equity plan – Sorry, but I must request another look at this one despite the prior RM in 2011. Please see the recent RM discussions at Talk:Individual savings account and Talk:Tax-free savings account (an eight-article RM that included such pages as Individual pension plan and Registered retirement savings plan). Also see Individual retirement account and similar. This is not a proper noun. As the article says, this is about "a form of tax-privileged investment account" – thus, it is about a type of account, not one particular account. As the proper noun article says, "a class of entities" is a common noun, not a proper noun. Some writers use capital letters to indicate any special string of words or anything to be abbreviated with initials, but Wikipedia's convention is to use sentence case for topic names instead. —BarrelProof (talk) 03:32, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support – A look at book stats shows that caps are clearly optional, not at all dominant. Clicking through to uses of "the Personal Equity Plan" shows that the capped uses are dominated by "the Personal Equity Plan Regulations 1989" and similar document names, which juke the stats but don't really contribute to a suggestion the we should cap "personal equity plan". Dicklyon (talk) 03:59, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support—there is a boundary between proper name and generic noun, and the occasional item, during a particular time range, finds itself sitting on the fence. Here, though close to the fence, this is clearly on the generic side. Tony (talk) 05:34, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support per WP:NCCAPS & MOS:CAPS, and to be WP:CONSISTENT with individual retirement account, self-directed IRA, defined benefit pension plan, defined contribution plan, cash balance plan, profit-sharing pension plan, rollovers as business start-ups, flexible spending account, health savings account, medical savings account (United States), non-qualified stock option, nonqualified deferred compensation, incentive stock option, substantially equal periodic payments, net income attributable, ABLE account ("ABLE" is an acronym), pay-as-you-go pension plan, etc., etc., etc. The old RM's confused/confusing rationale that something being government-defined or -regulated magically makes it a proper name is obviously nonsensical.
PS: There are a few other old articles like this to also move; I ran across Health Reimbursement Account, IRA Required Minimum Distributions, Thrift Savings Plan, Individual Development Account, and Coverdell Education Savings Account ("Coverdell" is of course a proper name). A weird one is Southern Campaigns: Pension Transactions. It appears to be a mangled WP:NTITLE (i.e., a WP-invented descriptive phrase), and thus should not have a colon in it. The only potential proper name in that is "Southern Campaigns". Also, some inconsistencies like non-qualified stock option versus nonqualified deferred compensation need to be fixed; I would go with the hyphen for clarity. Hyphenate prefixes when they form a non-common term (among other reasons not applicable here, like juxtaposition of vowels or of two of the same consonant, etc.), especially if sources are divided on the spelling.
— SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 22:32, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I agree with all in your postscript except Thrift Savings Plan, which is a proper noun and invariably capitalized as such in the media. I believe there is only one Thrift Savings Plan, as opposed to many options for individual retirement accounts, health savings accounts, etc. Ignatz mice•talk 00:58, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support per all above, particularly Dicklyon and wp:NCCAPS. This is a generic noun for a type of plan, not a proper noun. Ignatz mice•talk 00:58, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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.