Talk:Insurable risk

Timc: I disagree regarding the merging of this page into Risk, at least for the moment. That article seems to focus on risk in a more general sense -- political/military risk seems to be the bulk of it. Insurable risks are, by and large, financial risks; which is notably more specific/different. Perhaps there ought be a financial risk discussion fleshed out there; or as a seperate entry; in which case I would say merge away...

Fair use rationale for Image:Pyat rublei 1997.jpg

Image:Pyat rublei 1997.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 11:29, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment moved from article page

Hi Editor

The following does not make sense:

"The insurer must be able to charge a premium high enough to cover not only claims expenses, but also to cover the insurer's expenses. In other words, the risk cannot be catastophic, or so large that no insurer could hope to pay for the loss."

The two sentences above do not have the same meaning or import. If an insurer can cover the amount insured and its administrative expenses, it will agree to give coverage? If so, it must follow that if the insurer can pay US$800 billion for one single claim plus expenses of say, US$100,000, then it will cover the situation? So the use of the words, 'In other words' is inappropriate.

Anyway, commonsense tells us that your two sentences are really two different points. Perhaps, you could consider just omitting the words, 'In other words'.

Jeffrey Soh —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.124.2.26 (talk • contribs)

Merge with insurability

merge and redirect This content repeats what's in insurability.--Nowa (talk) 15:18, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support The content of this unsourced article is better covered, with references, in the insurability article. Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 18:36, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]