Talk:Personal development

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Removal of peacock template[edit]

On 2010-05-02 at 0857 hours a Wikipedian removed the date-stamped template:Peacock "{{Peacock|date=April 2010}}" from the article, stating in the edit-summary "Undid revision 359100945 by SmackBot [...]". (The SmackBot edit involved actually had the revision number 358916522, and related to a previous manual insertion of the {{peacock}} template, such that the template has now disappeared from the article entirely and without substantive discussion.) Since the article then included (and still includes) "wording that merely promotes the subject without imparting verifiable information" - as several included tags suggest - I propose restoring the peacock template pending the inclusion of relevant and reliable-source citations for much of the content. -- Pedant17 (talk) 01:36, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Balance[edit]

This article has reduced in encyclopaedic value since its criticism section was removed. Please discuss such changes before editting and removal, so the consensus can be seen by all. Is there any support for re-instating the Criticism balance section, or an editted version? Geoffjw1978 T L C 04:38, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

I have finally looked into this and found that IP editor: 217.88.121.21 removed the section on 3 June 2011, with no discussion on the Talk page, and no reason given.
The vandal edit is shown here >> diff <<. So I have re-instated this section. It is linked from other articles, so its removal causes a redlink. Geoffjw1978 T L C 01:27, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Merger proposal[edit]

The "Personal development planning" does not need its own article, better if merged with "Personal development". Srinivasasha (talk) 10:07, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Support. Lova Falk talk 20:31, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
Me vote Nay. Tristyn (talk) 03:51, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
The personal development and the personal development planning articles should remain separate; otherwise, the article will become too large. The planning article should be linked from the other page and be more about application of the information from the general page. Nay

Yes, it should be merged-- in any case the planning entry is short and incomplete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobauthor (talkcontribs) 02:33, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Toni Light (talk) 15:37, 12 March 2015 (UTC)Personal development and planning personal development are different: personal development does occur with or without the "planning". They should remain different entries in order to make that conceptual difference clear.

Citations Needed[edit]

This article is riddled with uncited claims. I think it's enough to warrant a caution template. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.222.89.125 (talk) 09:16, 26 May 2014 (UTC)