Talk:Soft skills/Archives/2015
 | This is an archive of past discussions about Soft skills. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Merging to Skill
Don't merge. With the growth of Service Industries in the U.S. soft skills are comtinuing to grow in importance. Robert Reynolds
- Don't merge. This is such an important topic that it deserves its own article. --Grace E. Dougle 14:07, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
- Don't Merge. This artice has be very useful to me. If the two were to merge it would simply make a jumble of things. The length of tha article doesn't matter, maybe someone should just add on to it?
- Merge Both articles are extremely short. They would be better combined. [User:Jimp|J]]imp 04:50, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
- Don't Merge! They are very different and need to be seperated.
- Don't merge. This is such an important topic that it deserves its own article - I suggest both articles refer the other pedropimenta 11:39, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
- Don't merge. Soft skills are a class of skills on their own and the term is widely used.
- Don't merge. Its important to have this article. It is way easier to find that way. 85000I 19:07, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
- Don't merge. The term 'soft skills' has meaning in it's own right, and as such needs separate treatment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.47.207.250 (talk) 11:25, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Don't merge for all of the above reasons, article was very helpful to me, might not have been found if it was under skills. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.242.123.131 (talk) 01:27, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
- Don't Merge. Expand the soft skills article and keep the two separate. The article contains a list, so we need to reformat as well.Billymuscles (talk) 22:19, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
- Don't Merge. Expand the soft skills article and keep the two separate. I am pretty sure that EQ is only a small part of what people actually working in the field mean by 'soft skills'. Generall it includes things like cognitive skills, ability to learn, ability to communicate, writing skills, etc. It is in fact a very poorly thought out category, but the current article is very misleading. Is anyone working on this? steven (talk) 16:50, 13 June 2015 (UTC)