Talk:Account planning

Business Mid‑importance

	Business portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Business, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of business articles 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.BusinessWikipedia:WikiProject BusinessTemplate:WikiProject BusinessWikiProject Business articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Marketing & Advertising Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Marketing & Advertising, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Marketing 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.Marketing & AdvertisingWikipedia:WikiProject Marketing & AdvertisingTemplate:WikiProject Marketing & AdvertisingMarketing & Advertising articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.

Occupations (inactive)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Occupations, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.OccupationsWikipedia:WikiProject OccupationsTemplate:WikiProject OccupationsOccupations articles

Dumping ground[edit]

Hey, this article is off to a great start although I sense a potential problem in the External links section becoming a dumping ground for anyone who has a blog about planning or just advertising. What will determine whether a link deserves to be there or not? Greyfedora 17:25, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Russell Davies has set up a wiki for planners at plannersphere.com - once it's established a link from this wiki page should link to it. All the planning blogs can be added there. --Zeroinfluencer 11:46, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

External Links[edit]

Hi, I want to add a link to the relevant area of: www.myninetofive.com (MyNineToFive_Account_Planner) which is a site that consists of employee generated reviews making it quite appropriate for a link from here. The link was removed from here (and some other professions) but I think that they make a valuable addition in helping people considering entering the profession continue their research in a similar way. --Natasha 81.154.224.36 (talk) 09:52, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That would be Spam and that would be a no. CanadianLinuxUser (talk) 13:35, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ghastly style[edit]

The wordage is impenetrable, a shame for an article that's supposed to describe a job-function which brings clarity to complex situations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.54.207.205 (talk) 12:33, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Particularly bad is the rambling history section, with its apparently unidentified "two UK pioneers". It adds virtually nothing to the understanding of what planning is and how it developed.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.150.156.248 (talk) 13:50, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]