Talk:Compensation and benefits
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Compensation and benefits article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||
changes needed
[edit]This article needs to be divided up by country. Compensation and benefits policies are too dependent on specialized terms different in different english language countires, and at least as important the different laws about compensation and benefits in those countries, what is tax deductable and what isn't. For example, "401(k) plans" are a big deal in the US, but (of course) don't exist in other countries. --BoogaLouie (talk) 19:53, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
- Hi BoogaLouie. I disagree, and have been bold and made an edit along those lines. I think there is a lot that can be said in terms of the theory of compensation and benefits without getting into a country by country breakdown. Moreover, I don't think a wiki-article can hope to meaningfully introduce readers to the important features of the local compensation and benefit practices of 200 odd countries. Does this resonate with you? Cheers Andrew (talk) 12:30, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
- Well the premise of wikipedia is you start out small and add and add and add. Originally I'm sure an encyclopedia with over 4 million English language entries seemed preposterous, but here we are with millions of article on subjects a traditional non-crowd sourced encyclopedia would never dream of bothering to write. So ya, there are 200 countries, and maybe we won't get to subsections or spin off articles on 200 or 100 or even 50 countries, but it seems not in the spirit of wikipedia to say, "oh we'll never do be able to do that so let's delete what we already have." Perhaps we should do Wikipedia:Third opinion. -BoogaLouie (talk) 15:40, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
- Hi BoogaLouie. I am down with thinking big when it comes to wikipedia, but what you seem to describe sounds unweildly for the foreseeable future. I struggle to see how the complex details of compensation and benefits in various national contexts could be covered in a single article. Maybe a less ambitious goal would be more appropriate. For example, this could be converted into a list article detailing the relevant compensation and benefits legislation only by nationality. That being said, I actually think that your might have been most correct when you proposed a merge with remuneration. Are you still thinking along those lines? Cheers Andrew (talk) 13:11, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
- Hi Andrew. Yes, still think merger would be a good idea, though I'm focused on some other article right now. True, the complex details of compensation and benefits in various national contexts can't be covered in a single article. The article section (such as the https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Compensation_and_benefits&diff=prev&oldid=648926518#By_country one] you deleted) would serve more as an incubator for the country-by-country articles you envision, and later a summary. That's my thinking at least. --BoogaLouie (talk) 21:24, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
- Hi BoogaLouie. It seems like what we are talking about, targeted compensation and benefits information by country, already exists in various forms (e.g. here and here). Would you therefore be able to describe what sort of list you think is missing from wikipedia? Maybe then the next step is to start that targeted list article elsewhere. Cheers Andrew (talk) 23:34, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
- Hi Andrew. Yes, still think merger would be a good idea, though I'm focused on some other article right now. True, the complex details of compensation and benefits in various national contexts can't be covered in a single article. The article section (such as the https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Compensation_and_benefits&diff=prev&oldid=648926518#By_country one] you deleted) would serve more as an incubator for the country-by-country articles you envision, and later a summary. That's my thinking at least. --BoogaLouie (talk) 21:24, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
- Hi BoogaLouie. I am down with thinking big when it comes to wikipedia, but what you seem to describe sounds unweildly for the foreseeable future. I struggle to see how the complex details of compensation and benefits in various national contexts could be covered in a single article. Maybe a less ambitious goal would be more appropriate. For example, this could be converted into a list article detailing the relevant compensation and benefits legislation only by nationality. That being said, I actually think that your might have been most correct when you proposed a merge with remuneration. Are you still thinking along those lines? Cheers Andrew (talk) 13:11, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
- Well the premise of wikipedia is you start out small and add and add and add. Originally I'm sure an encyclopedia with over 4 million English language entries seemed preposterous, but here we are with millions of article on subjects a traditional non-crowd sourced encyclopedia would never dream of bothering to write. So ya, there are 200 countries, and maybe we won't get to subsections or spin off articles on 200 or 100 or even 50 countries, but it seems not in the spirit of wikipedia to say, "oh we'll never do be able to do that so let's delete what we already have." Perhaps we should do Wikipedia:Third opinion. -BoogaLouie (talk) 15:40, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
Merger proposal
[edit]This article and Remuneration.
- Support Pretty clear overlap between the two. --BoogaLouie (talk) 20:00, 2 June 2012 (UTC)