This article is within the scope of WikiProject Anthropology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Anthropology 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.AnthropologyWikipedia:WikiProject AnthropologyTemplate:WikiProject AnthropologyAnthropology articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Economics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Economics 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.EconomicsWikipedia:WikiProject EconomicsTemplate:WikiProject EconomicsEconomics articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Human rights, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Human rights 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.Human rightsWikipedia:WikiProject Human rightsTemplate:WikiProject Human rightsHuman rights articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Organized Labour, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Organized Labour 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.Organized LabourWikipedia:WikiProject Organized LabourTemplate:WikiProject Organized Labourorganized labour articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics 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.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sociology 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.SociologyWikipedia:WikiProject SociologyTemplate:WikiProject Sociologysociology articles
This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
Hi there, while there's definitely room for referring to specific concepts as the article expands, I think it would be better to keep most coverage of labour markets at Labour economics. I linked to that article in the See Also section, and I tried to link to things like Wage labor, Job matching, and Employment when appropriate.
My main concern is not to bias the article towards economic theory, and whenever possible, briefly link out to econ concepts instead of detailing them in the article. I think the reason why there wasn't an article like this (at least on English Wiki) for so long was that the econ perspective had crowded-out (no pun intended) more anthropological ones. Zar2gar1 (talk) 21:47, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The result of the move request was: no consensus. Relisting declined as I do not believe that it would lead to a consensus. (closed by non-admin page mover) — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 22:33, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
– The human activity is the primary topic because it has both longer-term significance and greater likelihood of being used by the general audience. The specialized meaning of Work (physics) is not as well known for a layperson and has origins in the primary topic, as per Work (physics)#Etymology. The DAB Labour would be left unchanged. fgnievinski (talk) 17:07, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Clearly the primary topic. JIP | Talk 19:06, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Clearly WP:NOPRIMARY and target is a large dab page. Not broken, don't fix. In ictu oculi (talk) 19:07, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The DAB page lists only three main common nouns, the rest are proper nouns. And among thre three, there are many related terms which are not exact homonyms, e.g., working animal involves a type of work but doesn't get confused with the general concept. So the discussion is really between two topics, the general concept and one specific to Physics. fgnievinski (talk) 21:05, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per In ictu oculi. There are 52 bulleted entries listed upon the Work disambiguation page (and 13 additional entries listed under "See also"), with no indication that users researching Work (human activity) would link to it at an extent greater than the combined searches for the remaining 51 entries. —Roman Spinner(talk • contribs) 20:44, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I can't really see an argument for long-term significance (greater familiarity in everyday English usage does not translate into greater encyclopedic notability). There's no primary topic with respect to usage either: the physics article actually gets a bit more clicks from the dab page than the human activity one [1]. – Uanfala (talk) 09:33, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, last month the ordering was reversed, with Work (human activity) having 39.4k outgoing pageviews vs. 38.k for Work (physics). Work (human activity) had another 24.5k outgoing pageviews through Labour (disambiguation), which totals 63.9k outgoing pageviews combined through both disambiguation pages, which is more than one and a half that of Work (physics). fgnievinski (talk) 19:53, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The previous month was August, and the physics entry had slightly less clicks than the social one, but that's almost certainly a result of the summer holidays dip in reader interest in physics topics (you can see the views of the physics article over a year). Even during that unusual period, the human work entry received less than half of the total dab clicks, and so it still wouldn't qualify as a primary topic wrt usage. The fact that the article is receiving traffic from readers who use the term "labour" to search for it, is relevant for its overall notability but has no bearing on the question of whether there is a primary topic for the term "work". – Uanfala (talk) 22:12, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support. The human activity is the primary topic. Rreagan007 (talk) 18:34, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as it could easily refer to Work (physics). The argument that work (labor) is not as common as the physics concept is false. This is an encyclopedia, after all. Plenty of users would be searching for the physics context. cookie monster755 06:51, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. Shwcz (talk) 13:24, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The GE Wiki article on work is very different from this EN article, with a detailed description of the views on the nature and value of work as determined by various thinkers, including Plato, Locke, Marx, Weber and many more. Idk if the EN article should necessarily be expanded to cover this aspect, but I wonder if there is some other article in EN that does cover it, and if not, if it is a good idea to have, i.e. create one ...? T 84.208.65.62 (talk) 21:01, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there, first off, I would personally say if want to add that content here, absolutely go for it. Especially if you also have sources available.
Those details sound exactly like what I was hoping this article would grow to encompass. I didn't have many sources at hand when I created it though so I tried to avoid getting into the weeds.
I plan to circle back to this article someday, streamline it and try to find some references (I even stumbled across an anthropological journal at one point that is entirely about labor). In the meantime though, if you want to add a philosophy section, that would be great, especially if it harmonizes with the German article too. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 22:16, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
level-4 vital article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.,_early_1900s,_Central_Africa,_Democratic_Republic_of_the_Congo,_Pende_people,_wood,_fiber_-_Cleveland_Museum_of_Art_-_DSC08700.JPG){kind=small}
The redirect Job (economics) has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 February 28 § Job (economics) until a consensus is reached. Steel1943 (talk) 23:35, 28 February 2024 (UTC)