Talk:Work (human activity)

What else could be improved?
No mention of labour markets Naa1000441518 (talk) 19:26, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
 * 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)

Requested move 15 October 2022

 * 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)

– 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). The DAB Labour would be left unchanged. fgnievinski (talk) 17:07, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Work (human activity) → Work
 * Work → Work (disambiguation)
 * Support. Clearly the primary topic. J I P  &#124; Talk 19:06, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)


 * 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)
 * Such arguments about link usage reminds me of the discussion about the primacy of Apple (fruit) vs. Apple, Inc., see Talk:Apple. fgnievinski (talk) 21:05, 16 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose per Roman Spinner and because the meaning in physics is really not so obscure. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 00:09, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Added move of associated dab. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 02:14, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

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.
 * 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 . – Uanfala (talk) 09:33, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * Support. The human activity is the primary topic. Rreagan007 (talk) 18:34, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
 * 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 monster   755  06:51, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Support per nom. Shwcz (talk) 13:24, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Work (physics) is too strong a competitor for Work (human activity) to be declared primary topic. Favonian (talk) 19:34, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

'Philosophy of work'?
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)


 * 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)

"Job (economics)" listed at Redirects for discussion
The redirect [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Job_(economics)&redirect=no 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  until a consensus is reached. Steel1943 (talk) 23:35, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

"History of work" listed at Redirects for discussion
The redirect [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=History_of_work&redirect=no History of work] 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  until a consensus is reached. Steel1943 (talk) 23:39, 28 February 2024 (UTC)