Talk:Works Constitution Act

Confusion re Work vs Works
Hey thank you for your additions to the Article. I disagree with your renaming from Works Constitution Act to Work Constitution Act and content changes. I think it's due to the confusion of what 'Works' refers to. It is not the plural form of 'work' or 'worker', rather it refers to a specific 'works' or plant/factory/work location. Similarly with a Works council.

Enclosed is an explanation from Jane Slaughter that I like a lot.

''What’s a Works Council? It’s not a “workers’ council.” The word “works” here means “factory” or “facility.” In English we use the word in names like the Bath Iron Works, a big shipbuilding facility in Maine.''

It's not only grammatically correct, but it's the official AND most WP:COMMON names, so I would prefer if you reverted the page move. I don't have a strong opinion on including the 1972 year or not, but since we don't have articles for other years, I didn't see a reason to preemptively disambiguate it. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 15:11, 4 January 2022 (UTC)


 * This is an important point, and I'm happy to explain. In German the genetive form of Betrieb (which is like business, workplace, or just "work") is Betriebs- and then Rat is "Council". This is not a plural, but more like "Council of Work". Betriebsrat and Betriebsverfassungsgesetz, etc, has often been mistranslated to imply there is more than one "work" - put simply a "works" is not grammatically correct - it's not like a "steel works", and there's no such general thing as a "works" (an "office works"? A "library works"?). So that's why it's properly left as "Work Council" and "Work Constitution Act".  Wik idea  15:43, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
 * @Wikidea perhaps we should make this a broader RfC because this impacts many articles. I personally would never use "works" to describe a workplace, plant, worksite etc.. but am convinced it's correct grammar. Unfortunately the majority of academic and legal sources I found simply use the terminology without explaining it. The explanation from Jane Slaughter is the only direct explanation I found. I tried searching Google, but it conflate work/works along with many unrelated usage/meanings of the pair.
 * While Work(s) Constitution Act is intrinsically tied to the German subject, the concept of a Works Council is less so nowadays, even if its origins are from Germany.
 * We have a grammar/content dispute here, so we should lay down specific sources with the specific arguments and perhaps solicit other editors/formal arguments. Would that work for you? ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 16:21, 4 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Here's a good academic (and German-English!) source that uses it correctly: https://www.mpie.de/3992294/work-council  Wik idea  16:56, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Analytics

 * Works Constitution Act: 2,620 results
 * Work Constitution Act: 128 results
 * European Work Council: 274 results
 * European Works Council: 4,620 results
 * Works Council: 24,500
 * Work Council: 7,150
 * Works Council (omitting the following: "social works council", "education works council", "war works council": 24,500
 * Work Council (omitting the following: "social work council", "education work council", "war work council": 5,600

Shushugah's analysis: Searching solely within Google scholar I found the following (case insensitive). The form with S is more prominent 20:1 in case of the Work(s) Constitution Act and 16:1 for the EWC. For the Work(s) Council itself, it depends on the usage. I found 1,500 cases of Social/Education/War Work Council, but 0 Social/Education/War Works Council examples. There the divide is smaller at 4:1. Given the vast disparity in the particular cases of EWC and WCA, merely pointing to example academic sites won't be conclusive. Additionally, the government translations may not be legally binding, but they're as official as it get.

Requested move 30 August 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: moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 07:35, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Works Constitution Act 1972 → Works Constitution Act – Shorter name per WP:CONCISE and same article discusses all the yearly variants, not just 1972.&#32;~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 01:22, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
 * This is a contested technical request (permalink). ASUKITE  17:20, 30 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Hi, I'm a bit apprehensive about touching this one because a) it's been moved a couple of times before and b) the title doesn't really sound very natural in English. An RM would probably be best. Dr. Vogel (talk) 01:35, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi, given it's been moved before the other direction (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Works_Constitution_Act_1972&oldid=1063692878) and there's been discussion on the talk page about the name, it cannot be processed as a technical request and must go through the WP:RM process as per WP:PCM. I personally don't object the request though, and the proposed name sounds okay to me as it's the name of a piece of legislation. -Kj cheetham (talk) 11:04, 30 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Note: WikiProject Germany has been notified of this discussion. ASUKITE  17:20, 30 August 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.
 * Support per nom (but open to alternatives) ASUKITE  17:24, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Support per nom, WP:CONCISE applies and it does discuss more than one year. Wouldn't object to Works Constitution Acts either, but not sure what the convention is with legislation. -Kj cheetham (talk) 18:56, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
 * @Kj cheetham it's debatable whether they are multiple acts or not, since these are all one act, but with different iterations of amendments to the same act. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 18:35, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Good point. I'm not sure what the collective noun of a group of iterations of an act is, but your original proposal is simplest anyway. -Kj cheetham (talk) 19:32, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Support, shorter is better. Baxbox (talk) 05:51, 5 September 2022 (UTC)