Talk:Man-hour

This article was previously nominated for deletion. The result of the discussion was keep.

On 22 September 2021, it was proposed that this article be moved to Person-hour. The result of the discussion was not moved.

[Untitled]

The use of the student collaboration example tended to legitimise the practice as simply a matter of time economy and student choice, ignoring ethical principle or course/lecturer instructions. There are further source references and links to be added.

Sexism in the phrase

There is no doubt that Man-hour is a phrase with sexist connotations. It can refer to many kinds of work, regardless of the gender of the worker. However, the term itself refers specifically to the "man" aspect. An over-sensitive person might even suspect that the term implies that women are incapable of work; however, that is mere speculation. The inherent sexist implications are not. Citation not needed to back that up, thank you. Sorry for bothering you. ^_~ Nagyss 23:00, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

citation is needed, but there is a common perception that 'man' in man-hour refers to men/humans, when in fact is is short for 'manual' as in 'manual hours'. Meaning work that is manual rather than automated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.11.141.139 (talk) 11:01, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, citation is needed, because I do not believe the concept of a person-hour exists anywhere but Wikipeida. Wikipedia is not censored —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.144.168.121 (talk) 04:36, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

About other languages it should noted the German de:Personenstunde and the Spanish es:hora-persona.--86.125.186.250 (talk) 12:23, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The aspect discussed here involves gender-neutrality.--86.125.186.250 (talk) 12:28, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

RIDICULIOUS!

It is not a sexist term, now 'gender-challenged' my pro-speak way of naming the woman gender, is debatably offence to women.

Supersonicjim 06:36, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Haha who on earth would find man hour offensive? Not a member of mankind, anyway. --Confederate till Death (talk) 01:00, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Languages evolve. We're no longer in the America Civil War, for instance, conferdate till death or not. The use of the term 'Man' or 'He' to refer to a person has been deprecated because it is sexist. It affects female's perceptions of their ability to work and/or function in society from a young age. Evidence suggest an advertisement for a 'Man to drive a taxi' will get much less female applicants than an ad for a 'Person to drive a taxi' for instance.

Please see the references section of this article - all define 'person hour' - as evidence of usage Wikipedia is clearly behind on. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.189.175.212 (talk) 12:30, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was move Anthony Appleyard (talk) 22:27, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Person-hour → Man-hour — Overwhelming usage is man. Should not have been moved on grounds of "neutrality", especially with no discussion or consensus. — Grsz ¹¹ 18:28, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.

Support as usage. Change English usage, then Wikipedia. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:02, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support unless there someone can provide muliptle reliable sources for this term it violates multipe policles and guldelines. At the very least it would violate WP:OR WP:NEO and WP:COMMONNAME. --70.24.180.221 (talk) 02:13, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support WP:COMMONNAME person hour is not in common use WP:VERIFIABILITY - no other sources even use the term SJSA 21:39, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Any additional comments:

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The Lead

The sentences in the lead about researching and writing a college paper seem inappropriate. Calculating man-hours to complete a specific task refers to a team approach. Using man-hours in the context of completing a college paper implies a team, rather than an individual, effort. Does anyone mind if I delete these sentences? Please discuss. Thank you. Respectfully, Tiyang (talk) 11:09, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 2

The following discussion is an archived 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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Page not moved. Tyrol5 [Talk] 00:50, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Man-hour → Person-hour – Person-hour has become a fairly common term for "man-hour" and is gender-neutral. "Person" is, in my opinion, a more appropriate description of both men and women. ("Person-hour is defined in online dictionaries such as http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/person-hour). WP:GENDER. The Giant Purple Platypus (talk) 10:56, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose For all the reasons that person-hour was rejected in favour of man-hour in 2009. Jheald (talk) 11:15, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Man-hour is by far, by orders of magnitude, the more common usage. Google gives ~4 million hits for man-hour, and ~90k hits for person-hour. Google books gives ~3 million hits for man-hour, and ~15k hits for person-hour. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 15:34, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as above comments and previous RM discussion. Dicklyon (talk) 23:17, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Man-hour. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:44, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Add "person-hour" term to lead

Hi all, Given that the second citation source is a definition of the phrase person-hour, as well as the fact that person-hour redirects to this page, I think it is useful to include the term "person-hour" in the lead. Given the discussions on the talk page, I thought I would post here about my reasons for doing so. I am also considering adding a section titled "Man-hour, person-hour, and labor hour", which includes the origin date of both terms (cite Merriam Webster), as well as a discussion on how the terms by definition apply to both male and female workers. Person hour and man hour have the same definition and are general terms which can apply to all types of work, but labor hour has a specific legal definition and only includes hourly work. Please let me know your thoughts. If no comment, I will make the changes in a day or two,

Thanks,Zamboniroadkill (talk) 13:46, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you know anybody in the medical community then person-hour which is used in medical journals and this page (though worded maybe better for general public) https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Guillain%E2%80%93Barr%C3%A9_syndrome

there should be section on it. Not sure if you could help or someone else following up on it. 68.48.113.58 (talk) 19:45, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Of 1,683 nonduplicate citations, 16 met the inclusion criteria, which produced 1,643 cases and 152.7 million person-years of follow-up"

An example of a journal using it

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5703046/ 68.48.113.58 (talk) 19:47, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 22 September 2021

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: not moved. Unanimous oppose, with no recent updates. In line with previous two discussions. (closed by non-admin page mover) ASUKITE 02:03, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Man-hour → Person-hour – Trying this again as, if this would be based on ghits it seems like the latter has more results now since 2013, so it's now this site lagging behind the trends... 92.0.5.48 (talk) 10:06, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. "Man-hour" is still easily the WP:COMMONNAME and what most people would say. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:02, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
~~I support the proposed move to person-hour. In Europe that is now the preferred term. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 16:23, 22 September 2021 (UTC)~~[reply]
- What's important on English Wikipedia is usage in the English-speaking world. In the parts of Europe that are English-speaking it is not the common term. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:35, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - I guess you're right. It is 'person-month' that has largely replaced 'man-month' in (English-language) EU documents. That is what I was thinking of. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 11:03, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as not the common name. -- Netoholic @ 20:33, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I'm very much in support of gender equality in the workplace, and see women as equals to men, but that does not change the fact that "man-hour" is the established and common term. Here in Finland, there have been female speakers of the board or parliament, and female first mates on ships, but they have still been referred to with the titles puhemies ("speaking man") and perämies ("aft man") just like males. JIP | Talk 01:15, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Ngram: Man-hour, person-hour. Usage of both terms has decreased markedly since the mid-50s, but man-hour has always been and remains far more common than person-hour. Havelock Jones (talk) 13:42, 24 September 2021 (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.