Talk:Handyman

This article has been selected for use on the Simple English Wikipedia.

Handy person?

Why is this article named "Handyperson" when it only deals with handymen? And who on earth ever speaks of "handypersons"? I think this article should be named "Handyman". 85.224.199.36 22:07, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree, who the heck ever says handyperson? A handicap perhaps? --Confederate till Death (talk) 10:33, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Wikipedia is not a platform for trying to introduce politically correct neologisms into the language, and nobody ever uses the word "handyperson". I propose moving this to handyman. Include a note on the non-political correctness of the term if you like. Kwertii (talk) 04:28, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

For the record, gender-neutral language is about inclusion, not political correctness. The term "handyman" excludes females.--142.36.98.31

You are mistaken: the word -man, as a suffix means human—of either sex. If this were not so, we would be forced to conclude that the term "woman" excludes females, which would, of course, be absurd. JudahH (talk) 14:26, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

"Handyperson" is not a neologism. It is listed at dictionary.com, as well as being listed as a variant of "handyman" in several other dictionaries. The word has nearly 300,000 google hits, so it's hardly being "introduced" on Wikipedia. According to the Manual of Style, gender-neutral language should be preferred wherever it does not interfere with clarity and precision. Its use here is consistent with that guideline. — Swpb^{t & c} 19:16, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

It's very very clunky English usage. If Google is the arbiter here, 'handyman' has over 11m hits. 92.233.117.147 (talk) 16:21, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Google is not the arbiter. Wikipedia's own guidelines are. — Swpb^{τ • c} 22:50, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree the title of this article should be "Handyman". Most handypersons are men; it's usually been a male-oriented occupation; almost all businesses which specialize in this work have the word handyman in them, such as "Mr. Handyman" or "Handyman Matters". And while the term "handypersons" or "handywoman" may begin catching on, it's still rare in usage. I think this article should be renamed "handyman", and have persons who search for "handywomen" or "handywoman" or "handypersons" or "handyperson" be redirected to the "Handyman" page. This is political-correctness gone amuk.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 17:21, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Based on comments above, I moved the article from "handyperson" to "handyman", and reinstalled the proper redirects. So typing "handywoman" leads to "handyman", "handyperson" leads to "handyman", and the article mentions all three terms, with "handyman" first (since it's still mostly a male activity, although women are becoming increasingly adept at home repairs) as well as "handyperson" and "handywoman".--Tomwsulcer (talk) 21:43, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Western-centric

The article notes that most jurisdictions forbid handymen from working on plumbing etc. Let's not forget that in many other parts of the word, legislation is not as strict and so handymen often end up working on many things. Many plumbers in many countries are not officially licensed but can do a good job. This is a western-centric article, as much of wikipedia is. It's attempt to maintain neutrality is foiled time and time again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.146.18.153 (talk) 19:44, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Agree, generally, with your comment. Will keep this in mind in future revisions, thanks for saying this. If you live in a country other than the US, please add information about this topic from your perspective, and indicate it as such; I'd add this information, but I'm less acquainted with customs in other countries, but when I come across pertinent information from other countries, I'll include it as best I can. :) --Tomwsulcer (talk) 17:21, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Disambiguation?

I think this needs a disambiguation link - I was looking for the James Taylor song! PMaranci (talk) 14:51, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

The song is at Handy Man. Searching for it by entering "handyperson" seems like too much of a stretch to me to justify a hatnote here. — Swpb^{τ • c} 23:06, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Good idea. Added wikilink. Done!--Tomwsulcer (talk) 17:29, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Amateur handyman, affectionate term

In Denmark, the term handyman is used positively about a male who is an amateur, but still decently competent in fixing stuff around the home, such as assembling furniture, drilling, glueing, basic plumbing, basic electricals, and such. Many women desire this masculine trait in a man. Is this used in other countries? AlexanderM (talk) 10:35, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

In the US, the thinking is generally the same. There are positive connotations, but it's an amateur level, but someone who's competent, and liked, and respected (by women sometimes) for being competent.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 17:23, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Upgraded article

It has pictures, more references. I think perhaps a section on handyman tools would be good. Does the list of handyman projects need more wikilinks. --Tomwsulcer (talk) 21:45, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Dank u from America

Hallo! Samurai8, Dank u voor equalizing de kolommen. Ik waardeer het. Good job! Ik weet niet Nederlands. Maar ik ben met behulp van iGoogle. Ik hoop dat je dit leest! About the article Handyman in English. English-wikipedia. Tomwsulcer --Tomwsulcer (talk) 01:33, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Plumber's advice

I realize there isn't a published source about the plumber's advice but I think the advice is correct and so important that it needs insertion in this article, if it means that some people, after hearing it, don't saw off their fingers or nail their thumbs to a two-by-four.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 16:12, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Firm names on this article violates WP:SPAM

Removing names of specific handyman firms in keeping with WP:SPAM.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 01:10, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

I would agree, however there is a growing controversy with corporate firms being involved in what is traditionally a proprietorship personal venture. Something that often accompanies corporate involvement in the "handyman business" is corporate legal advocacy for laws which criminalize "unlicensed contractors" and lower the thresholds of jobs which require a contractors license to include lower level jobs which traditionally were below thresholds which would normally require things like contractors licenses, building permits and government oversight. It should also be noted that the franchise firms also charge considerably more money than the private operators while paying the "employees" considerably less than what the private operator makes. For example one national firm based out of Oregon has flat rates of $80 per hour, plus booking fees, plus 30%-50% markups for materials, and in some cases 120% markup on materials used on some jobs (faucets and door lock sets). In turn, they constantly advertise on craigslist to obtain workers with over 10 years of experience, the worker's own vehicle and tools, and a calculated pay rate chart based on $15 per hour with no benefits or even tax payments or accounting other than issuing 1099 forms (a report to the IRS of the money they pay to the worker), thus the "handyman" has the added burden of having to do his own tax accounting based on work days of 8 to 10 hours, but "on the clock" days of around 6 hours since travel and administration time is unpaid. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.193.222.193 (talk) 17:53, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Agree 100%. I worked at a franchise firm. Plus have my own firm. You're exactly right..--Tomwsulcer (talk) 19:07, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Lead picture -- I don't like it

I'll try to find a better one, but those people scraping the floor aren't handymen, but machines laboring, even though the artwork is interesting.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 21:41, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Great with Humor!

I have been reading different articles and this article was just really refreshing because it is tinted with humor. There were many small points in the article that made me just have a small laugh, not that the article was intended for that, but that there seems to be some humor written into the article, like being careful with a nail and a hammer. Handypersons can be funny. It would only make sense that the talk page is also unique. The conversation about handyperson and whether that should even be used as term with the highlights of both sides was very serious but for some reason made me laugh.

I think the main picture is also very vivid. It gives the level of hanyperson as something that can be very difficult work. Great work on the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.2.130.2 (talk) 19:59, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

I wrote much of this a while back, and appreciate positive feedback. Hope you liked it. Humor in a place like WP can sometimes help increase readership and keep something from getting too dull; in a revamp on Dating, I included a joke by Blake Edwards about Julie Andrews, as well as quotes by an Ethiopian boy, and a Russian strongman. But usually it's a matter of slipping in stuff when it's relevant; too much and I'd probably get criticized. And in my free POV-stuff (which I can't put into Wikipedia) I can go full blast trying to get people to laugh such as Dating and mating... knol. I have a handyman knol called Stair Repair and plan to add others. Again, thanks for saying thanx, us Wikipedians appreciate your appreciation.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 23:53, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Listing names of firms

Hi I just wanted to point out that if we start listing a few names of handyman firms, even if these specific firms are prominent, it will attract fuss by other firms, and jousting over such matters as which firms are named, listed, in which order, etc, and may encourage external links to these firms sites -- that is it might open up a Pandora's box of problems here. This happened a bit in the past (see article history) with names going in and out, fussing about it, and it is easier all around if we just keep a policy of not mentioning any firms names? Btw I used to work for one of the firms mentioned. If there are good arguments over how to put names in, and how to do it so that it doesn't cause endless battling, then please make them here, and perhaps we and others can consider them.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 23:34, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Extensive additions of "handyperson"

If one considers previous discussions, this article used to be called "handyperson" but was moved to "handyman" after much consideration, for the reason that the most common usage is handyman. This is the term which is understood, which pretty much everybody uses. Terms such as "handywoman" are practically unknown; the term "handyperson" is relatively new, possibly a neologism. To change every instance of "handyman" in the article to "handyman/handyperson" seems awkward and confusing. My suggestion is have a line -- with a reference -- explaining that the term "handyperson" is sometimes used as an alternate, but keep the rest of the article the way it is. Having a hatnote to a redlinked term "handyperson" is not helpful.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 18:26, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Additional comment. Reliable sources are needed to show the term handyperson is used extensively enough to justify it repeatedly in this article. I am a handyman. I have not heard handyperson used much at all. In terms of editing, it is a clumsy construction to repeatedly use the phrase handyman/handyperson again and again. If contributors can provide reliable sources showing the term has caught on, and is used extensively, I will support this choice; until then, rewriting the article to suggest that handyperson is a mainstream term suggests original research and such choices should be kept out.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 16:50, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

One source added, more will come. Gendered titles are increasingly deprecated in modern culture - see police officer rather than "policeman", etc. That you haven't heard it used much at all isn't really relevant. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:09, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Fair enough. I did several newspaper sweeps and see that the term is being used more than I had thought. I still think the construction "handyman/handyperson" with the slash dividing the two terms, is somewhat awkward from a stylistic point of view, so if people can think of a better way to write it, that would be an improvement. Still, for me, I am a handyman, tis what I am, that, and I drop clients who insist on calling me a handyperson. :) --Tomwsulcer (talk) 19:33, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Agreed on the slash thing. How about just "handyman or handyperson" where necessary? NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:40, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Whatever you think best.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 21:41, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

About renaming the title of the article to 'Handyworker'

Simply put, most people use the term Handyman, occasionally use a gender-neutral term such as Handyperson or Handyworker, but it is rare (although increasing), since almost all handymen are men. For example, a google search of handyman yields 44 million hits, a google search of handyworker yields only 27 thousand hits. The sources in this article all generally point to the term handyman or handymen and not handyworker or handyperson; the term has been used in popular music such as the song by James Taylor, many other places. If, in future, it happens that the term handyworker or handyperson becomes more prevalent than handyman, then let's change it, but to change it now, ahead of acceptance, constitutes original research, as if we're trying to tell readers to use this term (a form of advocacy) rather than describing what really happens in reality. It is thoroughly possible to add content to this article, with references, which state that there are some places where handyperson and handyworker are being used, but a reference to a Canadian government office is not really acceptable (it is a primary source.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 12:45, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

In my opinion we shouldn't not change it because of a specific gender dominating it- that's simply not a good excuse (there are other articles about occupations dominated by a specific gender that have gender-neutral titles). But you're right that one of these terms is very common. Handyworker should be mentioned in the article although it is a newer and less common term.--Hipposcrashed (talk) 17:29, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Actually I don't think we should not change it because it is not common either as that depends on the situation. But there are few reliable sources on this which is a valid reason for not changing. I think we should be gender-neutral whenever possible, but in this case because of lack of sources it is not possible. --Hipposcrashed (talk) 17:44, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm with you on the idea of trying to be gender neutral when we can, but I don't think this subject is ready for that yet. I worked on the article gender polarization not too long ago and understand the general idea. Agree that the term should be mentioned in the article; if enough references become available, and usage becomes more prevalent, then maybe we can consider changing the title, or maybe having a spinoff article, if the term is substantially different, or has different connotations.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 21:41, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

@Tomwsulcer: I came here after noting Hipposcrashed change salesman to salesperson on another page here. Is there a WP policy on this? Note I have already queried this on Hippos talk page here. I have a bit of a POV on arbritrary page moves too, after a newish editor did a mass of unnecessary, non-WP:MOS moves to Pakistani university pages. --220 of ^Borg 11:53, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

@220 of Borg: not sure if there is a WP policy on gender-neutral naming, I think it depends on the particular context and references; the term salesperson is much more widely used than previously, so I don't have any problems with a change like that. Just that I think handyworker has nowhere near the acceptance levels to justify renaming the article.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 12:44, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

@Tomwsulcer: Agree about 'handyworker'. Maybe a totally neutral term like 'general hand' will come more into use. Here in Oz we shorten everything so 'tradesman' ends up as neutral 'tradie' anyway! If we go this way Hire a Hubby will become what, Hire a Spouse? I would be a lot happier if 'Hippo' used an edit summary to explain their rationale. I generally don't like editors making changes like this esp. without discussion. Too much personal POV for me, or maybe it's my recent experiences as I noted above. Also it's a waste of time now that they have been reverted. My POV is there are much more important issues to fix, like vandalism & unreferenced BLPs etc! Nb. Just found WP:Gender-neutral language. vive la différence!' Regards, 220 of ^Borg 14:05, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

@220 of Borg: Yes, thank you for pointing to the gender-neutral guideline, makes sense.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 15:01, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

So basically because not enough people use a gender neutral term, Wikipedia should perpetuate the use of non-inclusive language? As noted above there is a policy about using gender neutral terms where possible. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Gender-neutral_language Thus the article should be renamed to be gender-neutral. It doesn't matter if one term is used more, or if men dominate the profession. Neither of those are conditions which determine Wikipedia's policy on the subject. Someone who actually knows how to fix this, please do. 142.161.57.230 (talk) 00:04, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Well, one could look at it this way: Wikipedia should not be used to change the world, to change common phrases such as 'handyman' into 'handyworker' to satisfy some particular agenda. Rather, Wikipedia should reflect the way things are, and the way things are now, speaking as a handyman, is that practically nobody uses or has used the term 'handyworker', and 'handyman' is by far the most prevalent usage form, although increasingly some women are being described by the term 'handywoman'. Let society decide. In ten years, if 'handyworker' becomes more prevalent, then we can revisit this issue then, but until then, it is not right for Wikipedians to be foisting new terms on the public as per policy.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 16:14, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

amateur vehicle maintenance and repair

Many people occasionally do minor maintenance and repair on their own automobile or motorcycle. Should this "handyman" article mention such amateur vehicle maintenance and repair?

Related: Talk:Auto mechanic#amateur automobile maintenance and repair.

--DavidCary (talk) 19:27, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Seems somewhat off-topic; how about adding it to an Wikipedia article on automobile repair?--Tomwsulcer (talk) 22:20, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Okay. I feel that Wikipedia *should* have an article on automobile repair in general, including amateur automobile repair. Is there one? (At the moment, automobile repair redirects to auto mechanic, which doesn't seem to include amateurs repairing their own car). --DavidCary (talk) 14:53, 19 December 2019 (UTC)