Talk:Lineworker

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Lineworker article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Electrical engineering Mid‑importance

	Engineering portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Electrical engineering, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Electrical engineering 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.Electrical engineeringWikipedia:WikiProject Electrical engineeringTemplate:WikiProject Electrical engineeringelectrical engineering articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Telecommunications Mid‑importance

	Telecommunication portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Telecommunications, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Telecommunications 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.TelecommunicationsWikipedia:WikiProject TelecommunicationsTemplate:WikiProject TelecommunicationsTelecommunications articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Occupations (inactive)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Occupations, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.OccupationsWikipedia:WikiProject OccupationsTemplate:WikiProject OccupationsOccupations articles

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Brennenaj.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 02:37, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Linesman

This occupation is also called "linesman", so I have modified the intro. My brother has this job in the UK and that is how it is referred to here. See also [1] and [2] for examples. --kingboyk 21:39, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gender Equality

I have never heard the use of the term lineperson. The plural linepersons just sounds ridiculous. I propose to change the name of the article to lineworker which is a common term in Australia. I think this term is even used in job adds. I doubt we would even need a redirect for Lineperson.

Lumberjack Steve 10:03, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The user making the gender changes has an agenda and has been recently banned. The new words and terms are gender fair, but that doesn’t absolve the old ones from existence. Possibly a section on the changes from the old world to the new would be appropriate. I reverted back to the last edit that was made before the non NPOV changes. --I already forgot 10:30, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not particularly fussed with the terminology. Linesman is historically the title. Lineworker is now more common (formally at least) in Australia. Lumberjack Steve 11:25, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I dislike the change, but I can live with it as long as lineworker is actually in common use somewhere (so that it's not original research). Since you say it is in common use in Australia, I think it's okay for now. --Coolcaesar 17:56, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Change back to original name

The article name should be changed back to Lineman. "Linesperson" and "lineperson" aren't even words. I have never heard "lineworker" except occasional use by people who are trying to be P.C. and are not, themselves, in the electric power industry. By far, the most common terms are Lineman and Linesman. If it's true that the user who gender-neutralized this article was banned then we really should revert back to the last version before any of "hir" edits and pick up from there. Anyone for a vote or discussion on changing the article name back? Wikipedia's job should be to reflect actual usage, not to promote agendas, this includes promoting gender-neutral terms that aren't yet in wide use. Puppy Mill 00:33, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would support the move back to lineman, which gets over 4 million hits on Google, versus lineworker's 76,000. --Coolcaesar 04:03, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not fussed either way. I accept that in the US lineman is most common, UK is probably linesman and Australia lineworker is the formal usage. Informally (and historically) in Australia linesman or even liney is probably more common. If the article name is changed I would like a redirect and acknowledgment of the term lineworker though. Lumberjack Steve 11:03, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would also support this move. Shall I file a request over at Requested moves? Kevin_b_er 03:07, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Go for it. Lumberjack Steve 11:52, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Discuss change back to original name, cont.

I filed a request at Wikipedia:Requested moves. Discuss. Puppy Mill 13:02, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move (2006)

The following discussion is an archived debate 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 debate was PAGE MOVED per discussion below. -GTBacchus^(talk) 02:06, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

Lineworker (occupation) → Lineman (occupation) — See the discussion above in part. Lineman is the most common and prevelant usage for what's described in the article. Lineworker or Lineperson is really only used by people trying to be PC, which wikipedia does not need to be. Kevin_b_er 16:58, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

Add * '''Support''' or * '''Oppose''' on a new line followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~.

Support (assuming that means rv to Lineman). In 1991 when I quit Kentucky Utilities (US), I was was officially called a Service Technician (formerly Serviceman), and had been a Line Technician (formerly Lineman). Suggestion: go back to Lineman and redirect the other terms to it - there seem to be many of them. It might be an interesting sub-topic to list the various monikers and where they are used. Wake 19:43, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support as nom and per my comments above. Puppy Mill 11:01, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Add any additional comments:

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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.

Terminology

I would like to delete this entire section. Some of the terms mentioned are already linked in the rest of the article and many of the terms mentioned really have no need to be in this article at all. There is no need to distinguish between distribution and transmission or discuss the difference in earth or ground terminology. This article is about linemen who basically work on lines. Please respond if interested and if there is no objection I will delete in a week or so. Lumberjack Steve 12:17, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Section deleted Lumberjack Steve 07:03, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

vandalism

Who is this Too Nickolff who seems to be vandalizing this page? Is there any way to permanently ban this user? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.147.32.17 (talk) 06:39, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes Wikipedia:Blocking policy but not at anonymous behest. Jim.henderson (talk) 15:48, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Archaic term

I have reverted an edit that stated: "It should be noted that the terms 'live' and 'dead' are archaic, and improper. The correct terms are energized and de-energized. The use of 'hot' should also be avoided."

The two terms are common where I work and have definitions in our code of practice documentation. We have different definitions for dead and de-energized or live and energized. Live: means energised or subject to hazardous induced or capacitive voltages. Energised: means connected to a source of electrical supply. Dead: means isolated and at earth potential. De-energised: means not connected to any source of electrical supply but not necessarily isolated. Lumberjack Steve (talk) 17:39, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Biased tone

It looks fairly obvious to me that its written in pro IBEW, pro worker point of view seeing that one part I removed paints IBEW as the most important union. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 01:25, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 15 July 2015

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Moved per majority input, reasonable suggestion. — kwami (talk) 18:38, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(non-admin closure)

Lineman (occupation) → Lineman (technician) – The football kind of lineman is also an occupation, so this would be more precise. --Relisted. George Ho (talk) 05:05, 23 July 2015 (UTC) Egsan Bacon (talk) 14:23, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nom. Possibly Lineman (electricity) would also work; the current title would point to the disambiguation page Lineman -- 67.70.32.20 (talk) 07:37, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I would prefer Lineworker (cable installation).

"Lineman" is too easily confused with "linesman" which, as shown in the image search, is easily confused with sports refereeing roles.

Although the majority of those in the occupation may be biological and cismales, the title is inherently sexist.

Lineworkers can also install fiber optic cable which does not involve electricity. Greg Kaye 05:36, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal – I know these fellows as "linesmen", and have no desire to see "men" eliminated. "Linesmen" or "linemen", the both of them have a great cadence. Sadly, however, for the purpose of Wikipedia article titles, they are ambiguous. I do not like any of the parenthetical proposals above. They are all awkward and long. Therefore, I propose that we follow the principal that WP:NATURAL disambiguation is preferable over parenthetical. WP:NATURAL tells us to choose a slightly less common alternative name that is unambiguous. I can support that proposition, and thereby propose Lineworker, which solves all of our problems. RGloucester — ☎ 06:38, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- That's also somewhat ambiguous with line workers, workers that work on assembly lines. -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 15:32, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support the original proposal, not the proposed alternatives. Gulangyu (talk) 09:45, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support the original proposal Lineman (technician). Andrewa (talk) 00:00, 4 August 2015 (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 one external link on Lineman (technician). 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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090124165835/http://www.iuota.org/ to http://www.iuota.org/

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) 10:16, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Lineworker. 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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150419023320/http://www.verticalmag.com/digital_issue/2015/v14i2/files/82.html to http://www.verticalmag.com/digital_issue/2015/v14i2/files/82.html

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) 18:57, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]