Organized Labour Redirect‑class

	Organized Labour portal This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Organized Labour, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Organized Labour 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.Organized LabourWikipedia:WikiProject Organized LabourTemplate:WikiProject Organized Labourorganized labour articles
Redirect	This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Discussion

Date

I would recommend that information about number of members should have a date attached, and that for unions with enormous ups and downs in their numbers (e.g. the Industrial Workers of the World) numbers at more than one date would be relevant. - Jmabel | Talk 05:16, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that makes sense. Would it be worth having members_current and members_history? Undoubtedly, even with instruction, member numbers will sometimes be entered without a date, so maybe having a historical field would help avoid confusion.--Bookandcoffee 19:53, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking about this a little more. I put a note in the members field to include a date, but I wonder if historical membership might be better left in the article. A collection of numbers and dates might be difficult to display/provide context for, in an infobox.--Bookandcoffee 22:56, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It also is difficult to know what to put for a union that no longer exists. I will have to deal with this for Association of University Teachers soon as it is about to merge.

Political affiliation

I wonder if we also need a field for political affiliation. Certainly in the UK this is an important topic. Most major unions are affiliated to the Labour Party but some have left and other may soon. Many newer and white collar unions are not.--NHSavage 10:40, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that a field would be good in cases where there is a formal agreement between a union and political party; but what about the murkier relationships? Does a field (which is basically a yes/no thing) negate a more complex relationship description? As an example, the CAW in Canada is seen as a strong supporter of the NDP, but there are new subtleties from the last national election - and that's a peaceful example, there are of course other political relationships that are volatile and/or disputed. I'm worried it would be difficult to keep things NPOV. --Bookandcoffee 08:21, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

convert from "hiddenStructure" to {{#if:

I converted the code over to the Qif format. I tested it in my sandbox, so I'm pretty sure that it doesn't make any visible changes. But it wouldn't be the first time I was wrong!--Bookandcoffee 22:54, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

white space

So there appears to be a problem here. Since I changed this over to the QIF format there are several leading lines of white space at the top of articles. Bluemoose found a solution on the UNISON article by putting &nbsp(;) in the empty fields, but that's a pain to do. Any suggestions? --Bookandcoffee 16:39, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Key People

What formatting would be necessary to show more than one person in the |people= parameter? Johnbtv 21:51, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just add <br> between names and it should format correctly.--Bookandcoffee 06:05, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]