Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion/Log/2006/September/2

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

September 2[edit]

Labor union-related stubs[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the stub template and/or category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was relaunch debate as new proposal now that some points have been clarified


Here's a list of them:

{{Union-stub}}/Cat:Trade union stubs;{{Africa-labor-org-stub}}/Cat:African trade union stubs;{{Asia-labor-org-stub}}/Cat:Asian trade union stubs;{{India-labor-org-stub}}/Cat:Indian trade union stubs;{{Euro-labor-org-stub}}/Cat:European trade union stubs;{{UK-labor-org-stub}}/Cat:United Kingdom trade union stubs;{{NorthAm-labor-org-stub}}/Cat:North American trade union stubs;{{US-labor-org-stub}}/Cat:United States labor union stubs;{{Oceania-labor-org-stub}}/Cat:Oceania trade union stubs;{{SouthAm-labor-org-stub}}/Cat:South American trade union stubs;{{worker-activist-stub}}/Cat:Worker's rights activist stubs

They are terribly incostently named. I propose using either {{worker-org-stub}} and {{worker-activist-stub}} or {{labor-org-stub}} and {{labor-activist-stub}}.--CarabinieriTTaallkk 13:00, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I completely agree, and argued for worker-org-stub at the time these were created. Several of these are just plain wrong - especially UK-labor-org-stub, since the spelling "labor" doesn't exist in the UK. Support changing them to worker-org and keeping worker-activist. Grutness...wha? 23:49, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • That was my first thought, but to be fair, that's a redirect, not the "real" template. Alai 04:08, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename temlpates per Grutness. Have also added an SFR to rename Cat:United States labor union stubs to Cat:United States trade union stubs so as to match the parent cat Cat:Trade unions of the United States. Caerwine Caerwhine 04:17, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Where? You mean "tagged in" to this discussion? Anyhoo, support that, and support making the templates consistent one way or another, keeping current names as directs. Alai 04:56, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Though BTW, the main article is at Labor unions in the United States. More grist to the mill of "vertical vs. horizontal consistency". Alai 05:33, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment I favor letting CFD worry about whether articles and categories match in name in cases such as this where the same concept has different terminology in different English speaking countries. That means all SFD and WSS have to do is worry about matching the parent categories. If I felt strongly about it beyond that, I'd have sent the parent to CFD for renaming instead. Caerwine Caerwhine 17:06, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree make them consistent. I write lots of contracts and almost all of them are between us and "Labor organizations" or "Labor Trusts"/ I cant think of any that have 'worker' in the Name. Suggest therefor {{Labor-Org}}. Labor-Org denotes an legal entity on the behalf of Laborers. A Union is a type of Labor-org so is instantly included. activist denotes a person being politically active. Goldenrowley 06:38, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Clarifying my above: I suggest therefor {{country-labor-org-stub}}, where the real names of country replaces the "country". Goldenrowley 18:12, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I strongly oppose this new suggestion. Just because one country uses the term "labor organization" doesn't mean that it is a standard term worldwide. Most English-speaking countries do not have the word "labor" - they have the term "labour". Grutness...wha? 23:18, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, is this round three or round four for this discussion? I guess it depends how you count. (one, two) I will admit to being frustrated with this process. At this point Wikipedia:WikiProject Organized Labour has become a viable community with a number of editors who consistently work in this area – all the stubs and most of the cats being discussed here are clearly marked as being part of the project – why would no one think to contact the project for input? It just doesn’t make any sense. I’m not trying to imply bad faith, I’m just frustrated that I only discover this conversation (which is more complicated than it appears) by accident. I would think that involving related communities would help the process, or at the least reduce misunderstandings down the road…

This does not make them all identical, but it does make them consistent. We won't be able to name them all identical without offending one group(labor) or the other(trade). Previously there was opinion to avoid the word "union", but I believe it is clear enough to not be misunderstood. However, I'm of the opposite opinion when using the word "Worker". :) Worker is a political word in the labour world, and using it may well lead to other disagreements, from political points of view, as well as class points of view.--Bookandcoffee 19:48, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Or as a second possibility, use {{X-labour-org-stub}} for everyone except the US which is {{US-labor-org-stub}} - but then you're left with the difference between the cats and stubs, unless they are changed to Cat:X labour organization stubs, in which case they will no longer match the actual text that is displayed on the article page.--Bookandcoffee 00:28, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This proposal seems reasonable. - FrancisTyers · 11:45, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a bit concerned most of the affected templates and categories do not seem to have been tagged as part of this nomination, which might explain why B&C only "discovered this by accident". Given the earlier noms, there would appear to be no basis to believe this would be in the realm of the straightforward and uncontroversial. I'm certainly not going to "action" this one this basis: I suggest that it be either closed without result; or else that it be "done over": everything potentially effected to be tagged, and wikiproject (and anyone else) given a fresh seven days to comment. (On the face of it we have a "vote" to mass-move all the templates and delete the redirects, but that would seem rather uncalled for in the circumstances.) Alai 04:03, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with starting with a new proposal, I would support the 2 ideas presented very neatly to us on Sept 8 or Sept 10 but it should be proposed for a full 7 days. I simply did not know other countries used the word Labour and that would become the problem over how to spell a word on stubs. Goldenrowley 03:50, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Stub_types_for_deletion/Log/2006/September/2&oldid=1034537088"