Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion/Log/2006/September/11

September 11

Organized labour stubs

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 rename to "trade union" wording

There have been several discussions about renaming these stubs. (original naming, rename one, rename two) They are not consistent and have generated some ongoing difficulties because of a couple conflicts: (labor vs labour) (trade union vs labour union). There are several choices to address this problem.

rename to {{Africa-worker-org-stub}}. Some previous objections to this have centered around the political connotations of the word “worker”. (redirects already exist)
rename to {{Africa-trade-union-stub}}. Some previous objections to this have noted that the word “union” has several uses, and "labor union" is the common usage in the US.
rename to {{Africa-labour-org-stub}}, with a spelling exception for {{US-labor-org-stub}}. This option is closest to the current names. Previous objections have noted the problem of inconsistency in spelling from country to country.

I would like to see one of these proposals adopted. As the original creator of most of these stubs I have had difficulty remaining… uh… detached from the discussion, and will recuse myself from further comment on this. Any of these choices (or others) will work just fine with me.--Bookandcoffee 17:37, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is also important for the {{worker-activist-stub}} to also match the other stubs, i.e. it should only be kept the way it is if proposal #1 is used.--Carabinieri ^T_T^a_a^l_l^k_k 19:28, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone please tag any template or category that will potentially change under this proposal with sfr-t/sfr-c and the proposed new name? I for one am not going to be doing a bunch of renames in seven days' time at the risk of being told, "why did you move that stub type? I use it extensively, it wasn't tagged, and I didn't find out about the discussion until now". (Admittedly I did exactly that with some mil-stub cats, but there was lots of permcat precedent there, only categories were affected, and the nomination of the stub parent seemed to be entirely controversy-free.) Let's also be explicit about what redirects it's proposed to keep, and which to delete. Alai 23:57, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alai I am going to try and make the sfr-t/sfr-c things right now...I know what you mean! Goldenrowley 04:33, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Bookabndcoffee beat me to it on the sfr-t stubs Goldenrowley 04:44, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would favour a rename of all to X-trade-union-stub/X trade union stubs, since the permanent parent categories - even for the United States - are at "X trade unions". This also avoids the labour/labor problem and any political connotations with the word "worker". The use of the word union is only ambiguous when it is not used with the word "trade". I would, however, favour keeping worker-activist-stub, since not all activists working for the cause of workers' rights are trade unionists (note however that the category needs renaming to the correct punctuation). Worker-activist-stub is therefore more all-inclusive. Furthermore, since people who are active in workers' rights movements are, by definition, political, this should not run foul of any potential problems with the name. Matching the other stub categories isn't really relevant either, since it isn't for the same thing (it's for people, not unions) - an analogy here would be with Cat:University stubs and Cat:Academic biography stubs. Grutness...wha? 00:00, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename Cat:United States labor union stubs → Cat:United States trade union stubs to match non-stub parent. Correct the punctuation of Cat:Worker's rights activist stubs and leave it's template as is. Rename {{union-stub}} to something unambiguous. I'm going to be neutral on all other issues raised by this uber-reorg. Caerwine Caer’s whines 00:40, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
@Grutness: not all labor organizations are automatically also labor unions - there are and there have been other forms of organizations such as workers centers.--Carabinieri^T_T^a_a^l_l^k_k 01:52, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- good point - there are things like Workers' rights collectives, too. A trade union stub split would either be slightly more narrowly scoped or would need to be specifically worded to allow for such organisations. I'd favour the latter, since I doubt there would be so many as to warrant a separate stub type for such groups. Grutness...wha? 23:13, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - I also don't think a seperate stub type is needed for these types of organizations, I was only making the point that the template and the category both need to be worded and named in a way that such forms of organizations are included, i.e. I would be against proposal #2.--Carabinieri ^T_T^a_a^l_l^k_k 23:28, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Booksandcoffee, thank you for your endurance sorting these articles. I can Support your proposal #2 "trade-union-stub" and #3 "-labor/labour-org-stub". Decidedly, #2 is my first choice (having deferred to Wiki style etiquette it says to chose a word that does not have different spelling in different regions of the world and then to be consistent with the spelling, whatever we do). I myself don't see anything objectionable with saying "trade union". I don't mind worker-activist-stubs either. Goldenrowley 04:33, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since it seems the discussion is sort of dying and there doesn't really seem to be a consensus, I'd propose the following: We keep the status quo, except:
- {{union-stub}} is moved to {{labor-org-stub}}; it should be obvious that it needs to be consistant with all the others
- {{worker-activist-stub}} is changed to {{labor-activist-stub}} (with a redirect from the British spelling)--Carabinieri ^T_T^a_a^l_l^k_k 23:48, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure why you think there doesn't seem to be a consensus - the majority who have commented have said that proposal two is the one they favour as first choice. Given that the permcat parents are all at "trade union" too, it doesn't seem sensible to change everything to contentious spellings. Also, the majority of those commenting above said there was no problem with worker-activist-stub, so I don't see any need to change that. Grutness...wha? 00:01, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Looking over all of the comments, I guess you're right. Although I disagree with it, I guess it's probably the the solution with the most support.--Carabinieri^T_T^a_a^l_l^k_k 01:06, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- FWIW, I doubt there'd be any objections to template-redirects at the other names, though the plain union-stub is probably too ambiguous. Grutness...wha? 23:00, 16 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.