Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Organized Labour/Templates

These mock-ups are basically identical to the Infobox Company template. it might make sense to use the code they eventually settle on, although there are other infoboxes to look at, and perhaps this project should think about a distinct look of its own.

Is it possible to have a category tag within the template that would place the union within its "affiliated" category?--Bookandcoffee 17:54, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Infobox Union

(copy of note at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Organized Labour)

I whacked together (well, stole, really) the start of an infobox for individual unions. Unless someone objects to the idea of infoboxes, I'll put it up at {{Infobox Union}} in a few days. Hopefully we could work through modifications and improvements, and be ready to use it by March. For now it's sitting in my sandbox.--Bookandcoffee 22:24, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Strike/labor dispute infobox

I was surprised to see that there was no infobox template for a labor dispute article. It seems to me this type of event would lend itself to an infobox for a quick summary. Seems odd that this hasn't been discussed before? Or, have I just not looked in the right place for the discussion?

Just some quick and dirty details that I think might be in such an infobox, with some examples:

(Examples here are edited per comments below — original version here)

2007 Writers Guild of America strike Location United States Union Writers Guild of America, East Writers Guild of America, west Employer Alliance of Motion Picture and Television Producers Dispute Residuals from new media Length of strike November 52007–present Other strikes (hide if empty) ← 1960 • 1988

1980 New York City transit strike Location New York City Union Transport Workers Union Local 100 Employer Metropolitan Transportation Authority Dispute wage increases Length of strike April 11980–April 111980 (11 days) Other strikes (years w/o article example) ←1905 • 1910 • 1916 • 1919 • 1966 →2005

Thoughts?—Twigboy 22:51, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Reliable sources for "cost" are not going to be found, because anti-labor forces always exaggerate the cost of strikes, and union leaders naturally want to softpedal them. "Successive strike" sounds like we're assuming there will always be another strike. Strikes are often one-off things, especially nowadays (and in the old bad days when strikes were settled with Cossacks or Pinkertons or the Stahlhelm). I'd suggest, in the example given above, not making a wikilink for that particular local unless it's got its own article (and some strikes are multi-local or multi-union). --Orange Mike 01:41, 10 November 2007 (UTC) (AFSCME L.91; NWU/UAW L.1981; IWW I.U.660)

I like the concept; thanks for doing this up. In general, I think less is better when it comes to these boxes. I'd vote for losing the cost line, as well as the previous and successive strike lines. Just the facts, ma'am. =) Also, how about (s) after Union and Employer? – Scartol · Talk 02:07, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Nice idea. I'd agree with Mike and Scartol that cost and prev/next might be pretty problematic. What about a strike/lock out indicator? An image field might be nice too. Should length be "Start" and "End" fields? --Bookandcoffee 03:03, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree that this is a good idea. Considering the long history of militancy in labor disputes something like a "casualties" field might also be appropriate.--Carabinieri 20:14, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Casualties, alas, are another area where reliable sources may be problematic. --Orange Mike 00:46, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Probably not any more problematic than with wars.--Carabinieri (talk) 00:34, 18 November 2007 (UTC)