Template talk:Labor

Comparisons?
All the entries in the list are concrete issues in labor except 'Comparisons'. While a valid page in its own right, I don't think that comparisons should be included in this list. There are a lot of possible links to the Comparisons page, but this template does not have to be one. The Gomm 02:37, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Major revision
A large-scale revision of this template was completed on 19 August 2007. Discussion can be found here; the old template still exists at Template:oldlabour. -- Scartol  05:26, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Famous organizers
Just thinking out loud here - but would it be possible to cycle through a larger list of organizers, in somewhat the same way as the Portal:Organized Labour cycles randomly through DYK tidbits? I don't know if this is even possible, but it would ease the conflict of deciding which handful of people are the most important. Essentially a random number generator that calls five (or 7 or 3) of the twenty (or 11 or 32) names listed in the template. --Bookandcoffee 20:05, 24 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi Bookandcoffee, I have to disagree. I think that any attempt to identify five or a dozen or three dozen leaders is bound to artificially limit this list.  To be an effective list, it has to span centuries and continents, and would swamp the rest of the template.  On the other hand, any one leader will be much less significant than any of the concepts in the rest of the template, and thus out of place on the template.


 * My suggestion is to make a big section header Trade unionists or something, which links to a proper list page, which can be properly organized and annotated to actually do justice to the people on the page. -Gomm 22:53, 28 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry, just chiming in here (not a Wikipedia account holder) -- it seems the labour unionist header is broken, as the EDIT page show that it's intended to randomly list individuals, yet nothing is showing. -Pat (no account) 20:51, 5 January 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.176.11.129 (talk)

Please consider adding "hide" option to box
Reading an article with this box fullblown can be very distracting. Thanks. Never mind, figured out how to add it to template with out screwing it up... Awotter 03:27, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Lech Wałęsa
Shouldn't Lech Wałęsa be added to the list? (I'd add him, but it looks very complicated.) --Hordaland (talk) 18:06, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * To what list? - Tim1965 (talk) 23:18, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Color
There's no reason to change the colors in this template. Especially not without discussion. One person's garish is another person's pastel. There are very justifiable reasons to keep the colors bright red, as historically that has been the color of the labor movement in the industrialized West. Other color schemes should be discussed before implementation. - Tim1965 (talk) 20:23, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Minumum Wage
This template was removed from the minimum wage article Talk:Minimum_wage, as 'minimum wage' didn't feature on it. Maybe it should be added under sub-heading 'Labor rights'? Jonpatterns (talk) 16:15, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Standardisation
This box has been a few times between "Organized labour" and "Organized labor". Personally I'd prefer "The trade union movement", or "Organised labour", but ok, comprising I guess "Organized labour" is ok as it is the name of the Wiki Project. - Francis Tyers · 16:29, 3 August 2008 (UTC)


 * This has been discussed ad nauseaum on the Organized Labour Project talk pages. Not every union is a trade union, and English vs. American spellings vary widely across Wikipedia. "Standardising" or "Standardizing" the template box goes against the multiple, lengthy discussions the Project has had on this. Per Wikipedia's guidelines, the spelling of a given word will go with whomever wrote the article originally, and whether the article addresses an issue in an English-spelling or American-spelling country. - Tim1965 (talk) 18:39, 3 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Or in this case, Canadian :) - Francis Tyers · 06:35, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

English Consistency
According to WP:CONSISTENCY, spelling variants should be consistent throughout articles. Due to this template, that guideline is not abided by in pages like Labor unions in the United States. Shouldn't there be an American English switch in this template, or a separate template that uses "labor" instead of "labour"? I would do this myself, but I have no doubt that my edits would be immediately reverted and I'd rather not waste my time. Dzylon (talk) 16:29, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Parameters
The problem has been crudely fixed using two parameters. The default is the Oxford or Canadian spelling, "organized labour". Parameter 1 allows you to change the "our" and parameter 2 allows you to change the "ize". So, for example, would give "organised labor" (which you wouldn't want but it's just to illustrate). You wouldn't want to get them the wrong way around and get "organord labise". Another example is which gives "organic food labelling" (which you also wouldn't want but it's kind of funny ... "labelling movement", "child labelling", etc.). In fact, there'd be a whole lot of hysterical vandalism you might try:, ,. As much as I would hate to spoil the fun of a witty enough vandal, it's plain to see that there is a better way. There are only three options we'd actually want, "organised labour", "organized labour" and "organized labor". It'd be better to do this with a single parameter. Use uk for "organised labour" and us for "organized labor" (the default would stay the same). This would be easier and consistent with other templates. Jimp 06:23, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

That's done. All the transclusions have been fixed. Parameters 1 and 2 are no longer needed. They've been removed. Jimp 14:30, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Move over redirect
It's a bit odd to default to Oxford spelling when the name of the template is in US. Perhaps it should be moved over the redirect at labor. Jimp 14:14, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

4 day work week or 5 day work week?
Should this template feature the 4 day work week or 5 day work week? The 4-day week seems kinda a fringy movement. The 5-day work week is more in line with the other articles featured, showcasing a solid unambiguously positive achievement of the labor movements. LK (talk) 02:07, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
 * 5 day is my preference. - Tim1965 (talk) 14:38, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

I perfer the 4-day week because since there are three Sabbaths - Friday (Muslim), Saturday (Jewish), and Sunday (Christian). - Campista1891 (talk) 16:38, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Bold
went and did something. :) --Goldsztajn (talk) 11:36, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

consider changing the template's image
the image has a good for female to male representation but huge failure when it comes to be inclusive FuzzyMagma (talk) 11:42, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Image vandalaism
There seems to be some ongoing vandalism of the image that is shown when rolling over links realted to labour articles in this template. An image of a spilt meal is shown, but is nowhere in the actual article 158.36.93.227 (talk) 07:40, 18 October 2023 (UTC)


 * The image is called "Vomit_on_plate" 158.36.93.227 (talk) 07:42, 18 October 2023 (UTC)