This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Infoboxes, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Infoboxes 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.InfoboxesWikipedia:WikiProject InfoboxesTemplate:WikiProject InfoboxesInfoboxes articles
This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Organizations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Organizations 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.OrganizationsWikipedia:WikiProject OrganizationsTemplate:WikiProject Organizationsorganization articles
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
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.--Bookandcoffee19:53, 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.--Bookandcoffee22:56, 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.
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.--NHSavage10:40, 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. --Bookandcoffee08:21, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
While I empathize with that concern, in some countries unions have explicit affiliation with political parties such as India, whereas in other countries, you're right it's more subjective, for example the US. Shushugah (talk) 23:03, 3 January 2021 (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!--Bookandcoffee22:54, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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  (;) in the empty fields, but that's a pain to do. Any suggestions? --Bookandcoffee16:39, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Here are a few scenarios which have no clear resolution. I'll expand this as I continue to find issues; feel free to rip or modify this at will. These may identify questions needing answer more broadly than just for this template.
Federation affiliations:
How to best display a union's affiliations? What constitutes an "affiliation" as described by the template (alliances vs coalitions vs loose federations vs parent organizations)? Which should use the head parameter and which shouldn't? Should multiple levels of nested federation be listed, such as for national and international federations? When should and shouldn't these be initials vs the full names of these affiliations, and should simple links to initials be avoided in favor of piped links to expanded names?
Anecdotes: The local, AFSCME, and AFL-CIO probably all have strong ties, respectively. However, ties are less likely between the local and AFL-CIO. AFL-CIO probably has loose ties to ITUC. However, ties are less likely between ITUC and the local or ITUC and AFSCME.
Notes: This already needs updating, as ICEM has merged with some others to form IndustriALL Global Union. IndustriALL lists UE as an affiliate.[1] PSI does not list UE as an affiliate.[2] UE seems to ambiguously list ICEM (no longer existent) and PSI as affiliates (maybe there's a better UE list).[3]
Anecdotes: (See also UNITE HERE examples.) The page for IMPACT describes it as a body within a "department" of the AFL-CIO, although it also describes it as half run by the Ironworkers union and half run by various companies' management. It appears to be more of an advocacy, lobbying, or maybe consultation firm, than it does a labor organization.
Countries:
How to best present a union in two countries? Should the country be linked (probably not)?
Second that! Just by checking a few of the pages using this template, it appears that most "image" parameters are actually being used for logos. Thanks in advance! --Ben Stone10:54, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Benstown and Faceless Enemy: My instinct would be not to add another parameter here since the infobox is only meant to contain one image. However, I've made some adaptions so that it highlights a union logo can go there. --Goldsztajn (talk) 10:57, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Goldsztajn: I agree that it's better to keep it simple and uncluttered, but sometimes it may be better to favor standardized practices. Image and logo parameters, although similar, serve different purposes, and have been kept separate for a long time. Occasionally, the 'image' parameter is used as a fallback option, but for all templates that consistently use logos, the 'logo' parameter is used. Also worth noting, that Wikidata as well as all search engines, read the 'logo' parameter, and "understand" that the image is a logo. --Ben Stone02:27, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What's with the blue colour at the top of the infobox? I don't see any relevance of the colour blue to trade unions and most other organisation infoboxes do not have any sort of default colour. It should be removed IMHO. Elshad (talk) 21:30, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
