Portal talk:Organized Labour

message: Can someone explain why we have three DYKs in the following code?
:
:
:
:
:
I like that we can include three DYKs on the portal page.  What I don't know is how to update this code every time we add DYKs.  What should I change?  - Tim1965 (talk) 20:13, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Explain this code to me 

message: I came across a great resource for union and political images at AFL-CIO's flickr page.--Blargh29 (talk) 04:53, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mother lode of free images 

message: The article Labor unions in the United States has been ideologically edited lately, with polemic phrases added such as "exorbitant union wages". Exorbitant means "greatly exceeding bounds of reason or moderation". (The only truly exorbitant pay that i'm aware of goes to the likes of CEOs and hedge fund managers.)
Also, should this article have a labor portal tag? best wishes, Richard Myers (talk) 16:15, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit war, please help monitor Labor unions in the United States 

message: I wouldn't normally chat about a third party whom i might have an issue with, without having contacted that person first. But here's the problem: i haven't yet decided what i think of this person's recent contributions. They disturb me in a vague sort of way that i haven't yet pinned down.
Specifically, editor CartoonDiablo appears to have a long history of adding controversial or disputed images (see CartoonDiablo's talk page). While i like the recently added images and may even share the philosophy behind them, i wonder about their relevance to articles they've been added to, and (based upon this editor's apparent history) about their copyright status. 
Many of the edits portray former President Reagan in a negative light. I do not/did not like Reagan, but the edits i'm referring to almost seem like an anti-Reagan crusade, rather than thoughtful contributions to labor articles. Is anyone else concerned about (some of) these contributions? Richard Myers (talk) 19:03, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: *I've seen a few edits by the user in question. I've searched long and high for style guides as to what constitutes a "relevant" image, but cannot find any. (Anyway, most of the time with an article it's "take what you can get.") Charts and graphs, however, should be discussed in the text. Such images are not, in my opinion, self-interpreting, and statistical analysis (even univariate data in charts and graphs) requires an explanation of assumptions, hypotheses, and data. The user in question does not provide that; but then, many users do not. All that being said, a user's contributions have to be taken one at a time. That's the Wikipedia guideline, and that's how I'm judging contributions absent any vandalism. - Tim1965 (talk) 22:42, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I note that here and there, some of these charts have been removed by other editors. I think that is fair. Richard Myers (talk) 07:27, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: *Online space is unlike print, in that the cost of producing text is, for most practical purposes, costless.  So Wikipedia articles can be huge, if they want to be.  On the other hand, Wikipedia articles do have a suggested size limit; long articles should have parts broken off into their own article.  A long article can accomodate more charts and graphs.  That said, I can see a situation where someone might try to create more charts/graphs/images than the article can accommodate.  Clearly, one wouldn't want to put a  tag on the page.  Perhaps one solution might be a gallery at the bottom, to which footnotes might refer.  That doesn't resolve the issue of which graphs/charts get into the text and which down below, but does give contributors the chance to get their image into the article (instead of not used at all). - Tim1965 (talk) 14:02, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Would like impressions of this activity on labor-related pages 

message: This was brought up three years ago and casually dismissed, but it's a bit silly that this portal uses "organized" (chiefly US) and "labour" (chiefly international). One or the other should be picked and the portal moved to that title. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 17:15, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: *Actually, this project was established by a Canadian, who would spell the project title as "Organized Labour"—so you are incorrect in assuming that this is an either/or proposition between British and American spellings. Your assumption that this was "casually dismissed" does not show good faith in regards to other project participants, either. Wikipedia's policy is to let things be spelt (or is that spelled?) as they were originally, unless there is some compelling reason otherwise. Myself, I (an American speller) do not see this as a compelling reason. - Tim1965 (talk) 17:22, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I have just had two articles destabilised by User:JJMC89 bot III who has changed the spelling of the word Labour to a US spelling in a category name. Presumably the article Chimney Sweepers Act 1834 can never become a GA, due to spelling inconsistency on the page. Until this morning we got round this problem by the use of a category redirect- but I assume the bot driver was trying to clean up redirects. In this case, I thought we would default to the spelling used in the portal. I think this is a point of principle, as the article I named is a long way from GA. --ClemRutter (talk) 07:20, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Bots are owned by people. Talk to the bot owner, and have the pages added to the bot's "do not edit" list. - Tim1965 (talk) 16:28, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spelling 

message: Our DYK list keeps growing, which is a testament to the work of the contributors to this project.  Yay!  Our portal generates random content from the DYK sub-page, and until recently most people (well, me) have been merely updating these numbers on the portal page.  This has tended to disadvantage the more recent DYKs in favor of older ones.  I'm no PHP programmer, but I did some investigation and think I figured out a way to make the portal generate content more appropriately.  Instead of generating a random number between 1 and 111 (as it used to do), I altered it so that one DYK bullet is generated randomly from the entries between 1 and 80, another from the entries between 81 and 160, and another from the entries between 161 and 240.  We currently have 240 DYK entries, and three bullets.  So I broke up the list into three sections, and generated content from each of the three sections.  This will require updating again at some point in the future as we add more DYKs entries beyond 240.  And we might consider adding a fourth bullet at some point (say, when we reach 400 DYKs).  To ensure that content has a chance to appear on the portal main page, I suggest that we not have any "section" of the DYK list be greater than 100. Comments?  Boos and hisses? Cheers? - Tim1965 (talk) 13:57, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Change to the way the portal generates random content 

message: I am proposing a change in the article title for Industrial Workers of the World tactics. Instead of Industrial Workers of the World tactics, i propose Industrial Workers of the World philosophy and tactics. This is because the article does include a fairly detailed discussion of some aspects of the IWW's philosophy.
The article:
* has a number of unfinished sections, and so needs attention
* has very few incoming links, but could easily have a lot more, as written
* Renaming the article (as proposed) might increase the opportunity for incoming links
Discussion at Talk:Industrial_Workers_of_the_World_tactics
Thanks! best wishes, Richard Myers (talk) 21:52, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Industrial Workers of the World philosophy and tactics 

message: DYK will soon feature this hook:
*... that Tom Kahn organized American unions' $300,000 aid to the Polish labor-union Solidarity in 1979–1981, despite Secretary of State Muskie warnings that this aid might provoke a new Soviet invasion?
In solidarity,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 01:15, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Tom Kahn]] 

message: The Portal:Organized Labour portal is transcluding its featured articles of the day rather than giving a short synopsis.  Aside from how awful this looks, it is (impermissibly) creating uses of fair use images in portal space. --B (talk) 15:29, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: It also puts the portal into a random selection of article categories each day. I've reformatted Portal:Organized Labour/March/26/Selected article to display an article extract with no categories and no non-free image. The code at Portal:Organized Labour will display a "Read more" link that jumps to Portal:Organized Labour/March/26/Selected article; so as a hack I've arranged for a one-paragraph extract to appear on the portal, then this "Read more" link will display a two-paragraph extract and a "Read more" link to the full article. Only 364 days to go. -- John of Reading (talk) 07:07, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

text: That hack doesn't work, so I'll update the portal code to assume that only an extract is being displayed. Only 363 days to go... -- John of Reading (talk) 07:18, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

text: This is a lot of work to little benefit. A simpler solution would be to remove the portal box entirely. -- John of Reading (talk) 07:32, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

text: ...or to get a good night's sleep and come up with a better idea. The portal no longer transcludes entire articles; instead I've used ten of the January selected articles to create numbered subpages which are selected by . -- John of Reading (talk) 08:21, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article of the day 

message: Hi,
I am trying to fix talk issues on AUS MP Penny Wong.
Do we need a new page for Research officers and Policy officers (UK) and Industrial officers ( AU). I found 500 plus refs to the term in wiki OR should we just redirect to Trade Union. Wakelamp (talk) 13:09, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm a dumb American.  Explain the differences in terms. - Tim1965 (talk) 16:03, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Research officers and Policy officers (UK) and Indistrial officers ( AU) 

message: WikiProject Portals is back!
The project was rebooted and completely overhauled on April 17th, 2018. Its goals are to revitalize the entire portal system, make building and maintaining portals easier, support the ongoing improvement of portals and the editors dedicated to this, and design the portals of the future.
As of May 2nd, 2018, membership is at 60 editors, and growing. You are welcome to join us.
There are design initiatives for revitalizing the portals system as a whole, and for improving each component of portals.  So far, 2 new dynamic components have been developed: Template:Transclude lead excerpt and Template:Transclude random excerpt.
Tools are provided for building and maintaining portals, including automated portals that update themselves in various ways.
And, if you are bored and would like something to occupy your mind, we have a wonderful task list.
From your friendly neighborhood Portals WikiProject. Hope to see you there. Sincerely,      — The Transhumanist    07:40, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notice from the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Portals|Portals WikiProject]] 

message: The section "Did You Know?" is without update since 2010. It is a section of difficult maintenance, in my opinion it would be better to remove it with the objective of a single page portal. Or maybe merge with the "month" in Labor History section.Guilherme Burn (talk) 19:05, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: User  did a good job using , what did you think of this change?Guilherme Burn (talk) 11:13, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Need to update the section "Did You Know?"