Talk:Central Organisation of the Workers of Sweden
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is part of WikiProject Organized Labour, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to Organized Labour. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. |
| B | This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. |
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale. |
| If you have rated this article please consider adding assessment comments. |
[edit] Renaming
I do feel that this article should be titled "Sveriges Arbetares Centralorganisation" and not "Central Organisation of the Workers of Sweden", much in accordance with how the related french once-syndicalist union Confédération Générale du Travail or the spanish syndicalist union Confederación General del Trabajo. In accordance with the latter; I suppose we could add "(Sweden)" at the end, but then we should also put "(France)" at the end of Confédération Générale du Travail, etcetera. If no objections are made, I will contact someone who can move the article once I've actually written it and removed the stub tags. With love, -- Jobjörn 20:43, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
There. Now, what's the naming conventions for non-english organisations/trade unions? As of now, there seems to be a lot of different styles:
- Central Organisation of the Workers of Sweden (Translated from Swedish Sveriges Arbetares Centralorganisation.)
- Confederación Nacional del Trabajo (Kept in original Spanish language, translates as National Confederation of Labour.)
- Confederación General del Trabajo (Spain) (Likewise kept in original Spanish language, but with suffix "(Spain)" added. No mention of English translation is mentioned within the article.)
- Christelijk Nationaal Vakverbond (Original Finnish language, translates as The National Federation of Christian Trade Union.)
etcetera. To me, it seems that the most common style is to keep it in it's original language or translating it directly to English. A standard should be established, or, if one exists, should be applied! I, for one, am in favor of keeping the original language in the title. -- Jobjörn 01:10, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Article needing a second look
OK, so now I've rewritten the entire article. The only thing it is lacking as of now is a section concerning it's History - which I shall write now, or if not that, later this week. However, so far I am the sole editor of this article, and considering that I am a member of the organisation in question it might be sligly POV; even though I've done my best to keep it NPOV. It'd be good if someone looked it through. Furthermore, english is not my own tongue, and this article contains some quite obscure words - it'd be good if someone could look it through checking the language, too. -- Jobjörn 01:10, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
