Talk:Swedish Trade Union Confederation

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Swedish Trade Union Confederation article.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (`~~~~`). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

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.

Organized Labour Portal

Start

This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.

High

This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.

If you have rated this article please consider adding assessment comments.

	The article on Swedish Trade Union Confederation is supported by WikiProject Sweden, which is an attempt to improve the quality and coverage of Sweden-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page; if you have any questions about the project or the article ratings below, please consult the FAQ.
Start	This article has been rated as start-Class on the quality scale.
High	This article has been rated as high-importance on the importance scale.

It seems User: Jebur has moved this page from Swedish Trade Union Confederation (now a redirect) to Swedish Confederation of Trade Unions (but with a comment saying that it was moved to National Swedish Confederation of Trade Unions, that, confusingly, has been made into a redirect to the present location Swedish Confederation of Trade Unions (but has the edit history of the original article, suggesting that a subsequent cut-and-paste move was done to the present location, something frowned upon in Wikipedia policy).

Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English) says:

If you are talking about a person, country, town, movie or book, use the most commonly used English version of the name for the article

Although organizations aren't mentioned, the consensus on Village Pump and in specific cases seems to be that the same rule should apply to them. A Google test shows 878 hits for "Swedish Trade Union Confederation" and 580 for "Swedish Confederation of Trade Unions". A decisive, albeit not extremely wide margin. The case for "Swedish Trade Union Confederation" is however further strengthened by the fact that this is the form used on the organization's own Web site. The form also has the support of several important institutions, such as the International Labour Organization (see, for example, the list of country delegates for the 2004 International Labour Conference for an example of this). The Swedish Government also uses this form in the CVs of ministers (see, for instance, Hans Karlsson's).

It might be argued that Swedish Confederation of Trade Unions is a better translation (I personally think think there is no big difference), but this should not the main aspect in the decision. If it were, quite a number of articles on Wikipedia would be the subject of "move wars" between different possible translations. Also, whatever the arguments for a different title might be, my opinion is that it would have been a great idea to discuss them on the article's talk page first, to achieve consensus, rather than single-handedly deciding to move it, using (it seems) cut-and-paste, messing up edit histories along the way. Especially since there have been several different contributors to the article.

If no convincing arguments to keep the article at the present location are put forward, I will try to get an admin to move the article back to Swedish Trade Union Confederation, merging back its proper edit history. Alarm 16:38, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I moved it because, as you said, it's a better translation and a more grammatically correct form (shouldn't Wikipedia strive to use correct grammar in article names?). I'm pretty sure that the webmasters at www.lo.se would have used this form as well if only they were familiar with the English grammar. This is also the form used by its Nordic sister organisations (see Norwegian Confederation of Trade Unions and Danish Confederation of Trade Unions), and also by all the other major Swedish trade unions (see for example Swedish Confederation of Professional Employees and Swedish Confederation of Professional Associations).

The reason that I couldn't use the ordinary move procedure, was that there was already an existing article with the name "Swedish Confederation of Trade Unions". An admin could always delete this article and move the old article back here, in order to keep the edit history. /Jebur 22:54, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The English articles on non-English organizations should be named according to whatever the organization calls itself or the most common name. In this case Swedish Trade Union Confederation is the obvious choice. Making new translations will only result in confusion, and a slight improvement in grammar can wreak havoc on consistent naming policies and the grammar is really not a problem in either translation.

The article should be moved back since the old name is supported not only by LO itself but by a Google-search, the Swedish gov't and ILO. Especially the last one confirms that the naming is by now an official international standard which would make wiki-unique translations rather awkward. Peter Isotalo 15:06, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your support, Peter. Jebur, I'm not sure that "the webmasters at www.lo.se would have used this form as well if only they were familiar with the English grammar", as you write. It seems to me that LO has decided to use Swedish Trade Union Confederation as a standard form, not only on the web, and in absence of another more frequently used form this is where a reader would expect to find the article. Furthermore, your claims about what is correct and incorrect English grammar are not entirely convincing, considering the fact that a Google search for "Trade Union Confederation" gets 82,000 hits (which is more than "confederation of trade unions"). Even more importantly, you might want to check out (and perhaps move?) the European Trade Union Confederation, and their homepage. It somewhat undermines your argument, I would say. Also, note that if you can't use the ordinary move procedure, you should request a move at Wikipedia:Requested moves rather than using cut and paste. / Alarm 16:18, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It's ok by me if you move it back. I've been in contact with LO and apparently they've used that form in english, which was also recommended by an english translator, for over 30 years. Sorry for the mess. /Jebur 14:57, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Ok, fine. I've put a notice at Requested moves and I hope we'll have the page back at its proper location soon. / Alarm 15:55, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I have fixed the page location, and edit history, for the most part. The article's history still shows the moves/redirects, but I think it's the best that's gonna happen, considering the circumstances. (for the record, I added a comment a few minutes ago saying that I had screwed the whole thing up, but then I realized I hadn't and finished the moves. just thought i'd mention it since it's in the talk page history). Lachatdelarue (talk) 18:17, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Edit history actually seems to be lost

Actually, to me it looks like the edit history is indeed lost - if I haven't missed something somewhere. I can't find it at this page (only the creation and one edit listed), nor in any of the three redirect pages pointing here. I don't know how these things are done but I suppose that the original version of National Swedish Confederation of Trade Unions (a redirect page both before and after the move back) has been deleted, since it was the one containing the full edit history of the original article, and now it does not. Is it possible to undelete the previous version? Since you, Lachatdelarue, effectively is the only one who know what you've done - could you perhaps ask a developer to help us out here, describing how you did go about this? / Alarm 21:59, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

When I left my comment, I could see all of the edit history. Now, though, I cannot, even though I clicked all the appropriate things to restore the deleted history (there's a link near the top of the history page for admins to do this). I don't know if my cache just isn't updating, or if the restore isn't taking. If the history is there, and I just can't see it, then there you go. If it's not there, you can ask another admin to try restoring the history. Lachatdelarue (talk) 15:13, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Ok, it seems to be alright now. If you can't see the full history, click 100 (for view last X edits) and you'll see the whole thing. Lachatdelarue (talk) 21:39, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I can see it now, too. Strange that it didn't show at first. / Alarm 19:20, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)