336:- I don't agree with removing the CTUOs column; that's an important legal distinction in India, which carries institutional authority and the 12 CTUOs are grouped together for specific purposes (ie membership in the Indian Labour Conference), Indian media also frequently reports about the joint actions of the CTUOs. Also, by removing that category, it makes unions not in the Independent row seem ... well, not independent (which is certainly not the case for SEWA, which is very much independent). FWIW - the average size of an Indian trade union is around 2,000 members - to me that's notable (especially given the thresholds for settlements in Knowledge where a village with 50 people is considered notable). Knowledge has enormous problems with systemic bias regarding coverage of the non-Anglosphere world, let alone the global south ... I'm in no rush to prod articles on South Asian trade unions unless there is evidence of a hoax or fraud (which would be speedy deletion anyway). Kind regards, --
263:, thank you for your comments! First I have to say that I am not as knowledgable on Indian trade union matters as you probably are, I only organised the existing articles in a way that seemed to make sense to me. If you have a useful overview over the subject matter, please feel free to link it. As for your other comments, my main opposition to breaking the navbox up into individual ones for the national centres is that while a large box is unstructured and leaves a lot of whitespace, it also gives an overview over just how large the trade union structures in India are. With one large navbox, readers can locate the position of each small union within this larger framework. This would be lost if we broke it up into individual ones. I would suggest instead rearranging the navbox with focus on the 12 national organisations, leaving out the internationals. This would also solve the problem with BMS being so buried. (On it being the largest,
236:
than they are. So for example, I think placing the WFTU and the ITUC as the largest, most prominent organising point is misleading in the Indian context simply because the relationship between the internationals and the federations is quite loose (with the exception of CITU and the WFTU). Yes, they are interested, participate in meetings with the internationals (happily accept funding), but the internationals have no power of sanction, if you will. Whereas the central unions have significant power over their affiliated federations. The layout elides what are quite different trade union structures, centrals with federations ... and more or less hides the largest trade union: BMS. I think it would be much better to break this into different nav boxes. One navbox covering the 12 legally recognised
Central Trade Union Organisations (something simple like
290:
like this...otherwise it will simply balloon out of all proportion. For example, I see federations with a national orientation like NTUI or the INTTUC as very different from the a small professional association like the
Screenwriters Association. To me, this nav box should be for the confederations, that is the Central TUs and the independent confederations. One thought might be to have nav boxes by sector, so screenwriters could appear on, for example, an Arts, Entertainment and Recreation Trade unions in India nav box, along with the other film-industry unions and the FPAI, for example. Regards, --
22:
71:
53:
312:
agree that would be too many for one navbox - however, we don't have 16,000 trade union articles yet, and I think this navbox is not overly large yet. Once we have a few trade unions for every CTUO, I would agree with splitting this one up. For now, I would actually suggest going through all the articles we have at the moment and PRODing the not noteworthy ones. I know a few definitely seemed that way to me when I went through them to add the navbox.
155:
137:
81:
165:
240:) and beneath that those organisations which claim a national orientation (eg NTUI etc). I think then you could create an individual nav box for each central trade union where there are a number of identified affiliated organisations. A lessor, but not unimportant issue, the layout creates a great deal of white space. Regards, --
289:
I've made a first attempt at cleaning up the page, let me know what you think. Personally, I don't think this table should include every single union which has a wikipedia entry - there are actually around 16,000 registered trade unions in India, there has to be a reason for inclusion into a table
235:
good idea to create this. A couple of comments to consider. As I'm sure you're aware, trade unionism in India is very complex and often defies standardisation. To me, this navbox tries to do too many things and organises information in ways which makes some things appear far more important than
311:
Thank you for the improvement, that is exactly the direction I was thinking. I've simplified it one step further, since
Central Trade Union Organizations are explained in the Trade unions in India article that is already linked in the navbox. As for your point with 16,000 trade unions in India, I
357:
Thanks for the feedback. I removed the CTUO column because all the federations listed were CTUO members anyway, so it didn't add any additional information. I agree that it is an important part of these organisations, but that can easily be seen in their respective articles. I do agree with the
358:"Independent" thing though, which is why I would change it to "Non-Affiliated". As for the PRODing proposal, I take that back since I obviously agree with all of your points. --
417:
367:
345:
321:
299:
276:
392:
397:
402:
237:
103:
267:
gives unconfirmed 2013 numbers of 33 million for INTUC and 17 million for BMS. Is that incorrect?) Would you agree to give that a try?
407:
94:
58:
412:
249:
422:
33:
188:
178:
142:
102:
on
Knowledge. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
86:
264:
39:
363:
341:
317:
295:
272:
245:
8:
359:
352:
337:
331:
313:
306:
291:
284:
268:
258:
241:
230:
222:
386:
170:
99:
98:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to
186:-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the
70:
52:
154:
136:
80:
183:
160:
76:
384:
182:, which aims to improve Knowledge's coverage of
418:Template-Class India articles of NA-importance
238:Template:Trade union confederations in France
32:does not require a rating on Knowledge's
393:Template-Class organized labour articles
398:NA-importance organized labour articles
385:
112:Knowledge:WikiProject Organized Labour
403:WikiProject Organized Labour articles
176:This template is within the scope of
115:Template:WikiProject Organized Labour
92:This template is within the scope of
21:
19:
15:
38:It is of interest to the following
13:
14:
434:
163:
153:
135:
79:
69:
51:
20:
1:
408:Template-Class India articles
106:and see a list of open tasks.
413:NA-importance India articles
368:13:03, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
346:10:23, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
322:22:31, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
300:21:58, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
277:14:15, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
250:12:51, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
95:WikiProject Organized Labour
7:
198:Knowledge:WikiProject India
10:
439:
423:WikiProject India articles
201:Template:WikiProject India
148:
118:organized labour articles
64:
46:
87:Organized Labour portal
34:content assessment
220:
219:
216:
215:
212:
211:
179:WikiProject India
130:
129:
126:
125:
430:
356:
335:
310:
288:
262:
234:
206:
205:
202:
199:
196:
173:
168:
167:
166:
157:
150:
149:
139:
132:
131:
120:
119:
116:
113:
110:
109:Organized Labour
100:Organized Labour
89:
84:
83:
73:
66:
65:
59:Organized Labour
55:
48:
47:
25:
24:
23:
16:
438:
437:
433:
432:
431:
429:
428:
427:
383:
382:
350:
329:
304:
282:
256:
228:
225:
203:
200:
197:
194:
193:
169:
164:
162:
117:
114:
111:
108:
107:
85:
78:
12:
11:
5:
436:
426:
425:
420:
415:
410:
405:
400:
395:
381:
380:
379:
378:
377:
376:
375:
374:
373:
372:
371:
370:
224:
221:
218:
217:
214:
213:
210:
209:
207:
204:India articles
175:
174:
158:
146:
145:
140:
128:
127:
124:
123:
121:
104:the discussion
91:
90:
74:
62:
61:
56:
44:
43:
37:
26:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
435:
424:
421:
419:
416:
414:
411:
409:
406:
404:
401:
399:
396:
394:
391:
390:
388:
369:
365:
361:
354:
349:
348:
347:
343:
339:
333:
327:
326:
325:
324:
323:
319:
315:
308:
303:
302:
301:
297:
293:
286:
280:
279:
278:
274:
270:
266:
260:
254:
253:
252:
251:
247:
243:
239:
232:
208:
191:
190:
185:
181:
180:
172:
161:
159:
156:
152:
151:
147:
144:
141:
138:
134:
133:
122:
105:
101:
97:
96:
88:
82:
77:
75:
72:
68:
67:
63:
60:
57:
54:
50:
49:
45:
41:
35:
31:
27:
18:
17:
265:this article
226:
189:project page
187:
177:
171:India portal
93:
40:WikiProjects
29:
387:Categories
360:Zarasophos
353:Goldsztajn
338:Goldsztajn
332:Zarasophos
314:Zarasophos
307:Goldsztajn
292:Goldsztajn
285:Zarasophos
269:Zarasophos
259:Goldsztajn
242:Goldsztajn
231:Zarasophos
30:template
223:Comment
255:Hello
36:scale.
195:India
184:India
143:India
28:This
364:talk
342:talk
318:talk
296:talk
273:talk
246:talk
328:Hi
281:Hi
227:Hi
389::
366:)
344:)
320:)
298:)
275:)
248:)
362:(
355::
351:@
340:(
334::
330:@
316:(
309::
305:@
294:(
287::
283:@
271:(
261::
257:@
244:(
233::
229:@
192:.
42::
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
