The result of the debate was relaunch debate as new proposal now that some points have been clarified
Here's a list of them:
{{ Union-stub}}/ Category:Trade union stubs;{{ Africa-labor-org-stub}}/ Category:African trade union stubs;{{ Asia-labor-org-stub}}/ Category:Asian trade union stubs;{{ India-labor-org-stub}}/ Category:Indian trade union stubs;{{ Euro-labor-org-stub}}/ Category:European trade union stubs;{{ UK-labor-org-stub}}/ Category:United Kingdom trade union stubs;{{ NorthAm-labor-org-stub}}/ Category:North American trade union stubs;{{ US-labor-org-stub}}/ Category:United States labor union stubs;{{ Oceania-labor-org-stub}}/ Category:Oceania trade union stubs;{{ SouthAm-labor-org-stub}}/ Category:South American trade union stubs;{{ worker-activist-stub}}/ Category:Worker's rights activist stubs
They are terribly incostently named. I propose using either {{ worker-org-stub}} and {{ worker-activist-stub}} or {{ labor-org-stub}} and {{ labor-activist-stub}}.-- Carabinieri TTaallkk 13:00, 2 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Well, is this round three or round four for this discussion? I guess it depends how you count. ( one, two) I will admit to being frustrated with this process. At this point Wikipedia:WikiProject Organized Labour has become a viable community with a number of editors who consistently work in this area – all the stubs and most of the cats being discussed here are clearly marked as being part of the project – why would no one think to contact the project for input? It just doesn’t make any sense. I’m not trying to imply bad faith, I’m just frustrated that I only discover this conversation (which is more complicated than it appears) by accident. I would think that involving related communities would help the process, or at the least reduce misunderstandings down the road…
This does not make them all identical, but it does make them consistent. We won't be able to name them all identical without offending one group(labor) or the other(trade). Previously there was opinion to avoid the word "union", but I believe it is clear enough to not be misunderstood. However, I'm of the opposite opinion when using the word "Worker". :) Worker is a political word in the labour world, and using it may well lead to other disagreements, from political points of view, as well as class points of view.-- Bookandcoffee 19:48, 8 September 2006 (UTC) reply
I'm a bit concerned most of the affected templates and categories do not seem to have been tagged as part of this nomination, which might explain why B&C only "discovered this by accident". Given the earlier noms, there would appear to be no basis to believe this would be in the realm of the straightforward and uncontroversial. I'm certainly not going to "action" this one this basis: I suggest that it be either closed without result; or else that it be "done over": everything potentially effected to be tagged, and wikiproject (and anyone else) given a fresh seven days to comment. (On the face of it we have a "vote" to mass-move all the templates and delete the redirects, but that would seem rather uncalled for in the circumstances.) Alai 04:03, 10 September 2006 (UTC) reply