Talk:National War Labor Board

Untitled

Why bother to put in outside links... just site your sources within the text. The latter half of this article is an almost word for word copy of the Yale link, which happens to be the first link that pops up in Google (after Wikipedia). "The National War Labor Board, a tripartite body established in 1942 by President Franklin D. Roosevelt, was charged with acting as an arbitration tribunal in labor-management dispute cases, thereby preventing work stoppages which might hinder the war effort. It was also responsible for determining wage adjustments in accordance with anti-inflationary wage stabilization criteria and policies. The Board was initially divided into 12 Regional Administrative Boards which handled both labor dispute settlement and wage stabilization functions for specific geographic regions. The National Board further decentralized in 1943, when it established special tripartite commissions and panels to deal with particular industries on a national basis." That is part of the text from http://rmc.library.cornell.edu/EAD/htmldocs/KCL05298.html Look lke anything you've seen before? If you write an article about something, at least take the time to put some reasonably dedicated research into it...

- This is sloppy, with parts about the WWI version and the WWII version mixed up. I don't know enough to rectify - could someone else? 207.126.220.33 (talk) 14:20, 28 October 2011 (UTC)LibraryUser

Needs infoboxes, maybe also a list or navigation template at related agency article bottoms

Agree with the preceding is a mess. Also agree with @Djr13: who (apparently without discussing on talk page) recently (June 2015) added a banner: "This article is missing information about closely related agencies, such as the War Labor Administration and the War Labor Policy Board. Please expand the article to include this information. Further details may exist on the talk page. (June 2015)". All of the price and labor board government agency articles are a complete mess, and not properly organized or linked together in any systematic way. (See my struggles with Council on Wage and Price Stability, currently just a redirect. The redirect didn't even exist until I created it, despite the government agency having a project at a major university to study it. The art of Wikipedia (and all 'open' projects) is to try to leverage off the work of others, especially pre-existing related work on Wikipedia. That means interlinks between related articles (related government agencies) are essential. There are 4 or 5 ways this happens with agencies: categorization (price control and labor relations boards-related categories), See also (especially succeeding and preceding agencies if not in the prose; certainly closely related government agencies if not in the prose), the prose itself (which varies widely from one article to another), and finally infoboxes. Infoboxes will let you directly and indirect link the related agencies via their parent, children, successor, and predecessor agencies. For example, these related agencies mentioned in the banner were probably all in the Commerce Department or War department at the time (not sure text doesn't say.) I had to create two infoboxes for each incarnation, so two articles probably makes sense so that there is only one infobox, linking the two. The infobox allows for multiple successors,predecessors, children and parent agencies and departments, so the WWI and WWII can link each other as well as other successors and predecessors (surely these exist)? A final way to organize all of these agencies would be to create a banner at the bottom for "labor relations boards of the US" or "economic stabilization boards of the US", "economic regulation boards of the US" and then have the banner list the different agency articles roughly chronologically. A first towards a banner like that might be to create a list that simply listed the existing agency articles in approximately chronological order. (There are huge gaps.) I have taken the first step by creating the two infoboxes on these pages. More information could be included in the infoboxes, including additional links to successor/predecessor/children/parents, more precise parent agencies (they were in the Executive Office, but were in they in something else like the Commerce Department?) and then also putting these infoboxes consistently in the articles for the related agencies, with appropriate cross-links. This would greatly facilitate navigation between the different related agencies. I've taken the first step by creating the infoboxes, please expand.Dk3298371 (talk) 03:31, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Multiple authority control tags

I think the infoboxes I've added are really starting to help detangle all of these different agencies, and better interlink the work that has already been done on these topics by different editors. In addition to infoboxes (and my other suggestions above), what will really help are authority control entries. These will both help provide additional sources (since they link to WorldCat) as well as giving us the Library of Congress' opinion as to whether or not these deserve separate pages. In this case, LoC created two name authority records for the WWI and WWII, so LoC sees these as separate subjects (and thus potentially deserving separate pages). In generally, putting two Authority Control tags on page like I just did (in this case to highlight that LoC thinks these are separate boards) is not a good idea. At a minimum, if we decide to keep this as a single article, one of the Authority Control tags should be moved to a redirect (and, obviously, a redirect should first be created for one or both boards).Dk3298371 (talk) 19:53, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm for splitting this into separate articles. Despite the split template at the top of the article, it doesn't seem like there's been much discussion. Dallyripple (talk) 01:40, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

I've split it. Dallyripple (talk) 22:15, 5 November 2016 (UTC)