Template talk:Infobox company

Misuse of Product Parameter

If, as the examples in the documentation suggest, the product parameter is truly intended to be used only to list specific instances of products and not the type of product, then some additional level of clarification noting this should really be considered. I very frequently see it being misused in the latter way. (e.g. [1], [2], [3] [4]). I would suggest at least a mention in the documentation and potentially even a hidden note in the copy/pasteable code. –Noha307 (talk) 06:11, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Credit rating

The note about the credit rating field says "used for banks only." Other financial companies have credit ratings though: for instance, insurance companies in the US are rated through A.M. Best. Might make sense to expand. -Apocheir (talk) 23:51, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

"Industry" parameter should be renamed to "Field", as not all fields of work are industry

Hello,

The "Industry" parameter of this template should be renamed to "Field". It is a common mistake now to call any field of work an "industry" ("film industry", "music industry", "software industry", "food industry"). Industry is a word used to describe factories – manufacturing plants. It is confusing and incorrect to apply it to every revenue-making activity. Regards, DesertPipeline (talk) 14:49, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Did you mean to link film industry, and perhaps list all of the other pages listed in Category:Industries (economics)? I don't think you will find consensus for this change. See also Industry (economics). – Jonesey95 (talk) 23:18, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

User:Jonesey95: I felt a link was unnecessary. However, the inaccurate description of fields of work which aren't industry as industry doesn't actually make them industry. The implications are certainly worse when it comes to fields of art (such as film, music, writing, video game development) – but I don't support using language incorrectly even when the implications aren't so bad. DesertPipeline (talk) 01:16, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Given that the word "industry" with the meaning found in Merriam-Webster's definition 1b is used in the name of dozens of categories and articles here at the English Wikipedia, it appears that your opinion may not have consensus. You are welcome to bring it up at a central discussion location, however, or with the editors at Merriam-Webster, to see if that consensus has changed. – Jonesey95 (talk) 01:27, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

User:Jonesey95: As dictionaries have changed from prescriptive (explaining what a word actually means) to descriptive (simply describing common usage), citing that doesn't really say anything, other than that dictionaries can be wrong. "Envy" and "jealousy" are considered synonymous now, and the change from prescriptive to descriptive is partially to blame for that as well. The real problem here, though, is that it's beneficial for companies for everything to be considered an "industry", because then they can pretend that their workers are robots with no needs who can just be worked almost constantly, so that the companies can make more profit than they could otherwise.

Beside all that, though, you should consider which option here is better. If it somehow really were the case that all fields of work are "industries", it still wouldn't make "field" an inaccurate term to use. I know that it will have a positive effect, because Wikipedia's language will be made more specific and clear, but I accept if you don't consider that to be true. However, if changing it to "field" isn't going to have a negative effect (apart from articles using the infobox getting put in the job queue – but that's worrying about performance), and could potentially have a positive effect, it seems to me that there's no real reason not to change it. Would you agree or disagree with that? DesertPipeline (talk) 13:42, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what I think is true. What matters is consensus. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:35, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

User:Jonesey95: You are the only person who has responded so far. It feels to me like you're trying to shut down the discussion before it has even begun with this "the consensus will probably be against you" talk – it's better to wait for the result rather than trying to preempt it. DesertPipeline (talk) 14:52, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Industry seems fine to me as natural usage. I associate "field" with person and "industry" with company. MB 16:03, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

User:MB: Do you see my point about it being incorrect usage? It may seem natural, but I would mostly attribute that to it being used significantly, even in the wrong contexts. DesertPipeline (talk) 16:17, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Yes, but that just your opinion that it is "incorrect". "A group of businesses that provide a particular product or service" is not restricted to things produced in factories (I don't think "services" ever come from factories). MB 16:25, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

User:MB: Services don't come from factories, which is why no service-sector business is an "industry", which is part of why this template using "industry" is a problem. It could also be replaced with "Sector" – that would also be a more reasonable word if you think that "Field" doesn't really work here. DesertPipeline (talk) 16:33, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Services do come from industries - do I need to repeat the quote from the dictonary - "A group of businesses that provide a particular product or service" which expresses common usage. Apparently you feel that is "wrong" but so far, you have provided no evidence that is anything more than your opinion. MB 16:42, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

User:MB: As I said before to Jonesey95: As dictionaries have changed from prescriptive (explaining what a word actually means) to descriptive (simply describing common usage), citing that doesn't really say anything, other than that dictionaries can be wrong. This word's misuse is so prevalent that dictionaries are also wrong about it. This situation is not a simple case of "here's a citation to prove my point", because you have to analyse the situation and understand why I'm saying this; my point is not mainstream, but that doesn't necessarily mean I'm wrong. And as I asked Jonesey95: if changing it will do no harm and could potentially do good, why would we not do it? DesertPipeline (talk) 16:47, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

There is no reason to change it because WP is written using common language. I do not understand what you mean by "what a word actually means". There is no authority that defines language (at least not in most countries). A word means what most people understand it to mean - not what YOU think it should mean. MB 16:52, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Concur with User:MB and User:Jonesey95 and disagree with User:DesertPipeline. As Walt Disney said to P.L. Travers, "Pamela, that ship has sailed." As Google Ngram Viewer shows, the phrase "financial industry" has been in common use for over forty years. The battle to limit the use of the term "industry" to traditional heavy industrial sectors was lost a long, long time ago. --Coolcaesar (talk) 17:02, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

User:Coolcaesar: Things like this shouldn't be considered 'battles' or 'fights'. We always have the opportunity to change our ways – no matter how much certain people would have us believe that's not true. That is, as long as we don't let an attitude of "it can't be fixed" become reality by acting as if it is automatically and unchangeably true. DesertPipeline (talk) 17:11, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

If you want to make people "change our ways," then you're working on the wrong project. Please refresh your memory on WP core policies, especially WP:NOT, and in particular, WP:NOTADVOCACY. WP always follows, it doesn't lead. WP can only reflect the world as we find it to be and not as we most fervently wish it to be. (Of course, I am alluding to the famous words of Justice Stanley Mosk in People v. Anderson.) --Coolcaesar (talk) 18:05, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

User:Coolcaeser: My statement was partially unrelated to this. Anyway, what 'requires' us to make the same mistakes as the wider world, even though those mistakes have not always been present? If 'sector' is a valid word, what prevents us from using that? As stated earlier, there is no harm in such a change – even if "industry" were valid, "sector" is still valid. That means the change is not harmful. So why can it not be done for that reason? DesertPipeline (talk) 15:46, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

User:Coolcaesar: Ping fix; I really need to learn to preview my responses every time. DesertPipeline (talk) 15:47, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Both words are fine but changing this feels superfluous. Consider especially the multi-thousand-long editing job for PrimeBOT to replace |industry= with |sector=. "Industry" is also consistent d:Property:P452. IceWelder [✉] 16:23, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Defunct company (merged)

This is regarding Syndicate Bank which was merged into Canara Bank. (The IP edits are block evasion, ignore them.) What should be the parameters for Syndicate bank for:

1. type
2. traded_as tickers (the erstwhile tickers BSE: 532276, NSE: SYNDIBANK are defunct and the stick is converted into Canara Bank). Shouldn't they be removed instead of adding Canara Bank tickers? Is such case what will be the type again?

The same question applies to some other banks which were merged during the same time. — DaxServer (talk) 11:11, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

The type should be whatever it was just before it went defunct. If it was a merger of two public corporations, "Public" should remain the type. If it was a consolidation of a subsidiary, it should be "Subsidiary", etc. The traded_as codes should remain the same; if the target pages were deleted (because the symbol was deleted), the external links should be suppressed but the text should stay the same. For example, {{NYSE}} has {{NYSE was}}. IceWelder [✉] 12:46, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

IMO, the "whatever it was just before it went defunct" approach is a form of WP:RECENTISM. This company has a history from 1925 to 2020, and we shouldn't over-emphasize the status of the company in 2020. Statements that apply to the bulk of the company's history should stay (for example, the stock symbol, if there weren't different stock symbols over the course of the years), but others (such as the financial figures) should be removed. Toohool (talk) 16:44, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

I've updated Syndicate Bank, but only to type, traded_as. I haven't removed the financials yet. Special:Diff/1051801383 — DaxServer (talk) 18:54, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

I've removed the finances as suggested Special:Diff/1051992302 — DaxServer (talk) 19:00, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

I don't think the financial data should be removed, nor similar historic data like number of employees. How large a company was immediately before it became defunct is certainly information of value to some of our readers. UnitedStatesian (talk) 19:23, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

As long as the |..._year= parameters are used properly, of course! IceWelder [✉] 19:25, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Okay then, I'll restore them with the proper _year. — DaxServer (talk) 19:46, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

I've restored with the year. However, the reported statements are for financial year of 1 April 2018-31 March 2019. What would be the correct year parameter for this? I've put 2019 as it was on probably every other page. — DaxServer (talk) 19:02, 27 October 2021 (UTC)