Template talk:Infobox company: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 01:45, 11 July 2024

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Infobox company template.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12: 45 days

This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Infoboxes

This template is within the scope of WikiProject Infoboxes, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Infoboxes on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.InfoboxesWikipedia:WikiProject InfoboxesTemplate:WikiProject InfoboxesInfoboxes articles

Companies

This template is within the scope of WikiProject Companies, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of companies on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CompaniesWikipedia:WikiProject CompaniesTemplate:WikiProject Companiescompany articles

WikiProject Companies To-do:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Article requests : Wikipedia:Requested articles/Business and economics/Companies
Assess : Category:Unassessed company articles
Copyedit : Category:Company articles needing attention
Infobox : Category:Company articles needing infoboxes
Maintain : Portal:Companies
Stubs : Help expand stub articles located at Category:Company stubs
Other :
- Tag company articles with the {{portal|Companies}} template
- Tag company talk pages with the {{WikiProject Companies}} project banner
- Answer requests for comments

Template:Infobox company is permanently protected from editing because it is a heavily used or highly visible template. Substantial changes should first be proposed and discussed here on this page. If the proposal is uncontroversial or has been discussed and is supported by consensus, editors may use {{edit template-protected}} to notify an administrator or template editor to make the requested edit. Usually, any contributor may edit the template's documentation to add usage notes or categories.

Any contributor may edit the template's sandbox. Functionality of the template can be checked using test cases.

This template was considered for merging with Template:Infobox U.S. national banks on 2020 March 24. The result of the discussion was "no consensus".

MOS:EGG issue in company "type"

I'm proposing to update the documentation of this template to better demonstrate what company "type" means in this infobox. You can see examples of how "type" is currently used at Walmart, Target Corporation, and Cargill, and the current documentation for that parameter at Template:Infobox company#Type.

The issue is that many people reading about a company are unlikely to understand the uncontextualized use of "type" in an infobox when the only word that follows is "public" or "private". The meaning may become clear on a clickthrough to public company and private company, but that violates MOS:EGG. (This issue is extremely similar to the one described in MOS:EGG's example.)

Instead, the documentation on this template should advise using "public company" and "private company" (my emphasis). You can see how this would look in this reverted edit. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 01:23, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, very sensible move, Ed. Tony (talk) 01:34, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you doing this. WiinterU (talk) 02:35, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Especially now. Because everyone is used to it just being Public. WiinterU (talk) 02:35, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I started the discussion because I think it contradicts the manual of style? I'm not sure who "everyone" is supposed to refer to there. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 05:13, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We are dealing in the context of an infobox about a company and in the entry of referring to the type of that company. In this context, I think "Private" and "Public" are not amibiguous and do not need the suffix "company". IceWelder [✉] 10:19, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone who reads "Public company" still won't know what that is and will still have to read more. WiinterU (talk) 14:14, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@IceWelder: "Type" is ambiguous/unclear because I'm not confident that a large majority of people are going to understand that there are different company types. In addition, readers understand that they are looking at an infobox for (say) "Walmart". They do not see the wikicode to understand that it's built on a generic infobox shell for all companies.

@WiinterU: Correct, and that's why we have hyperlinks. This situation is exactly like the example described in MOS:EGG: you don't have to know what parton in particle physics is, but you do need to know that there is a link that will go to a specific article that will explain it. In this infobox right now, what a reader sees without a mouseover (desktop) or preview tap (mobile) is .... public. Or private. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 17:21, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's not entirely correct. They see Type: Public or Type: Private (note also I've piped the correct links in). Primefac (talk) 17:56, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Primefac: the incorrect links were the point. What a reader sees is a bluelink to "public" or "private" shorn of nearly all context—MOS:EGG in a nutshell. I'm open to the solution below, which instead adds "company" to the type field. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 18:20, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You've missed my point entirely. They don't just see "public" or "private", they see "type: public" or "type: private". It's not just one of two random words in an empty void of which they must ponder the meaning. Your generic assumption that "a large majority of people" do not know the definition of "type" is... weird. (please do not ping on reply) Primefac (talk) 19:45, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for the ping; I assumed that was a courtesy. :-) Type is also uncontextualized in that context. It could easily be swapped with, say, "industry" in this infobox. That's why I'm also fine with Jonesey95's solution below—giving context to one of the two sides will help readers. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 20:00, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No worries about the ping (I watch the page, which you wouldn't know). I'm not particularly bothered with how things shake out consensus-wise (much like Jonesey below) - I was mainly attempting to straighten out what I thought was a bit of fuzzy logic - so I'll go back to lurking. Primefac (talk) 20:09, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. It's only an EGG if the intended meaning is not clear from the context. But in the context of the company infobox it's clear that a company is being described, hence there is no need to repeat the word "company". Gawaon (talk) 14:32, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A different/compromise option could be to change the label to "Company type". See the sandbox version of this test case. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:02, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Jonesey95: This would also solve the EGG issue, and I'm a little ashamed to say I didn't think about modifying that field instead. Thank you for proposing this. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 17:21, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear, I neither support nor oppose this change, but I am happy to implement it if there is consensus. I just thought it might help editors here reach a consensus. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:23, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Basically, with this logic, Moana should really be Moana character. Not everyone knows who Moana is. Just like no one really knows what Public companies and Private companies are. If they want to know, they can click the blue link. It isn't that hard to understand. WiinterU (talk) 18:29, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is something we need to do before this gets resolved. Do not edit any articles to "comply" with moss:egg. WiinterU (talk) 18:36, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@WiinterU: Article titles are handled by Wikipedia:Article titles, an entirely separate policy. MOS:EGG applies to article content. We do not structure hyperlinks so that a reader needs to click through to understand what's being referred to. In the example you bring up, an article that includes a link to Moana should make clear where the link is going to go, whether that's through how the link is piped or included in the context in the sentence around the link. We do not need to explain exactly what it is, but we do need readers to understand what they may or may not choose to navigate to. I.e. that they would be going to public company and not public. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 19:38, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your missing the point entirely. I was talking about how Moana would look like in a page, not the title. WiinterU (talk) 20:31, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for partially misunderstanding, but the rest of my comment addresses why that's not the case even in an article. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 19:08, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously, we aren't getting anywhere by arguing. I have a Google Form linked here: docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSeOjQ5XasmA5l0oIxdFSIEoB5rI_JU6osiGVKGO4GhYAckxXQ/viewform?usp=sf_link. WiinterU (talk) 19:08, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This form doesn't collect your email and is completely anonymous. WiinterU (talk) 19:10, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What is this Google Form for? And why are we using an off-wiki proprietary tool? Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 19:12, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For oversight to see how we feel about this situation. WiinterU (talk) 19:22, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a polling service we can use here? WiinterU (talk) 19:23, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus is not built by vote-counting, so we don't need any kind of polling tool. If there is no consensus for a change, that's that. IceWelder [✉] 19:45, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The poll does not affect if we make an outcome. It is simply a checkpoint for seeing how we all feel about this. WiinterU (talk) 20:07, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's useless. Hardly anybody here will participate in it, so you won't get any meaningful results. Gawaon (talk) 03:41, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I know this is a little off-topic but the person who posted this "I think the change is a little silly personally, but I'm too afraid to comment publicly w/o knowing the full situation. Sorry if there has been any hostile comments towards you, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. You're appreciated, cheers!" is really really nice. I really appreciate the kind words from them and I would like to thank them for this. If you are the one reading this who posted that, thank you! WiinterU (talk) 01:18, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not clear where this comment was? And if you feel I've been hostile towards you, I apologize. I genuinely can't imagine which comment that would have sprung from. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 04:01, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I maybe shouldn't have copied the entire comment. It was from the Google form I set up. You weren't acting hostile towards anything. I apologise if I was acting hostile. WiinterU (talk) 19:27, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion seems have become a little sidetracked. Are we still looking at the original proposal or did we switch to discuss Jonesey's variant? As for my two cents: I still think that any change in this regard is unnecessary, although I would not be entierly opposed to amending the field title (especially since it would not result in thousands of required edits). IceWelder [✉] 22:32, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That would make the most sense. WiinterU (talk) 23:59, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support Jonesy's "Company type:" version. It would at least have consistent results instead of depending on people to manually update every company article to do Public company or whatever. And if we decide it was a bad idea after all, then it would be easily undone by a single edit instead of thousands. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 02:00, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As I said above, I also support Jonesy's proposal. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 19:42, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hooray, consensus! I have made the edit to display "Company type" instead of "Type". Happy editing, all. – Jonesey95 (talk) 23:02, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I might be a little bit late. However, I do support this change as well. WiinterU (talk) 23:11, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed-value for type?

Since we're already here: The documentation asks to use one of four values for this field, yet we allow free text. Should we maybe change it to a fixed-value field that always links and renders to the type correctly? IceWelder [✉] 23:18, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that would be a good idea. Another issue I've found is that some pages aren't up to date. Take Princess Pictures for example. It says "type" and not "company type". I think those infoboxes just need updating. Or, maybe you already covered that. WiinterU (talk) 23:30, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Check out WP:PURGE for more the slow-to-update template issue. :-) Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 07:57, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are more than 50 different values for type in use. The sandbox is available for editing by anyone. As for articles not being updated, that takes time. You can refresh them by clicking Edit and then Publish if you really need to. – Jonesey95 (talk) 23:51, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This might be off topic but I've been struggling. One of the hardest things to do is finding out if a company is a subsidiary or a division when editing a page where it is not specifically stated and the company type section is not used. If it is wholly owned by a person or entity it will usually be private. Another hard thing to find out is what a company traded as before it went defunct. I had to use old SEC documents from the 1990s and early 2000s to find many and add them to their respective pages. Unfortunately, some companies went defunct before the SEC started to document this online. Any solutions to either issue? WiinterU (talk) 05:44, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"No value" handling, for website

Some company have dead links for website, that does not exists anymore. One way to handle this on Wikidata is to put an end date to the dead link and put a "no value" statement with preferred rank, we do that on Bitstream inc.

This is currently broken, the infobox displays a "none" with a link to nothing. TomT0m (talk) 12:53, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's not this infobox that is broken, it is {{Official URL}}. On Bitstream Inc., I removed that from the infobox (before, after) and the infobox returns to what I would consider a "normal" function. Primefac (talk) 13:12, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A list of articles that would concern if they got the template : https://w.wiki/8tov TomT0m (talk) 15:07, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rename tracking category

The template calls check for clobbered parameters to populate Category:Pages using infobox company with ignored parameters. This should be changed to instead populate Category:Pages using infobox company with conflicting parameters to match the ~50 other categories — GhostInTheMachine ^{talk to me} 18:53, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, why not. Primefac (talk) 15:50, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CFD/S — JJMC89 (T·C) 17:46, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good for future reference, but when all it involves is two edits I don't really see why I shouldn't just handle it myself. Primefac (talk) 18:57, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 20 April 2024

This edit request to Template:Infobox company/doc has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

change Real Property to Property

it feels as if Real Property is still part North American i.e. real estate 86.30.69.219 (talk) 08:32, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: That's just a fictitious example to demonstrate the template's functionality. There's no point in fretting over semantics here. Liu1126 (talk) 13:18, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
-{{Talk header|archive_age=45|archive_bot=lowercase sigmabot III}}
+{{Talk header}}
+{{WikiProject banner shell|
-{{permprot}}
 {{WikiProject Infoboxes}}
 {{WikiProject Companies}}
+}}
+{{permprot}}
 {{oldtfdfull|date= 2020 March 24 |result=no consensus|merge= Template:Infobox U.S. national banks|disc=Template:Infobox U.S. national banks}}
 {{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn|target=Template talk:Infobox company/Archive index|mask=Template talk:Infobox company/Archive <#>|leading_zeros=0|indexhere=yes}}
@@ Line 15: / Line 17: @@
 }}
-== Introduces more issues than it solves ==
+== [[MOS:EGG]] issue in company "type"  ==
+I'm proposing to update the documentation of this template to better demonstrate what company "type" means in this infobox. You can see examples of how "type" is currently used at [[Walmart]], [[Target Corporation]], and [[Cargill]], and the current documentation for that parameter at [[Template:Infobox company#Type]].
-{{ping|IceWelder}} We really should make this template have its parameters aligned, so that when editors copy it, they copy it aligned, and so it will be aligned in more articles. This makes editing and reading the code much, much easier. I haven't met any editor who disagrees. What "issues" do you claim it causes, and why are you edit-warring your preference as well, while trying to accuse me of the same? [[User:Ɱ|<span style="text-shadow:#bbb 0.1em 0.1em 0.1em;" class="texhtml">'''ɱ'''</span>]] [[User talk:Ɱ|(talk)]] 13:56, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
+The issue is that many people reading about a company are unlikely to understand the uncontextualized use of "type" in an infobox when the only word that follows is "public" or "private". The meaning may become clear on a clickthrough to [[public company]] and [[private company]], but that violates [[MOS:EGG]]. (This issue is extremely similar to the one described in [[MOS:EGG]]'s example.)
-:Please see [[User talk:IceWelder/Archive 9#"Block spacing"?]] and [[Template talk:Infobox character/Archive 5#TemplateData format type]] for reference. Regarding your latter question, see [[WP:STATUSQUO]]. [[User:IceWelder|<span style="font-variant: small-caps;">IceWelder</span>]] &#91;[[User talk:IceWelder|<span style="color: #424242;">&#9993;</span>]]&#93; 14:00, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
-::Sounds like you're a singular adamant person acting against the will of other editors in those conversations, and arguing your way into succeeding. How does the spacing make it harder for mobile editors? No space makes everything intensely cluttered and jumbled, for mobile ''and'' desktop editors. Yet I can tell I won't persuade you. [[User:Ɱ|<span style="text-shadow:#bbb 0.1em 0.1em 0.1em;" class="texhtml">'''ɱ'''</span>]] [[User talk:Ɱ|(talk)]] 14:04, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
+Instead, the documentation on this template should advise using "public ''company''" and "private ''company''" (my emphasis). You can see how this would look in [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Infobox_company/doc&diff=prev&oldid=1195009298 this reverted edit]. [[User:The ed17|Ed]]&nbsp;<sup>[[User talk:The ed17|[talk]]]&nbsp;[[WP:OMT|[OMT]]]</sup> 01:23, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
-== Align the infobox? ==
+:Yes, very sensible move, Ed. [[User:Tony1|<b style="color:darkgreen">Tony</b>]] [[User talk:Tony1|<span style="color:darkgreen">(talk)</span>]] 01:34, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
-<!-- [[User:DoNotArchiveUntil]] 15:02, 23 August 2023 (UTC) -->{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1692802953}}
+:Why are you doing this. [[User:WiinterU|WiinterU]] ([[User talk:WiinterU|talk]]) 02:35, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
-Hello all, I aligned the infobox parameters on this infobox's documentation, meaning editors using this template will start with an aligned infobox, where all the parameters and their data line up. Another user in the conversation above reverted me, and has seemed to have a long-time preference against this. What should we do for [[Template:Infobox company/doc]]? -- [[User:Ɱ|<span style="text-shadow:#bbb 0.1em 0.1em 0.1em;" class="texhtml">'''ɱ'''</span>]] [[User talk:Ɱ|(talk)]] 14:07, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
+::Especially now. Because everyone is used to it just being [[Public company|Public]]. [[User:WiinterU|WiinterU]] ([[User talk:WiinterU|talk]]) 02:35, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
+:::I started the discussion because I think it contradicts the manual of style? I'm not sure who "everyone" is supposed to refer to there. [[User:The ed17|Ed]]&nbsp;<sup>[[User talk:The ed17|[talk]]]&nbsp;[[WP:OMT|[OMT]]]</sup> 05:13, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
+::::We are dealing in the context of an infobox about a company and in the entry of referring to the type of that company. In this context, I think "Private" and "Public" are not amibiguous and do not need the suffix "company". [[User:IceWelder|<span style="font-variant: small-caps;">IceWelder</span>]] &#91;[[User talk:IceWelder|<span style="color: #424242;">&#9993;</span>]]&#93; 10:19, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
+:::::Anyone who reads "Public company" still won't know what that is and will still have to read more. [[User:WiinterU|WiinterU]] ([[User talk:WiinterU|talk]]) 14:14, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
+::::::{{ping|IceWelder}} "Type" is ambiguous/unclear because I'm not confident that a large majority of people are going to understand that there are different company types. In addition, readers understand that they are looking at an infobox for (say) "Walmart". They do not see the wikicode to understand that it's built on a generic infobox shell for all companies.
+::::::{{ping|WiinterU}} Correct, and that's why we have hyperlinks. This situation is exactly like the example described in [[MOS:EGG]]: you don't have to know what [[Parton (particle physics)|parton in particle physics]] is, but you do need to know that there is a link that will go to a specific article that will explain it. In this infobox right now, what a reader sees without a mouseover (desktop) or preview tap (mobile) is .... [[public]]. Or [[private]]. [[User:The ed17|Ed]]&nbsp;<sup>[[User talk:The ed17|[talk]]]&nbsp;[[WP:OMT|[OMT]]]</sup> 17:21, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
+:::::::That's not entirely correct. They see <code>Type: [[Public company|Public]]</code> or <code>Type: [[Privately held company|Private]]</code> (note also I've piped the correct links in). [[User:Primefac|Primefac]] ([[User talk:Primefac|talk]]) 17:56, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
+::::::::{{ping|Primefac}} the incorrect links were the point. What a reader sees is a bluelink to "public" or "private" shorn of nearly all context—[[MOS:EGG]] in a nutshell. I'm open to the solution below, which instead adds "company" to the type field. [[User:The ed17|Ed]]&nbsp;<sup>[[User talk:The ed17|[talk]]]&nbsp;[[WP:OMT|[OMT]]]</sup> 18:20, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
+:::::::::You've missed my point entirely. They don't just see "public" or "private", they see "type: public" or "type: private". It's not just one of two random words in an empty void of which they must ponder the meaning. Your generic assumption that "a large majority of people" do not know the definition of "type" is... weird. {{ppor|no}} [[User:Primefac|Primefac]] ([[User talk:Primefac|talk]]) 19:45, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
+::::::::::Apologies for the ping; I assumed that was a courtesy. :-) Type is also uncontextualized in that context. It could easily be swapped with, say, "industry" in this infobox. That's why I'm also fine with Jonesey95's solution below—giving context to one of the two sides will help readers. [[User:The ed17|Ed]]&nbsp;<sup>[[User talk:The ed17|[talk]]]&nbsp;[[WP:OMT|[OMT]]]</sup> 20:00, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
+:::::::::::No worries about the ping (I watch the page, which you wouldn't know). I'm not particularly bothered with how things shake out consensus-wise (much like Jonesey below) - I was mainly attempting to straighten out what I thought was a bit of fuzzy logic - so I'll go back to lurking. [[User:Primefac|Primefac]] ([[User talk:Primefac|talk]]) 20:09, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
+:'''Oppose.''' It's only an EGG if the intended meaning is not clear from the context. But in the context of the company infobox it's clear that a company is being described, hence there is no need to repeat the word "company". [[User:Gawaon|Gawaon]] ([[User talk:Gawaon|talk]]) 14:32, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
+::A different/compromise option could be to change the label to "Company type". See [[Template:Infobox_company/testcases#Basic_example|the sandbox version of this test case]]. – [[User:Jonesey95|Jonesey95]] ([[User talk:Jonesey95|talk]]) 17:02, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
+:::{{ping|Jonesey95}} This would also solve the EGG issue, and I'm a little ashamed to say I didn't think about modifying that field instead. Thank you for proposing this. [[User:The ed17|Ed]]&nbsp;<sup>[[User talk:The ed17|[talk]]]&nbsp;[[WP:OMT|[OMT]]]</sup> 17:21, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
+::::To be clear, I neither support nor oppose this change, but I am happy to implement it if there is consensus. I just thought it might help editors here reach a consensus. – [[User:Jonesey95|Jonesey95]] ([[User talk:Jonesey95|talk]]) 17:23, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
+:::::Basically, with this logic, [[Moana (character)|Moana]] should really be [[Moana (character)|Moana character]]. Not everyone knows who Moana is. Just like no one really knows what Public companies and Private companies are. If they want to know, they can click the blue link. It isn't that hard to understand. [[User:WiinterU|WiinterU]] ([[User talk:WiinterU|talk]]) 18:29, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
+::::::There is something we need to do before this gets resolved. '''Do not edit any articles to "comply" with moss:egg. ''' [[User:WiinterU|WiinterU]] ([[User talk:WiinterU|talk]]) 18:36, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
+:::::::{{ping|WiinterU}} Article titles are handled by [[Wikipedia:Article titles]], an entirely separate policy. [[MOS:EGG]] applies to article content. We do not structure hyperlinks so that a reader needs to click through to understand what's being referred to. In the example you bring up, an article that includes a link to Moana should make clear where the link is going to go, whether that's through how the link is piped or included in the context in the sentence around the link. We do not need to explain exactly what it is, but we do need readers to understand what they may or may not choose to navigate to. I.e. that they would be going to [[public company]] and not [[public]]. [[User:The ed17|Ed]]&nbsp;<sup>[[User talk:The ed17|[talk]]]&nbsp;[[WP:OMT|[OMT]]]</sup> 19:38, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
+::::::::Your missing the point entirely. I was talking about how Moana would look like in a page, not the title. [[User:WiinterU|WiinterU]] ([[User talk:WiinterU|talk]]) 20:31, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
+:::::::::Apologies for partially misunderstanding, but the rest of my comment addresses why that's not the case even in an article. [[User:The ed17|Ed]]&nbsp;<sup>[[User talk:The ed17|[talk]]]&nbsp;[[WP:OMT|[OMT]]]</sup> 19:08, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
+:Obviously, we aren't getting anywhere by arguing. I have a Google Form linked here: {{url|https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSeOjQ5XasmA5l0oIxdFSIEoB5rI_JU6osiGVKGO4GhYAckxXQ/viewform?usp=sf_link}}. [[User:WiinterU|WiinterU]] ([[User talk:WiinterU|talk]]) 19:08, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
+::This form doesn't collect your email and is completely anonymous. [[User:WiinterU|WiinterU]] ([[User talk:WiinterU|talk]]) 19:10, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
+:::What is this Google Form for? And why are we using an off-wiki proprietary tool? [[User:The ed17|Ed]]&nbsp;<sup>[[User talk:The ed17|[talk]]]&nbsp;[[WP:OMT|[OMT]]]</sup> 19:12, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
+::::For oversight to see how we feel about this situation. [[User:WiinterU|WiinterU]] ([[User talk:WiinterU|talk]]) 19:22, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
+::::Is there a polling service we can use here? [[User:WiinterU|WiinterU]] ([[User talk:WiinterU|talk]]) 19:23, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
+:::::Consensus is not built by vote-counting, so we don't need any kind of polling tool. If there is no consensus for a change, that's that. [[User:IceWelder|<span style="font-variant: small-caps;">IceWelder</span>]] &#91;[[User talk:IceWelder|<span style="color: #424242;">&#9993;</span>]]&#93; 19:45, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
+::::::The poll does not affect if we make an outcome. It is simply a checkpoint for seeing how we all feel about this. [[User:WiinterU|WiinterU]] ([[User talk:WiinterU|talk]]) 20:07, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
+:::::::No, it's useless. Hardly anybody here will participate in it, so you won't get any meaningful results. [[User:Gawaon|Gawaon]] ([[User talk:Gawaon|talk]]) 03:41, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
+::I know this is a little off-topic but the person who posted this "I think the change is a little silly personally, but I'm too afraid to comment publicly w/o knowing the full situation. Sorry if there has been any hostile comments towards you, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. You're appreciated, cheers!" is really really nice. I really appreciate the kind words from them and I would like to thank them for this. If you are the one reading this who posted that, thank you! [[User:WiinterU|WiinterU]] ([[User talk:WiinterU|talk]]) 01:18, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
+:::I'm not clear where this comment was? And if you feel I've been hostile towards you, I apologize. I genuinely can't imagine which comment that would have sprung from. [[User:The ed17|Ed]]&nbsp;<sup>[[User talk:The ed17|[talk]]]&nbsp;[[WP:OMT|[OMT]]]</sup> 04:01, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
+::::I maybe shouldn't have copied the entire comment. It was from the Google form I set up. You weren't acting hostile towards anything. I apologise if I was acting hostile. [[User:WiinterU|WiinterU]] ([[User talk:WiinterU|talk]]) 19:27, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
+:::::{{od|4}} The discussion seems have become a little sidetracked. Are we still looking at the original proposal or did we switch to discuss Jonesey's variant? As for my two cents: I still think that any change in this regard is unnecessary, although I would not be entierly opposed to amending the field title (especially since it would not result in thousands of required edits). [[User:IceWelder|<span style="font-variant: small-caps;">IceWelder</span>]] &#91;[[User talk:IceWelder|<span style="color: #424242;">&#9993;</span>]]&#93; 22:32, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
+::::::That would make the most sense. [[User:WiinterU|WiinterU]] ([[User talk:WiinterU|talk]]) 23:59, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
+:'''Support Jonesy's "Company type:" version.''' It would at least have consistent results instead of depending on people to manually update every company article to do [[Public company]] or whatever. And if we decide it was a bad idea after all, then it would be easily undone by a single edit instead of thousands. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — [[User:SMcCandlish|'''SMcCandlish''']] [[User talk:SMcCandlish|☏]] [[Special:Contributions/SMcCandlish|¢]] 😼 </span> 02:00, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
+:As I said above, I also '''support''' Jonesy's proposal. [[User:The ed17|Ed]]&nbsp;<sup>[[User talk:The ed17|[talk]]]&nbsp;[[WP:OMT|[OMT]]]</sup> 19:42, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
+::Hooray, consensus! I have made the edit to display "Company type" instead of "Type". Happy editing, all. – [[User:Jonesey95|Jonesey95]] ([[User talk:Jonesey95|talk]]) 23:02, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
+:::I might be a little bit late. However, I do support this change as well. [[User:WiinterU|WiinterU]] ([[User talk:WiinterU|talk]]) 23:11, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
+===Fixed-value for type?===
+:Since we're already here: The documentation asks to use one of four values for this field, yet we allow free text. Should we maybe change it to a fixed-value field that always links and renders to the type correctly? [[User:IceWelder|<span style="font-variant: small-caps;">IceWelder</span>]] &#91;[[User talk:IceWelder|<span style="color: #424242;">&#9993;</span>]]&#93; 23:18, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
+::I believe that would be a good idea. Another issue I've found is that some pages aren't up to date. Take [[Princess Pictures]] for example. It says "type" and not "company type". I think those infoboxes just need updating. Or, maybe you already covered that. [[User:WiinterU|WiinterU]] ([[User talk:WiinterU|talk]]) 23:30, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
+:::::::Check out [[WP:PURGE]] for more the slow-to-update template issue. :-) [[User:The ed17|Ed]]&nbsp;<sup>[[User talk:The ed17|[talk]]]&nbsp;[[WP:OMT|[OMT]]]</sup> 07:57, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
+:::There are more than [https://bambots.brucemyers.com/TemplateParam.php?wiki=enwiki&template=Infobox+company 50 different values for type in use]. The sandbox is available for editing by anyone. As for articles not being updated, that takes time. You can refresh them by clicking Edit and then Publish if you really need to. – [[User:Jonesey95|Jonesey95]] ([[User talk:Jonesey95|talk]]) 23:51, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
+::::This might be off topic but I've been struggling. One of the hardest things to do is finding out if a company is a [[subsidiary]] or a [[Division (business)|division]] when editing a page where it is not specifically stated and the company type section is not used. If it is wholly owned by a person or entity it will usually be [[Private limited company|private]]. Another hard thing to find out is what a company traded as before it went defunct. I had to use old SEC documents from the 1990s and early 2000s to find many and add them to their respective pages. Unfortunately, some companies went defunct before the SEC started to document this online. Any solutions to either issue? [[User:WiinterU|WiinterU]] ([[User talk:WiinterU|talk]]) 05:44, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
+== "No value" handling, for website ==
-*'''Support alignment'''. This makes it easier to read the values instead of just a wall of text-code. This is also pretty standard in a lot of infoboxes so nothing new is suggested here. [[User:Gonnym|Gonnym]] ([[User talk:Gonnym|talk]]) 14:17, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
-* This is somewhat [[wp:lame|lame]]. My personal preference is without all the extra spaces, but I wouldn't get upset about it! &mdash;&nbsp;Martin <small>([[User:MSGJ|MSGJ]]&nbsp;·&nbsp;[[User talk:MSGJ|talk]])</small> 14:31, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
-*I don't have a strong preference either way. On one hand, we'd add unnecessary space if we align everything, and we should generally try to avoid creating overly long wikitexts when smaller wikitexts would work fine. On the other hand, the infobox template is marginally more readable when aligned, and the change is less than a kilobyte in length, so I'm not sure if the length drawback is or is not outweighed by the readability benefit. {{summoned by bot}} — [[User:Red-tailed hawk|<span style="color: #660000">Red-tailed&nbsp;hawk</span>]]&nbsp;<sub>[[User talk:Red-tailed hawk|<span style="color: #660000">(nest)</span>]]</sub> 15:37, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
-*:The amount of bytes added by the spaces is negligible, only about the same data as one or two long references, and it immeasurably helps with readability and organization. [[User:Ɱ|<span style="text-shadow:#bbb 0.1em 0.1em 0.1em;" class="texhtml">'''ɱ'''</span>]] [[User talk:Ɱ|(talk)]] 18:31, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
-* Is this visible only to editors who happen to view the source code at that place?  If yes, I recommend that you [[Wikipedia:Assume good faith]], thank the other person for their attempts to contribute to the [[Wikipedia:Prime objective]] enunciated by Jimmy Wales, trying to provide freer access to the sum of all human knowledge, and focus on things that seem more important in the long term.  (I keep a diary with "to do" lists.  This helps me distinguish between things that upset me but don't matter much to others from things that can really help others.  Let others do whatever they want as long their actions do not substantively degrade the quality of information provided to the general public.) [[User:DavidMCEddy|DavidMCEddy]] ([[User talk:DavidMCEddy|talk]]) 16:15, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
-*:Yes it is only visible as source code, but when it allows for new articles to align, and then editors can easily see what's missing in infoboxes, it's a subtle change that really benefits everyone. I've never encountered opposition to such a beneficial change, but I suppose someone has to somewhere. And thus the RfC. [[User:Ɱ|<span style="text-shadow:#bbb 0.1em 0.1em 0.1em;" class="texhtml">'''ɱ'''</span>]] [[User talk:Ɱ|(talk)]] 18:29, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
-* I'd like to voice a '''procedural oppose''' as this kind of discussion should be held in a forum that would affect all infobox-style templates. Furthermore, the discussion should focus more on accessibility than personal preferences on particular styles. Doing so for one template and one template only would not aim for wider improvement or even consistency, rather reinforce one style preference in one instance. Additionally, I would oppose the change (both for this case and for any large-scale discussion) as it makes infobox code difficult to read and edit on small screens, especially mobile devices, while having little no advantage in other cases apart from that some believe it to look nicer. [[User:IceWelder|<span style="font-variant: small-caps;">IceWelder</span>]] &#91;[[User talk:IceWelder|<span style="color: #424242;">&#9993;</span>]]&#93; 17:58, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
-*:Every infobox can have its own formatting, this should not be a global change. And I'm sick and tired of people weaponizing "accessibility" as an issue. You aren't a medical professional, simply because you think it looks cluttered to you in one viewscreen doesn't make you an expert at helping format to advantage differently-abled people. It'd still look cluttered your way in mobile, too. [[User:Ɱ|<span style="text-shadow:#bbb 0.1em 0.1em 0.1em;" class="texhtml">'''ɱ'''</span>]] [[User talk:Ɱ|(talk)]] 18:08, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
-*:And you still have the right to format articles you edit however you wish. This simply just guides more new articles towards a more orderly format. Especially as most longtime editors do most of their work on desktops/laptops. [[User:Ɱ|<span style="text-shadow:#bbb 0.1em 0.1em 0.1em;" class="texhtml">'''ɱ'''</span>]] [[User talk:Ɱ|(talk)]] 18:10, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
-*::Not to [[WP:BLUDGEON]], but this argumentation does not make sense to me. If you believe that aligning parameters in infoboxes is an objective improvement, it should be consistent (or as consistent as possible) across all of them, and you provided no argumentation specific to this template. A wider audience would also generate more opinions from a more diverse pool of editors. Furthermore, please [[WP:AGF|assume good faith]] when people talk about accessibility. As I noted in the previous discussion, I am speaking from my personal experience; I am not "weaponizing" the topic, nor did I ever claim to be a medical professional. I also said then that "perhaps this question should be elevated to a better forum, preferably with users with experience in accessibility". [[User:IceWelder|<span style="font-variant: small-caps;">IceWelder</span>]] &#91;[[User talk:IceWelder|<span style="color: #424242;">&#9993;</span>]]&#93; 07:38, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
-*:::Agree to disagree. I see nothing in [[WP:ACCESS]] that supports your idea that there is an accessibility issue, and I'm still tired of people using this as a tool to get their way. Ignoring the dreamed-up hypothetical opinions of differently-abled people, the infoboxes are easier to read and edit when aligned, not harder. [[User:Ɱ|<span style="text-shadow:#bbb 0.1em 0.1em 0.1em;" class="texhtml">'''ɱ'''</span>]] [[User talk:Ɱ|(talk)]] 17:11, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
-*I prefer the wikitext aligned in documentation, personally, especially when there's hidden comments. It looks nicer that way, even if it's NBD. Plugging my [[User:SWinxy/Internal Manual of Style|personal style guide]]. [[User:SWinxy|SWinxy]] ([[User talk:SWinxy|talk]]) 22:40, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
-*'''Just for reference''' [[Special:PermaLink/1166122651#Usage]] is the original /doc, with [[Special:PermaLink/1166119369#Usage]] being the proposed change, just in case anyone is wondering what "alignment" means in this context. [[User:Primefac|Primefac]] ([[User talk:Primefac|talk]]) 11:38, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
-*'''Support alignment''' It is immeasurably more easy to parse and edit when the options are aligned. <nowiki>:</nowiki>3 [[User:Freedom4U|F4U]] ([[User talk:Freedom4U|they]][[Special:Contributions/Freedom4U|/it]]) 18:36, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
-*'''Support alignment''' for ease-of-use. Makes sense, not sure exactly the reasons why anyone would oppose. [[User:HighKing|<b style="font-family: Courier; color: darkgreen;"> HighKing</b>]]<sup>[[User talk:HighKing|<span style="font-family: Courier; color: #da0000;">++ </span>]]</sup> 14:11, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
-*'''Support alignment''' much easier to read. [[User:Frietjes|Frietjes]] ([[User talk:Frietjes|talk]]) 15:19, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
-*'''Definitely aligned''' much muuuuuuuuuuuch easier to read and parse. &#32;<span style="font-variant:small-caps; whitespace:nowrap;">[[User:Headbomb|Headbomb]] {[[User talk:Headbomb|t]] · [[Special:Contributions/Headbomb|c]] · [[WP:PHYS|p]] · [[WP:WBOOKS|b]]}</span> 09:02, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
-*'''Support alignment''' as nominator, has a much-improved look and readability. I think someone can close this RfC now. [[User:Ɱ|<span style="text-shadow:#bbb 0.1em 0.1em 0.1em;" class="texhtml">'''ɱ'''</span>]] [[User talk:Ɱ|(talk)]] 02:25, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
+Some company have dead links for website, that does not exists anymore. One way to handle this on Wikidata is to put an end date to the dead link and put a "no value" statement with preferred rank, we do that on [https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Q45600&oldid=2056461954#P856 Bitstream inc.]
-== Broken parameter ==
+This is currently broken, the infobox displays a "none" with a link to nothing. [[User:TomT0m|TomT0m]] ([[User talk:TomT0m|talk]]) 12:53, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
-The doc states: ''If it needs to be hidden for some reason... place the word "hide" without the quotes or the template in this field to ensure that no website shows up.''
+:It's not this infobox that is broken, it is {{t|Official URL}}. On [[Bitstream Inc.]], I [[Special:Diff/1196787254|removed]] that from the infobox ([[Special:Permalink/1189831412|before]], [[Special:Permalink/1196787254|after]]) and the infobox returns to what I would consider a "normal" function. [[User:Primefac|Primefac]] ([[User talk:Primefac|talk]]) 13:12, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
+::A list of articles that would concern if they got the template : https://w.wiki/8tov [[User:TomT0m|TomT0m]] ([[User talk:TomT0m|talk]]) 15:07, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
+==Rename tracking category==
-In short, the hide parameter doesn't work. There are a bunch of articles that were displaying "Website hide" in the infobox because people were trying to use hide as documented, but I think I cleaned them all up. In most cases there was no value on wikidata and so nothing to hide, but sometimes it really is necessary to block the autoimport of garbage from wikidata. Even as long term tech-savvy editor with a substantial knowledge of wikidata, it took an unreasonably amount of digging for me to come up with suppressfields= as a workaround for the broken hide parameter. [[User:Alsee|Alsee]] ([[User talk:Alsee|talk]]) 01:03, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
+The template calls {{code|check for clobbered parameters}} to populate {{CL|Pages using infobox company with ignored parameters}}.
-:I couldn't find anything related to "hide" in the implementation, so I removed the incorrect documentation. I believe, however, that the current implementation is sound because it requires a URL at Wikidata to be both sourced and non-deprecated. It only takes four clicks on Wikidata to deprecate a URL, which not only hides it here but also improves the data accuracy for Wikidata itself. I added a brief note regarding this in the documentation, as well as `suppressfields` as the fallback solution. [[User:IceWelder|<span style="font-variant: small-caps;">IceWelder</span>]] &#91;[[User talk:IceWelder|<span style="color: #424242;">&#9993;</span>]]&#93; 05:38, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
+This should be changed to instead populate {{CL|Pages using infobox company with conflicting parameters}} to match the ~50 other categories — [[User:GhostInTheMachine|GhostInTheMachine]] <sup>[[User talk:GhostInTheMachine|talk to me]]</sup> 18:53, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
+:Sure, why not. [[User:Primefac|Primefac]] ([[User talk:Primefac|talk]]) 15:50, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
+:[[WP:CFD/S]] —&thinsp;[[User:JJMC89|JJMC89]]&thinsp;<small>([[User talk:JJMC89|T]]'''·'''[[Special:Contributions/JJMC89|C]])</small> 17:46, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
+::Good for future reference, but when all it involves is two edits I don't really see why I shouldn't just handle it myself. [[User:Primefac|Primefac]] ([[User talk:Primefac|talk]]) 18:57, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
+== Semi-protected edit request on 20 April 2024 ==
-== Acronym? ==
+{{Edit semi-protected|Template:Infobox company/doc|answered=yes}}
-I miss a field for acronym. Or should the trade_name be used for that purpose? [[User:Fgnievinski|fgnievinski]] ([[User talk:Fgnievinski|talk]]) 06:32, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
+change Real Property to Property
+it feels as if Real Property is still part North American i.e. real estate [[Special:Contributions/86.30.69.219|86.30.69.219]] ([[User talk:86.30.69.219|talk]]) 08:32, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
-:I find it doubtful that this is relevant enough for the infobox. It usually appears in the first lead sentence anyway. [[User:IceWelder|<span style="font-variant: small-caps;">IceWelder</span>]] &#91;[[User talk:IceWelder|<span style="color: #424242;">&#9993;</span>]]&#93; 06:49, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
+:[[File:Red information icon with gradient background.svg|20px|link=|alt=]] '''Not done:'''<!-- Template:ESp --> That's just a fictitious example to demonstrate the template's functionality. [[WP:SHED|There's no point in fretting over semantics here.]] [[User:Liu1126|Liu1126]] ([[User talk:Liu1126|talk]]) 13:18, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
-::But then folks end up squeezing the acronym at the end of the full name, separated by a hyphen or enclosed in parentheses. That name pollution would seem to go against [[MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE]], which is to provide some form of semistructure data. [[User:Fgnievinski|fgnievinski]] ([[User talk:Fgnievinski|talk]]) 07:12, 11 September 2023 (UTC)