Jump to content

Template talk:Infobox company: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
m Removed deprecated parameters in {{Talk header}} that are now handled automatically (Task 30)
(170 intermediate revisions by 50 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Talk header|archive_age=45|archive_bot=lowercase sigmabot III}}
{{Talk header}}
{{WikiProject banner shell|
{{permprot}}
{{WikiProject Infoboxes}}
{{WikiProject Infoboxes}}
{{WikiProject Companies}}
{{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}}
{{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}}
{{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:
}}
}}


== [[MOS:EGG]] issue in company "type" ==
== Add logo_upright parameter ==


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]].
{{edit template-protected|Template:Infobox company|answered=yes}}
Right now the only way to adjust the size of logos displayed in the infobox is to set a fixed px width, which is against WP image use policy ([[WP:THUMBSIZE]]: Except with very good reason, do not use px (e.g. |thumb|300px), which forces a fixed image width measured in pixels, disregarding the user's image size preference setting). [[Module:InfoboxImage]] has an {{code|upright}} parameter which allows images to be scaled by a multiplier of the user's preference for thumbnail sizes. Infobox templates like [[:Template:Infobox information appliance]] already implement it as one of their logo parameters; I recommend this template do the same. [[User:DigitalIceAge|DigitalIceAge]] ([[User talk:DigitalIceAge|talk]]) 03:54, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
:{{done}}. '''''[[User:Paine Ellsworth|<span style="font-size:92%;color:darkblue;font-family:Segoe Script">P.I.&nbsp;Ellsworth</span>]]'''''&numsp;-&nbsp;[[Editor|<span style="color:black">ed.</span>]]&nbsp;[[User talk:Paine Ellsworth|<sup>put'r&nbsp;there</sup>]]&nbsp;<small>23:56, 7 February 2022 (UTC)</small>
:: Thank you! [[User:DigitalIceAge|DigitalIceAge]] ([[User talk:DigitalIceAge|talk]]) 03:33, 8 February 2022 (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 add worker representation parametre==
I'm resurrecting [[Template talk:Infobox company/Archive 12#Trade union|this discussion]] from a year ago to argue that a "worker_representation" field should be added. This would allow a link to the articles of trade unions active in the company, an important part of every company's governance. The corresponding field has already been added to WikiData. [[User:Zarasophos|Zarasophos]] ([[User talk:Zarasophos|talk]]) 22:52, 6 February 2022 (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)
:(Notified at WP:Organized Labor) I personally agree that the parameter should be added, both because it is useful information in an infobox and because it is already in WikiData. [[User:A._C._Santacruz|A. C. Santacruz]] &#8258; [[User talk:A._C._Santacruz|Please ping me!]] 23:34, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
: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)
:Why are you doing this. [[User:WiinterU|WiinterU]] ([[User talk:WiinterU|talk]]) 02:35, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
::<small>(via notification at WikiProject Organized Labour)</small> I support this change. We should be specific that this is for trade union representation and not works councils (which are present in many EU companies), since legally works councils are bodies of co-determination, not bodies to represent workers' interests. I'm not so in favour of a specific threshold (eg a union must have collective bargaining status) since there are many anti-union companies where union members exist, but are denied collective bargaining. I think in cases where there is no collective bargaining it should be about whether or not sourcing exists regarding union representation; so, for example in Starbucks where there is, as yet, no collective bargaining but there are specific, widespread sources pointing to unionisation. We also need to acknowledge that in some countries, there will be more than one union present in this parameter (eg this will frequently be the case in Spain, Italy and France). Regards, --[[User:Goldsztajn|Goldsztajn]] ([[User talk:Goldsztajn|talk]]) 23:51, 6 February 2022 (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)
:::Agreed that [[Wikipedia:Verifiability]] is key here and that we should use coverage in independent reliable sources as criterion rather than specific thresholds.
:::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)
:::There is also [[WP:NPOV]] to consider though, as another core policy - specifically [[WP:DUE]] ({{tq|"Undue weight can be given in several ways, including but not limited to [...] prominence of placement"}}). To construct an extreme example based on yours: If employees at a single Starbucks location start an unionization attempt today and it gets mentioned in the local newspaper tomorrow, that still doesn't mean that the infobox in [[Starbucks]] should be updated to promote that effort. Per [[MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE]], infoboxes are meant "to summarize (and not supplant) key facts that appear in the article"; including information there means visually promoting it over most of the rest of the information in the article. (That's also why "it is already in WikiData" is not an argument here - so are many other Wikidata properties that we do not include in Wikipedia infoboxes with good reason.) Regards, [[User:HaeB|HaeB]] ([[User talk:HaeB|talk]]) 09:50, 9 February 2022 (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)
::::I don't think you'd have anything but heated agreement from everyone here. Regards, --[[User:Goldsztajn|Goldsztajn]] ([[User talk:Goldsztajn|talk]]) 11:49, 10 February 2022 (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)
*'''Support''' When the workers have an organization then that fact is as fundamental to the identity of the company as many of the other parameters in the infobox. We should note this in the infobox. I came here from [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Organized Labour]], which discussed this issue. [[User:Bluerasberry|<span style="background:#cedff2;color:#11e">''' Bluerasberry '''</span>]][[User talk:Bluerasberry|<span style="background:#cedff2;color:#11e">(talk)</span>]] 14:13, 7 February 2022 (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.
:[[File:Red information icon with gradient background.svg|20px|link=|alt=]] '''Not done for now:'''<!-- Template:ETp --> it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Also, there still seems to be controversial elements such as should this include works councils or not. Perhaps more than one new parameter is needed? Also, how do we make said parameter(s) global and not to just fill the needs of one or two or a few countries' companies? This is a case of "You tell me." I will be glad to add consensus-based parameters that are presented in the correct format, preferably in this template's [[Template:Infobox company/sandbox|sandbox]]. '''''[[User:Paine Ellsworth|<span style="font-size:92%;color:darkblue;font-family:Segoe Script">P.I.&nbsp;Ellsworth</span>]]'''''&numsp;-&nbsp;[[Editor|<span style="color:black">ed.</span>]]&nbsp;[[User talk:Paine Ellsworth|<sup>put'r&nbsp;there</sup>]]&nbsp;<small>22:56, 7 February 2022 (UTC)</small>
::::::{{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)
Hello {{ping|Paine Ellsworth}}, thanks for the comment. The only problem, as far a I see it, is that some countries (Anglophile ones) use a model of per-company trade unions, while others (for example mainland Europe) use works councils. I therefore see basically two options:
:::::::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)
:1. Add two parametres, one "works_council" and one "trade_union". "works_council" would allow yes/no and would appear as something along the lines of "Works council: Present", while "trade_union" would allow "[[Example company trade union]]".
::::::::{{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)
:2. Add one parametre "worker_representation", which would appear as "Worker representation" and allow both manually putting in "Works Council" for countries utilising works councils - or not, if we don't want to do this, as {{User|Goldsztajn}} suggested - and "[[Example company trade union]]" for Anglophile ones. This is my favoured option. I'm not at all familiar with template coding, but I think it should look something like this: (commented out because I don't know how to put code in a comment)
:::::::::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)
<!--| label42 = Worker representation{{#if:{{{worker_representation|}}}|s}} | data42 = {{#invoke:WikidataIB |getValue |rank=best |P9239 |name=affiliated worker organisation |qid={{{qid|}}} |fetchwikidata={{{fetchwikidata|ALL}}} |suppressfields={{{suppressfields|}}} |onlysourced=yes |noicon={{{noicon|no}}} |sep="<br />" |sorted=yes |{{{affiliated worker organisation|{{{affiliated worker organisation|}}}}}} }}-->
::::::::::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)
What does everyone else think? [[User:Zarasophos|Zarasophos]] ([[User talk:Zarasophos|talk]]) 23:26, 7 February 2022 (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)
:Placed your test code in this template's [[Template:Infobox company/sandbox|sandbox]] and created a new section on its [[Template:Infobox company/testcases#Worker representation|test cases]] page. I realize that this parameter(s) needs to evolve; it must grow to a certain level of usefulness before it can "go live". Any and all feel free to improve upon the sandbox and test cases trials. '''''[[User:Paine Ellsworth|<span style="font-size:92%;color:darkblue;font-family:Segoe Script">P.I.&nbsp;Ellsworth</span>]]'''''&numsp;-&nbsp;[[Editor|<span style="color:black">ed.</span>]]&nbsp;[[User talk:Paine Ellsworth|<sup>put'r&nbsp;there</sup>]]&nbsp;<small>00:59, 8 February 2022 (UTC)</small>
:'''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)
'''Comment''': There's a simple legal difference; works councils practice codetermination (Mitbestimmung) or in US English act as a labor-management committee. In no jurisdiction is there any requirement that a works council have as worker representatives those from trade unions; and at the national level outside of central and northern Europe works councils generally play a fairly limited, if non-existent role. It is misleading to indicate that a body which contains representatives of management is a "worker representative" body, a works council is a workplace representative body with worker representatives. National laws across the EU regarding works councils are quite varied (notwithstanding the EU directive on European Works Councils). However, trade unions are a far more universally (globally) applicable form of worker representation. So, I would be more inclined to support two separate parameters: one for works councils and one for trade union representation. Regards, --[[User:Goldsztajn|Goldsztajn]] ([[User talk:Goldsztajn|talk]]) 11:15, 8 February 2022 (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 ==
I support the first option, two different parameters, however I would use "labor union" or "union" instead of "trade union", since in the US trade union has a connotation like [[craft unionism]] of being particular to a trade while other variants such as general and industrial unions can exist. I also wonder if there's some way we can include the level of worker control from no say to full say, apart from discussing it in the company or specific union article. Part of this could be adding a worker co-operative field for either the "type" or "ownership" parameter. Also, I'm a software developer and while I don't have much experience with Wiki templates when we've got a solid plan I can take a shot at implementing it. [[User:TheTranarchist|TheTranarchist]] ([[User talk:TheTranarchist|talk]]) 22:00, 8 February 2022 (UTC)TheTranarchist
:This all sounds very good to me, so I'll vote for a "works_council" and a "union" field as well as adding a "cooperative" to "ownership". Also, thanks for offering to take a view at the template - I'd try to do it myself, but for some reason my keyboard chose the two months a year I get really focused on editing Wikipedia to suddenly not have a working | button anymore... [[User:Zarasophos|Zarasophos]] ([[User talk:Zarasophos|talk]]) 22:37, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
::{{to|Zarasophos}} if you have an "insert" section underneath your edit screen, and you can change it to "Wiki markup", you'll find a pipe among those symbols you can use. Hopefully, this helps a bit. '''''[[User:Paine Ellsworth|<span style="font-size:92%;color:darkblue;font-family:Segoe Script">P.I.&nbsp;Ellsworth</span>]]'''''&numsp;-&nbsp;[[Editor|<span style="color:black">ed.</span>]]&nbsp;[[User talk:Paine Ellsworth|<sup>put'r&nbsp;there</sup>]]&nbsp;<small>23:29, 8 February 2022 (UTC)</small>
:::I don't agree with the statement about there being a trade union per company in some countries, if that is meant to mean a single union. In the US, for example, an airline can have workers represented by a pilots union, flight attendants union, one for mechanics, another for ramp/baggage workers, customer service people, and probably a few more. The union parameter would have to be "Union (s)" and there should be some guidance on how to use it - e.g. limit it to a few of the most significant unions. This IB can already be on the long side. [[User:MB|<b style="color:#034503">MB</b>]] 00:45, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
::::Indeed. Also consider [https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/21/us/ILWU-Portland-Verdict-Bankruptcy.html this] current high profile case about a labor conflict in the US that was at its core about a union trying to bring some positions under their control that were already unionized - but with a different union. Regards, [[User:HaeB|HaeB]] ([[User talk:HaeB|talk]]) 09:50, 9 February 2022 (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.]
:Given the complexities and misunderstandings that this discussion has revealed so far (e.g. the proposer's erroneous assumption that {{tq|"some countries (Anglophile ones) use a model of per-company trade unions, while others (for example mainland Europe) use works councils"}}), I would suggest taking a step back and working on the following:
:*This proposal (as any new parameter proposal, really) should include not just the new parameter name(s), but also a draft definition/guidance text for each, for the template documentation. (Compare e.g. the documentation of the ''key_people'' field in the current version of the template, which is likewise about an "important part of every company's governance".)
:*Provide a few examples of existing company articles (from several different countries) stating what the value of the new parameter(s) there might be if the proposal becomes implemented.
:I would also recommend trying to avoid approaching this with too much of an activist mindset ("yay labor rights! Let's do it!", even though these are important rights affecting most of us personally). This is a very widely used infobox template and I sense that some folks may underestimate the downsides of ill-defined parameters. E.g. over at ''Infobox musical artist'' there is now [[Template_talk:Infobox_musical_artist#Associated_acts_confusion|consensus]] that a field added many years ago has caused a great deal of confusion and unnecessary disagreement and should be removed.
:Regards, [[User:HaeB|HaeB]] ([[User talk:HaeB|talk]]) 09:50, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
::I don't see an erroneous assumption, I see someone trying to express what is a difference between trade unionism in continental Europe (which has mostly retained industry (ie sectoral) bargaining) versus models in the Anglo world, where company/enterprise bargaining predominates and how that (a quite correct observation) affects trade union structures. But it is reasonable (and necessary) to ensure that a parameter such as this does not become an alphabet soup. One initial guidance might be that unions listed should be those which predominate in the country of origin of the company; this can be modified in certain cases, where you have a company like Nestlé whose unionised workforce in Switzerland (represented by UNIA) is far smaller than in Germany (NGG) or the UK (GMB). It might also be useful to include the appropriate global union federation that workers in that company are covered by where a [[global framework agreement]] exists (could this be a third parameter?). I wouldn't want to put an explicit number limit, but would use a text that indicates something along the lines of "limit to predominant, most representative union(s), with more than three (four?) unions having justifiable grounds for inclusion on the basis of sourcing". As for the case of airlines, this is not that complex, what is most common are three unions: pilots, cabin crew and engineers (mechanics, machinists etc). FWIW ground crew, baggage handlers etc are rarely employees of airlines (rather outsourced, subcontracted employees of airport operators). Regards, --[[User:Goldsztajn|Goldsztajn]] ([[User talk:Goldsztajn|talk]]) 11:49, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
:::After reading all this, I would suggest a single parameter much as is used in science iboxes to indicate species and so forth. If there is a simple, one- or two-entry situation, then the parameter can be used to show them; however, if the list is long, convoluted or complex, then the parameter can be used to indicate "See article text". And all the details can be included in that article's content (as opposed to making the ibox ten miles long). '''''[[User:Paine Ellsworth|<span style="font-size:92%;color:darkblue;font-family:Segoe Script">P.I.&nbsp;Ellsworth</span>]]'''''&numsp;-&nbsp;[[Editor|<span style="color:black">ed.</span>]]&nbsp;[[User talk:Paine Ellsworth|<sup>put'r&nbsp;there</sup>]]&nbsp;<small>23:14, 10 February 2022 (UTC)</small>


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)
== Audio logo parameter ==
: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==
More and more brands ([https://diff.wikimedia.org/2022/03/15/you-cant-see-the-puzzle-globe-on-an-audio-speaker-a-sound-logo-for-wikimedia/ including Wikipedia]) are using [[audio logo]]s ([https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GV3HUDMQ-F8 example] from Netflix). I propose that we add a parameter for these to this template that can hold a ([[Wikipedia_talk:Non-free_content#Audio_logos|typically fair use]]) sound file. It wouldn't be for every company, but for those with prominent audio logos, I think it'd be due. Thoughts on this? Where in the infobox should it go? <span style="color:#AAA"><small>&#123;{u&#124;</small><span style="border-radius:9em;padding:0 5px;background:#088">[[User:Sdkb|<span style="color:#FFF">'''Sdkb'''</span>]]</span><small>}&#125;</small></span> <sup>[[User talk:Sdkb|'''talk''']]</sup> 06:36, 18 March 2022 (UTC)


The template calls {{code|check for clobbered parameters}} to populate {{CL|Pages using infobox company with ignored parameters}}.
:I see little use for this in the infobox. If a company's audio logo is notable and relevant, it should be detailed in the body with sources. Otherwise, it feels akin to an audible version of the slogan parameter we removed years ago for good reason. [[User:IceWelder|<span style="font-variant: small-caps;">IceWelder</span>]] &#91;[[User talk:IceWelder|<span style="color: #424242;">&#9993;</span>]]&#93; 07:07, 18 March 2022 (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 ==
== Secondary listings ==
Hello, can we add secondary listings for traded_as? I would like to indicate that [[Nokia]] also lists on NYSE for example.
-- 18:40, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[[User:Maxime Vernier|Maxime Vernier]] ([[User talk:Maxime Vernier|talk]])
: You can just put an {{tl|Unbulleted list}} in that field. Regards, [[User:IceWelder|<span style="font-variant: small-caps;">IceWelder</span>]] &#91;[[User talk:IceWelder|<span style="color: #424242;">&#9993;</span>]]&#93; 19:04, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
:Thanks for your answer, I have added the NYSE listing on [[Nokia]] but UnitedStatesian removed it on the ground that it is secondary and not primary and thus does not have its place in the infobox. I wish to have feedback from the community, is it something coming only from UnitedStatesian or is it something widely shared by the contributors on companies. [[User:Maxime Vernier|Maxime Vernier]] ([[User talk:Maxime Vernier|talk]]) 18:03, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
::@[[User:Maxime Vernier|Maxime Vernier]], @[[User:IceWelder|IceWelder]], thanks for the ping, and I'll lay out the logic that governs our current practice, which is simply this: stocks trade secondarily all over the world, and a comprehensive list in the Infobox would be make it very cluttered. And to avoid the clutter and have only a subset of the secondary listings introduces [[WP:ASB|systemic bias]] issues: why just New York, and not all of the other secondary trading locations? Hope this helps. I do think the field could be named more clearly: what do you think of displaying it as "Primary listing" instead of "Traded as"? Best, [[User:UnitedStatesian|UnitedStatesian]] ([[User talk:UnitedStatesian|talk]]) 18:45, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
:::I think that "traded as" is a lot more clear than "primary listing". How does one determine which exchange is the primary listing? For example, when a company is listed on a European exchange and NYSE? Maybe "traded as (primary)" would be better, but it would be biased, don't you think? --[[User:Funandtrvl|Funandtrvl]] ([[User talk:Funandtrvl|talk]]) 19:24, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
::::@[[User:Funandtrvl|Funandtrvl]] Almost always, the primary listing is an exchange in the country in which the company is incorporated, its "home country": so, the UK's [[London Stock Exchange]] for [[Shell plc]], the US's [[Nasdaq]] for [[Apple Inc.]]. Hope this helps. [[User:UnitedStatesian|UnitedStatesian]] ([[User talk:UnitedStatesian|talk]]) 17:57, 14 July 2022 (UTC)


{{Edit semi-protected|Template:Infobox company/doc|answered=yes}}
== Template-protected edit request on 16 July 2022 ==
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)
{{edit template-protected|Template:Infobox company|answered=no}}
:[[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)
Can you change “Headquarters” to “Location” so that it can match the parameter <code>|location=</code> [[Special:Contributions/70.71.80.27|70.71.80.27]] ([[User talk:70.71.80.27|talk]]) 19:34, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

Revision as of 01:45, 11 July 2024

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

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]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template_talk:Infobox_company&oldid=1233818436"