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: @@
 }}
+== [[MOS:EGG]] issue in company "type"  ==
-== "Industry" parameter should be renamed to "Field", as not all fields of work are industry ==
-Hello,
-The "Industry" parameter of this template should be renamed to "Field". It is a common mistake now to call any field of work an "industry" ("film industry", "music industry", "software industry", "food industry"). Industry is a word used to describe factories{{snd}}manufacturing plants. It is confusing and incorrect to apply it to every revenue-making activity. Regards, [[User:DesertPipeline|DesertPipeline]] ([[User talk:DesertPipeline|talk]]) 14:49, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
-:Did you mean to link [[film industry]], and perhaps list all of the other pages listed in {{cl|Industries (economics)}}? I don't think you will find consensus for this change. See also [[Industry (economics)]]. – [[User:Jonesey95|Jonesey95]] ([[User talk:Jonesey95|talk]]) 23:18, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
-::[[User:Jonesey95]]: I felt a link was unnecessary. However, the inaccurate description of fields of work which aren't industry as industry doesn't actually make them industry. The implications are certainly worse when it comes to fields of ''art'' (such as film, music, writing, video game development){{snd}}but I don't support using language incorrectly even when the implications aren't so bad. [[User:DesertPipeline|DesertPipeline]] ([[User talk:DesertPipeline|talk]]) 01:16, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
-:::Given that the word "industry" with the meaning found in [https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/industry Merriam-Webster's definition 1b] is used in the name of dozens of categories and articles here at the English Wikipedia, it appears that your opinion may not have consensus. You are welcome to bring it up at a central discussion location, however, or with the editors at Merriam-Webster, to see if that consensus has changed. – [[User:Jonesey95|Jonesey95]] ([[User talk:Jonesey95|talk]]) 01:27, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
-::::[[User:Jonesey95]]: As dictionaries have changed from prescriptive (explaining what a word actually means) to descriptive (simply describing common usage), citing that doesn't really say anything, other than that dictionaries can be wrong. "Envy" and "jealousy" are considered synonymous now, and the change from prescriptive to descriptive is partially to blame for that as well. The real problem here, though, is that it's beneficial for companies for everything to be considered an "industry", because then they can pretend that their workers are robots with no needs who can just be worked almost constantly, so that the companies can make more profit than they could otherwise.
-::::Beside all that, though, you should consider which option here is better. If it somehow really were the case that all fields of work are "industries", it still wouldn't make "field" an inaccurate term to use. I know that it will have a positive effect, because Wikipedia's language will be made more specific and clear, but I accept if you don't consider that to be true. However, if changing it to "field" isn't going to have a negative effect (apart from articles using the infobox getting put in the job queue{{snd}}but that's [[WP:PERFORMANCE|worrying about performance]]), and could potentially have a positive effect, it seems to me that there's no real reason not to change it. Would you agree or disagree with that? [[User:DesertPipeline|DesertPipeline]] ([[User talk:DesertPipeline|talk]]) 13:42, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
-:::::It doesn't matter what I think is true. What matters is consensus. – [[User:Jonesey95|Jonesey95]] ([[User talk:Jonesey95|talk]]) 14:35, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
-::::::[[User:Jonesey95]]: You are the only person who has responded so far. It feels to me like you're trying to shut down the discussion before it has even begun with this "the consensus will probably be against you" talk{{snd}}it's better to wait for the result rather than trying to preempt it. [[User:DesertPipeline|DesertPipeline]] ([[User talk:DesertPipeline|talk]]) 14:52, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
-:::::::Industry seems fine to me as natural usage. I associate "field" with person and "industry" with company. [[User:MB|<b style="color:#034503">MB</b>]] 16:03, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
-::::::::[[User:MB]]: Do you see my point about it being incorrect usage? It may seem natural, but I would mostly attribute that to it being used significantly, even in the wrong contexts. [[User:DesertPipeline|DesertPipeline]] ([[User talk:DesertPipeline|talk]]) 16:17, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
-:::::::::Yes, but that just your opinion that it is "incorrect". "A group of businesses that provide a particular product or service" is not restricted to things produced in factories (I don't think "services" ever come from factories). [[User:MB|<b style="color:#034503">MB</b>]] 16:25, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
-::::::::::[[User:MB]]: Services don't come from factories, which is why no service-sector business is an "industry", which is part of why this template using "industry" is a problem. It could also be replaced with "Sector"{{snd}}that would also be a more reasonable word if you think that "Field" doesn't really work here. [[User:DesertPipeline|DesertPipeline]] ([[User talk:DesertPipeline|talk]]) 16:33, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
-:::::::::::Services do come from industries - do I need to repeat the quote from the dictonary -  "A group of businesses that provide a particular product or service" which expresses common usage. Apparently you feel that is "wrong" but so far, you have provided no evidence that is anything more than your opinion. [[User:MB|<b style="color:#034503">MB</b>]] 16:42, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
-::::::::::::[[User:MB]]: As I said before to Jonesey95: {{tq|As dictionaries have changed from prescriptive (explaining what a word actually means) to descriptive (simply describing common usage), citing that doesn't really say anything, other than that dictionaries can be wrong.}} This word's misuse is so prevalent that dictionaries are also wrong about it. This situation is not a simple case of "here's a citation to prove my point", because you have to analyse the situation and understand why I'm saying this; my point is not mainstream, but that doesn't necessarily mean I'm wrong. And as I asked Jonesey95: if changing it will do no harm and could potentially do good, why would we not do it? [[User:DesertPipeline|DesertPipeline]] ([[User talk:DesertPipeline|talk]]) 16:47, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
-:::::::::::::There is no reason to change it because WP is written using common language. I do not understand what you mean by "what a word actually means". There is no authority that defines language (at least not in most countries). A word means what most people understand it to mean - not what YOU think it should mean. [[User:MB|<b style="color:#034503">MB</b>]] 16:52, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
-::::::::::::::Concur with User:MB and User:Jonesey95 and disagree with User:DesertPipeline.  As Walt Disney said to P.L. Travers, [https://www.orlandoweekly.com/orlando/fact-checking-saving-mr-banks-with-disney-historian-jim-korkis/Content?oid=2240838 "Pamela, that ship has sailed."]  As Google Ngram Viewer shows, the phrase [https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=financial+industry&year_start=1800&year_end=2019&corpus=26&smoothing=3 "financial industry"] has been in common use for over forty years.  The battle to limit the use of the term "industry" to traditional heavy industrial sectors was lost a long, long time ago. --[[User:Coolcaesar|Coolcaesar]] ([[User talk:Coolcaesar|talk]]) 17:02, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
-:::::::::::::::[[User:Coolcaesar]]: Things like this shouldn't be considered 'battles' or 'fights'. We always have the opportunity to change our ways{{snd}}no matter how much certain people would have us believe that's not true. That is, as long as we don't let an attitude of "it can't be fixed" become reality by acting as if it is automatically and unchangeably true. [[User:DesertPipeline|DesertPipeline]] ([[User talk:DesertPipeline|talk]]) 17:11, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
-::::::::::::::::If you want to make people "change our ways," then you're working on the wrong project.  Please refresh your memory on WP core policies, especially [[WP:NOT]], and in particular, [[WP:NOTADVOCACY]].  WP always follows, it doesn't lead.  WP can only reflect the world as we find it to be and not as we most fervently wish it to be.  (Of course, I am alluding to the [https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=9236725516799002773 famous words] of Justice [[Stanley Mosk]] in ''People v. Anderson''.) --[[User:Coolcaesar|Coolcaesar]] ([[User talk:Coolcaesar|talk]]) 18:05, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
-{{outdent|::::::::::::::::}}
-[[User:Coolcaeser]]: My statement was partially unrelated to this. Anyway, what 'requires' us to make the same mistakes as the wider world, even though those mistakes have not always been present? If 'sector' is a valid word, what prevents us from using that? As stated earlier, there is no harm in such a change{{snd}}even if "industry" were valid, "sector" is still valid. That means the change is not harmful. So why can it not be done for that reason? [[User:DesertPipeline|DesertPipeline]] ([[User talk:DesertPipeline|talk]]) 15:46, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
-[[User:Coolcaesar]]: Ping fix; I really need to learn to preview my responses every time. [[User:DesertPipeline|DesertPipeline]] ([[User talk:DesertPipeline|talk]]) 15:47, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
-: Both words are fine but changing this feels superfluous. Consider especially the multi-thousand-long editing job for {{u|PrimeBOT}} to replace {{para|industry}} with {{para|sector}}. "Industry" is also consistent [[d:Property:P452]]. [[User:IceWelder|<span style="font-variant: small-caps;">IceWelder</span>]] &#91;[[User talk:IceWelder|<span style="color: #424242;">&#9993;</span>]]&#93; 16:23, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
-::[[User:IceWelder]]: It would be fine to set sector as an alias to the industry parameter, and change the text displayed in the infobox to sector; that way, there wouldn't be any requirement to edit current transclusions of the template. [[User:DesertPipeline|DesertPipeline]] ([[User talk:DesertPipeline|talk]]) 16:32, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
-::: Fine by me. I updated the sandbox and will update if there is no opposition to this proposal. [[User:IceWelder|<span style="font-variant: small-caps;">IceWelder</span>]] &#91;[[User talk:IceWelder|<span style="color: #424242;">&#9993;</span>]]&#93; 17:05, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
-::::I don't see any valid reason for this change. And the statement above that "no service-sector business is an industry" is incorrect as the term "services industry" or "service industry" is commonly used. [[User:Beagel|Beagel]] ([[User talk:Beagel|talk]]) 17:37, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
-:::::[[User:Beagel]]: Commonly used does not mean correct; as Coolcaesar even pointed out themself, forty years ago the term "industry" only referred to actual industry{{snd}}manufacturing and other processes which involve industrial equipment. Service-sector businesses don't use industrial equipment; therefore, they are not "industry". There are also other non-service businesses which don't use industrial equipment (such as software companies). "Sector" applies to every business in existence; "industry" does not. Using the word "sector" makes Wikipedia more correct and avoids the negative implications the word "industry" has when it comes to fields of art, such as film, music, writing, and game development. [[User:DesertPipeline|DesertPipeline]] ([[User talk:DesertPipeline|talk]]) 17:43, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
-:::::::Software industry is a valid and commonly used term as also film industry, music industry etc. [[User:Beagel|Beagel]] ([[User talk:Beagel|talk]]) 06:56, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
-::::::{{U|IceWelder}}: As you should be able to see from the tens of thousands of pixels I and others have wasted above, there is opposition to changing the displayed label. I do not object to the new {{para|sector}} as an alias of {{para|industry}}. – [[User:Jonesey95|Jonesey95]] ([[User talk:Jonesey95|talk]]) 20:52, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
-::::::: I did skim the discussion but it appeared to mostly be a dispute about whether or not "industry" correctly describes a business field or just a place of production. Whether or not there should be a label replacement (on whatever grounds) was barely discussed. The new request asks for changing the label and making {{para|industry}} and alias for {{para|sector}}. As I understand, the argument is that it would do no harm if both terms are equally valid. If you still oppose it, that's fine of course. However, merely creating an additional alias without any other amendment would just be more maintenance and not be useful to anyone, I think. [[User:IceWelder|<span style="font-variant: small-caps;">IceWelder</span>]] &#91;[[User talk:IceWelder|<span style="color: #424242;">&#9993;</span>]]&#93; 21:09, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
-:'''Oppose''' this proposed change.  Industry is used much more frequently now, on Wikipedia and off.  Which is why we have [[:Category:Companies by industry]], many, many other examples. [[User:UnitedStatesian|UnitedStatesian]] ([[User talk:UnitedStatesian|talk]]) 20:58, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
-::[[User:UnitedStatesian]]: And Wikipedia can choose to not perpetuate mistakes{{snd}}which is not a violation of any policy. If the mistake of calling all business sectors "industry" were perpetual{{snd}}as in, the word was being misused since its inception{{snd}}then you would have a point; but it was previously not used in this way. Wikipedia does not have to perpetuate mistakes like this. Do you want it to? If not, I don't see why you would be against my proposal. [[User:DesertPipeline|DesertPipeline]] ([[User talk:DesertPipeline|talk]]) 11:56, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
-:'''Oppose'''. OP keeps repeating that industry "is not correct" but will not explain why in any meaningful way. Not correct according to whom? [[User:MB|<b style="color:#034503">MB</b>]] 21:39, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
-::[[User:MB]]: Actually, I keep trying to explain that this change is not harmful, even if "industry" is valid in all contexts (which it isn't), because "sector" itself is valid. Either it makes no difference at all or it's a positive change. And we've already established that people in the past recognised "industry" as incorrect in non-industrial contexts. [[User:DesertPipeline|DesertPipeline]] ([[User talk:DesertPipeline|talk]]) 11:56, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
-:::You keep side-stepping the question. It is not a mistake and not incorrect usage because common usage defines language. It is irrelevant that "[some] people in the past recognised 'industry' as incorrect". [[User:MB|<b style="color:#034503">MB</b>]] 14:04, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
-::::Concur with User:MB.  There is no merit to the position that it makes no difference or is positive. It is a harmful change because it deviates significantly from common usage and therefore will confuse users of the template.  Under [[WP:NOT]], WP is not a place to highlight or celebrate [[Wikipedia:Fringe theories]].  In turn, the proposed change also violates several principles of [[user interface design]].  Starting with the [[KISS principle]].   --[[User:Coolcaesar|Coolcaesar]] ([[User talk:Coolcaesar|talk]]) 14:24, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
-:::::[[User:Coolcaesar]]: This is not a fringe "theory" (and theories by definition cannot be fringe; a theory is a tested and accepted statement about reality. This is another word being misused). "Sector" is already used in this context in other areas of Wikipedia, and it clearly does not confuse anyone in those cases, because it is correct. I see no ways in which using the correct word violates user interface design principles. You are just coming up with actually irrelevant 'reasons' the change should not be made. What is prompting you to do this? What is your underlying motivation? [[User:DesertPipeline|DesertPipeline]] ([[User talk:DesertPipeline|talk]]) 14:34, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
-::::[[User:MB]]: How can something be "industry" if it is not industrial? Do you not see the problem? It is not irrelevant that this mistake was previously more broadly recognised as a mistake. It means we have no justification for claiming it is not a mistake. [[User:DesertPipeline|DesertPipeline]] ([[User talk:DesertPipeline|talk]]) 14:34, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
-*'''Oppose'''. For the reasons I and others have already stated.  As I already pointed out, the use of the term "industry" to refer broadly to other things besides traditional heavy industry has been well-established for over forty years.  In other words, this has been common usage during the lifetimes of more than half the English speakers now alive, since the world population and the English-speaking population have both expanded greatly during that time period.  WP policy is to follow common usage.  --[[User:Coolcaesar|Coolcaesar]] ([[User talk:Coolcaesar|talk]]) 14:16, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
-*:[[User:Coolcaesar]]: Is Wikipedia policy to follow common usage to the exclusion of logic and not repeating actions identifiable as mistakes? If so, should it be? What is the purpose of policy if not to assist us in making the correct decisions? If it is being used as a method of ignoring the right solution in favour of rigid adherence to 'the rules', is that good for Wikipedia? [[User:DesertPipeline|DesertPipeline]] ([[User talk:DesertPipeline|talk]]) 14:34, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
-*::Your entire position depends upon your ''assumption'' that the broader usage is a "mistake." As everyone has repeatedly pointed out to you, it's not. --[[User:Coolcaesar|Coolcaesar]] ([[User talk:Coolcaesar|talk]]) 14:39, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
-*:::[[User:Coolcaesar]]: There is no assumption. If it is not industrial, it is not industry. ''Indust''rial. ''Indust''ry. They are related words because they are related concepts. An industry is industrial. A non-industrial sector is not industry. [[User:DesertPipeline|DesertPipeline]] ([[User talk:DesertPipeline|talk]]) 14:41, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
-*::::{{U|DesertPipeline}}, your argument is with Merriam-Webster (link above) and with very common usage of the word "industry". Please [[WP:DROPTHESTICK|drop the stick]], or take this discussion to a central forum. – [[User:Jonesey95|Jonesey95]] ([[User talk:Jonesey95|talk]]) 14:57, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
+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]].
-== Defunct company (merged) ==
+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.)
-This is regarding [[Syndicate Bank]] which was merged into [[Canara Bank]]. (The IP edits are block evasion, ignore them.) What should be the parameters for Syndicate bank for:
+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)
-# <code>type</code>
+: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)
-# <code>traded_as</code> tickers (the erstwhile tickers {{BSE|532276}}, {{NSE|SYNDIBANK}} are defunct and the stick is converted into Canara Bank). Shouldn't they be removed instead of adding Canara Bank tickers? Is such case what will be the <code>type</code> again?
+:Why are you doing this. [[User:WiinterU|WiinterU]] ([[User talk:WiinterU|talk]]) 02:35, 12 January 2024 (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 ==
-The same question applies to some other banks which were merged during the same time. — [[User:DaxServer|DaxServer]] ([[User talk:DaxServer|talk]]) 11:11, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
-: The type should be whatever it was just before it went defunct. If it was a merger of two public corporations, "Public" should remain the type. If it was a consolidation of a subsidiary, it should be "Subsidiary", etc. The traded_as codes should remain the same; if the target pages were deleted (because the symbol was deleted), the external links should be suppressed but the text should stay the same. For example, {{tl|NYSE}} has {{tl|NYSE was}}. [[User:IceWelder|<span style="font-variant: small-caps;">IceWelder</span>]] &#91;[[User talk:IceWelder|<span style="color: #424242;">&#9993;</span>]]&#93; 12:46, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
-::IMO, the "whatever it was just before it went defunct" approach is a form of [[WP:RECENTISM]]. This company has a history from 1925 to 2020, and we shouldn't over-emphasize the status of the company in 2020. Statements that apply to the bulk of the company's history should stay (for example, the stock symbol, if there weren't different stock symbols over the course of the years), but others (such as the financial figures) should be removed. [[User:Toohool|Toohool]] ([[User talk:Toohool|talk]]) 16:44, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
-:::I've updated Syndicate Bank, but only to type, traded_as. I haven't removed the financials yet. [[Special:Diff/1051801383]] — [[User:DaxServer|DaxServer]] ([[User talk:DaxServer|talk]]) 18:54, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
-::::I've removed the finances as suggested [[Special:Diff/1051992302]] — [[User:DaxServer|DaxServer]] ([[User talk:DaxServer|talk]]) 19:00, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
-:::::I don't think the financial data should be removed, nor similar historic data like number of employees.  How large a company was immediately before it became defunct is certainly information of value to some of our readers.  [[User:UnitedStatesian|UnitedStatesian]] ([[User talk:UnitedStatesian|talk]]) 19:23, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
-:::::: As long as the {{para|..._year}} parameters are used properly, of course! [[User:IceWelder|<span style="font-variant: small-caps;">IceWelder</span>]] &#91;[[User talk:IceWelder|<span style="color: #424242;">&#9993;</span>]]&#93; 19:25, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
-:::::::Okay then, I'll restore them with the proper <code>_year</code>. — [[User:DaxServer|DaxServer]] ([[User talk:DaxServer|talk]]) 19:46, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
-::::::::I've restored with the year. However, the reported statements are for financial year of 1 April 2018-31 March 2019. What would be the correct year parameter for this? I've put 2019 as it was on probably every other page. — [[User:DaxServer|DaxServer]] ([[User talk:DaxServer|talk]]) 19:02, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
-:::::::::{{yo|DaxServer}} to be technically correct, the parameter should be "FY 2019" where FY stands for fiscal year.  Thanks for all your good editing.  [[User:UnitedStatesian|UnitedStatesian]] ([[User talk:UnitedStatesian|talk]]) 21:00, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
-:::::::::: Huh? I've never seen it used that way. Our documentation and examples don't use it either. [[User:IceWelder|<span style="font-variant: small-caps;">IceWelder</span>]] &#91;[[User talk:IceWelder|<span style="color: #424242;">&#9993;</span>]]&#93; 21:04, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
-{{od|::::::::::}} Should the {{para|parent}} param as well be set to the parent right before defunct, like the finances? Some companies, like the merged, have websites redirected to the successor. I've removed it from the infobox, but added an archive of the old website in External links section. What are your opinions on these two? — [[User:DaxServer|DaxServer]] ([[User talk:DaxServer|talk]]) 17:51, 31 October 2021 (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.]
-== TemplateData for type ==
+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 type infobox parameter's <code>type</code> is set to <code>wiki-page-name</code> ''type'' which will do a search for a Wiki page while typing in the box. In Visual Editor, if I set it to <code><nowiki>[[Public company|Public]]</nowiki></code>, the box is bordered in red indicating an error. Could there be a better value set for it? ([https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Help:TemplateData#Type_parameter MediaWiki docs]) — [[User:DaxServer|DaxServer]] ([[User talk:DaxServer|talk]]) 17:19, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
+: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==
-== duplicate logo when embedded ==
+The template calls {{code|check for clobbered parameters}} to populate {{CL|Pages using infobox company with ignored parameters}}.
-[[Grand Canyon University]] uses this template embedded into IB University. It gets a logo imaged from WD, which was already used in the infobox and shouldn't be repeated. I don't see a way to suppress this.  {{u|Frietjes}}? [[User:MB|<b style="color:#034503">MB</b>]] 01:18, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
-: fixed, although you could have just removed it from the University box. [[User:Frietjes|Frietjes]] ([[User talk:Frietjes|talk]]) 15:18, 20 December 2021 (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 ==
-== Category in Key People Parameter ==
+{{Edit semi-protected|Template:Infobox company/doc|answered=yes}}
-Could a category be added under the key people parameter of the company's article? For example, the category [[:Category:Lockheed people|Lockheed people]] in the [[Lockheed Corporation]] article. Potentially something along the lines of: "See also: [[:Category:Lockheed people|Lockheed people]]". It might be a good way of ensuring sufficient coverage of individuals without the list becoming too long. It seems particularly useful for defunct, but long established companies that have had a lot of notable executives or other leaders over the years. –[[User:Noha307|Noha307]] ([[User talk:Noha307|talk]]) 02:27, 1 January 2022 (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)
-:Categories are generally avoided outside of their designated place at the end of the article, not least because it is just a less helpful, commentless, alphabetical list of articles. I think a section with key executives -- possibly ordered chronologically, sourced, and with the persons' respective job titles -- plus a link to that section from {{para|key_people}} would serve you better in this case. Regards, [[User:IceWelder|<span style="font-variant: small-caps;">IceWelder</span>]] &#91;[[User talk:IceWelder|<span style="color: #424242;">&#9993;</span>]]&#93; 09:07, 1 January 2022 (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)