This is an archive of past discussions about Template:Infobox organization. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
hCards created by the infobox are currently broken (as tested by Mike Kaply's Operator extension for Firefox). Namely, the name parameter for the box isn't being outputted as class="fn n" as it should be. --coldacid (talk|contrib) 02:39, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
Having the title outside the table has been a Wikitable standard for years, and is used increasingly in infoboxen (especially those which use the {{infobox}} base template). There's nothing wrong with having it outside the table; it just takes a little getting used to. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk08:15, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
However, there's no explanation in the template's doc for "type" - what do "GO, NGO, IGO, INGO" signify? Should these link to something else? JGHowes talk16:58, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
I'd like to see the name of the organization's founder added to the infobox. Jut thought I'd ask before I added it. Opinions, anyone? -- btphelps (talk) (contribs)21:28, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Three times to day I have reverted a change to this infobox, which broke it (by rendering the omitted microformat invalid). I have asked, without success, the other editor involved to bring the matter here, so now do so myself. What is the point of this change, and why was the microformat broken? Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits20:39, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
The top is broken in the version which you are putting it to and the title is flying around outside of the box making articles look a mess. As a user said above, this makes the article look unprofessional. I don't understand what you are meaning by "microformat"? With the updated version, with the title put fully into the box it still works, because I tried it on an article. You're not explaining what you mean by "microformat"? - Yorkshirian (talk) 20:59, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
You say the template is "broken", but seem to mean that you don't like the current presentation, which is not the same thing. The template's microformat is described, with links, in the template's documentation. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits21:22, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
Whichever way you want to term "putting the title into the box with the rest of the info". I don't see what the microformat has to do with anything? It doesn't mention anything which would seem pertinent to this issue? None of the sections of information in the template broke after the update. - Yorkshirian (talk) 21:26, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
If you'd cared to bring the issue here instead of just continuing to edit war over it, I'd have been able to point out that by changing title but not titleclass you broke the microformat generation. While you've made clear that you dislike the <caption> style for infobox titles, there is no consensus to use the other style everywhere, and people certainly should not be edit warring to try to enforce such. If you really want this changed, start an RfC. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk10:02, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
Additions to infobox
There is also a non-profit template, which I have used for Greenpeace, but this might be more appropriate for Greenpeace. However the non-profit template has some elements I would like to see in this template also, like the revenue and the amount of private supporters. Many organizations, for example WWF, Greenpeace and Unicef don't actually have members, but rather regular donors who support on a monthly or yearly basis. Also a place to mention methods used by the organization would be good, as methods are vary hugely on different organizations. I'd also suggest that instead of having a map of the organizations extent it would be better to have just a general image space, which one could use for a map, but if the organization cannot be clearly defined geographicly the space could also be used to illustrate the work of the organization.89.27.56.101 (talk) 19:11, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
I think revenue would be good. I also think this infobox needs some serious clean up and removal of features, and modified to be more in line with Template:Infobox company, just specialized for organization. I think all of the map params should be removed. I do not see how the add to the article quality at all, only add extraneous content. It already has an area served param (named region served). Would also propose:
redoing "formation and extinction" to mirror the company's template of "foundation" and "defunct" (or use "disband" as suggested above"
removing the calculation thing from those dates (just looks cluttered)
remove abbreviation - unnecessary and goes in the lead
remove coordinates - pointless and place may have multiples
rename "regions_served" to "areas_served" for better flexibility and accuracy (worldwide is not a region)
remove language - extremely trivial and irrelevant
replace leader_title and leader_name with more basic key_people like company
remove main_org - for prose and not really necessary in infobox and its label is hideous
switch location to number of locations or just remove all together
remove remarks - not appropriate for an infobox at all
Its documentation also sucks - nothing is explained and the "types" just seem like random groups of characters - without explanation and better wording, they are meaningless to most readers and editors alike. -- AnmaFinotera (talk·contribs) 23:30, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
I think the remarks part should remain. If for example some organizations have merged with other organizations or originate from other organizations it would be worth mentioning in remarks. Some organizations might also have special cases in their management, structure, location etc. that might be worth clearing up in remarks.
Other than that, I completely agree. Some organizations might have distributed leadership, so "key people" would be better. Main organ is also quite unclear as the governance system of organization might vary considerably and different organizations might use completely different terms for similar governing bodies, so main organ in the infobox doesn't really say anything. Location(s) should also be removed, as headquarters and area served already explain those things. The "image" section could maybe be better named as "logo" and the "map" section as "image", for a general image of the organization, for example their main office or work. Similar to the infobox of US armed forces.
I myself don't have the skills to edit the infobox template. I'm afraid that I'll mess up several organization articles big time. I'd suggest the infobox and documentation to be something like this in my sandboxShubi (talk) 14:38, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
In general, I agree with these proposals and I definitely agree that the documentation should be rewritten to give more precise guidelines how to use the fields included in the template. One of the thing I think we should have more flexibility is 'key people'. I think that it would be great idea to add the 'key people' parameter, but it should be alternative to the 'leader title' and 'leader name' parameters. For the distributed leadership, it is also possible to use up to four titles and names using 'leader_titlen' and 'leader_namen' fields (n=1 through 4). How it works in practice, could be see in the infobox of European Network of Transmission System Operators for Electricity. As of the 'main organ', the title is not the best. Maybe 'Governing body' should be better? However, although I think this field could be informative, I don't have strong feelings about this. As of predecessors and successors, please see my proposal below.
For the images I think we need the 'logo' field for the organization's logo and the 'image' field (or even better 'photo' field) for the image related to the organization. I also propose to keep the 'map' field, but usage of this field should be limited to the geopolitical/intergovernmental organizations (regional and international) only. Beagel (talk) 11:23, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
So is there someone who could do these improvements to the infobox? How does it actually work to improve the infobox? I mean, if you just edit this template it will mess up huge loads of pages using the previous template, right? How to proceed?Shubi (talk) 10:58, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
Currently the template has a "remarks" and "former name" field that would seem to be for that purpose. See the discussion above about possible changes though. I'd really almost wonder why this couldn't be merged to company. Only a few fields are unique to organizations which could be dealt with with flags.-- AnmaFinotera (talk·contribs) 20:49, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
Predecessor and former name are quite different things. One organization may have had different names through the history being at the same time the same legal entity. In other cases, some organization may have even the same name as old one, but legally it is a new organization. Of course, it could be explain in 'remarks', but why not to have separate optional field(s) for this? If there is no predecessor or successor, these fields could be removed or just stay blank and correspondingly they are not shown in articles. Beagel (talk) 21:15, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
The use of the word Extinction to describe the end of an organisation, is both strange and incorrect. Dissolved is the more correct word. Disbandment / Dissolution / Disestablishment are other options. Can this be changed? Snappy (talk) 17:17, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
Agree. Extinction does not seem like an appropriate term at all. I believe Dissolved would be more professional sounding, or Defunct to borrow the word used on the company template. -- AnmaFinotera (talk·contribs) 17:50, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
Extinction really isn't a good term for a company though. They aren't species that permanently died out. :-P What other ways does an organization shut down? -- AnmaFinotera (talk·contribs) 13:22, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
That is a good question. Because i don't see any of such linebreaks. Something more strange is at work here I think. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 21:36, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
Here's a link [1] to my sandbox with a suggestion for an improved template for organizations based on discussions here. The template could be used for intergovernmental organizations such as The International Whaling Comission or non-profits like Greenpeace. It could also replace the non-profit template: [2] Suggestions? Improvements?Shubi (talk) 10:28, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
New field
Can someone with the ability to edit the template please add a "patron" field; many organizations in Canada, for instance, have royal or viceroyal patrons and this information should be included in the infobox. Cheers. --ĦMIESIANIACAL18:51, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
Edit request from Oxguy3, 3 October 2010
{{edit protected}}
Could the following parameter and code please be added to the infobox?
This would allow this infobox be recolored on individual articles to match the colors of the organization. This will not change how the template appears/works on any pages that currently use it; it will simply allow the template to be recolored for individual articles. A similar code is used on Template:Infobox television season. As I see it, this edit is uncontroversial because it will have no effect on any articles that currently use this template, and it is already used in other infobox templates.
Could we add a founded_place or formation_place parameter to indicate where the organization was originally founded/formed? --JFH (talk) 03:36, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
Merges
Sometimes an organization merges into another one. Could we add a merge_of to indicate the organization was founded as a merge of preexisting ones and a merged_into to show the organization into which the organization merged? --JFH (talk) 19:32, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
I concur that we should be consistent with that infobox. The parameters are "merger" immediately following "extinciton" with label of "Merge of", and "merged" immediately following "predecessor" with label "Merged into". I think there is sufficient concensus given the several weeks of no opposition. --JFH (talk) 17:58, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
Done. Thanks for the suggestion - I have implemented it. For next time, it would be really helpful if you could add your requested code to the template sandbox and create a couple of test cases. It's a lot easier for admins to know what code changes you intend that way, and the test cases let us see at a glance if there are any problems with the code. Have a look at WP:TESTCASES for more details, and let me know if you have any questions. Best regards — Mr. Stradivarius♪ talk ♪12:32, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
Request
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
It will be great if you can add, 'Founder(s)', 'Mission' and 'Members' (number of numbers) field. Also an option should be placed to either use 'Formation' or 'Founded'. I personally like the word founded than formation. Ridwanq (talk) 14:14, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
Not done: Sorry, but this isn't enough information for me to enact the request. First, I need to know where the changes should be made, and exactly how they should look. The best way to do this is to make the changes yourself in the template sandbox and add some testcases per the instructions at WP:TESTCASES. And second, you need to show that the changes that you are proposing have a consensus. Perhaps you could advertise this discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Organizations and see whether people agree or not? Best reagrds — Mr. Stradivarius♪ talk ♪00:45, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
image not scaling
I just added this template to ADRA-UK but the logo image is not scaling down as I would expect. I have tried it with the default and size = 300px but it just displays at full size. What am I missing here please? --Derek Andrews (talk) 13:17, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
I think the idea is to keep the total number of external links in the infobox to a minimum, with the rest in the "external links section". so, one link in the box is probably enough. Frietjes (talk) 20:01, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
I am not a British English speaker myself, but I notice that the "parent organization" has no equivalent option to display properly in articles which use the form "organisation". djr13 (talk) 09:22, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
Not done: it's not clear what changes you want made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. It appears that you may need to show when and where a consensus has been established for some of these changes before using the {{edit template-protected}} template. – Paine EllsworthCLIMAX!15:27, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
Please change [the current template's code] to [the code given here]. A list specifying the changes within the latter is given by today (6 May)'s entries here.
For which changes does it appear that I may need to show when and where a consensus has been established? Alternatively, per WP:BRD, WP:AGF and a glance here, fulfil the request and see what, if anything, happens.
{{{one|{{{two|}}}}}} is not the same as {{#if:{{{one|}}}|{{{one}}}|{{{two|}}}}} and established is not the same as etablished. more tests added to expose errors. Frietjes (talk) 18:36, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for spotting the typo. How does {{{one|{{{two|}}}}}} not produce the same result as {{#if:{{{one|}}}|{{{one}}}|{{{two|}}}}}? (I must be missing something subtle.) Sardanaphalus (talk) 01:40, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
The first will take an empty string for one, which means that if one's specified but not set to anything, it'll still take precedence over two -- which might be set to something. — lfdder01:55, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
Please note: Being careful does not mean that an editor is not bold; being careful does not mean that I have failed to assume good faith. The testcases do not show the whole picture, and your list that specifies the changes is merely a group of edits with several enigmatic diffs for us to sift through. If you don't make it as easy as you can, then do not expect to get what you want. Are you very certain that you are the only one whose time is important and the rest of us have all kinds of time to sift through your edits and diffs? The next time you use {{edit template-protected}}, please READ it.
One part says, This template must be followed by a complete and specific description of the request, so that an editor unfamiliar with the subject matter could complete the requested edit immediately.
And another part reads, Edit requests to template-protected pages should only be used for edits that are either uncontroversial or supported by consensus. Please comply. – Paine EllsworthCLIMAX!19:09, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
My apologies. It's not that I believed you weren't assuming good faith, rather that your initial message felt as if you might not. Sardanaphalus (talk) 01:40, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
'Sokay – template edits have made me more careful because of the potentially far-reaching effects they can have on the server and in articles. I like to get them right the first time so those effects will be minimal. Now, are you able to show your edits here on this page in a "change x → y" context where x is the present condition and y is your edit? It would go a long way to help. An example would be:
Change the following:
<!--Please add any interwiki links etc on the /doc page, not here - thanks!-->
to this:
<!--Please add categories to the /doc page and interwikis to Wikidata, not here - thanks!-->
Another example:
On the line after the "above =" parameter type the "subheader =" parameter as follows:
Since then, after testing the current template and sandbox versions here, I've found some (more) hidden problems with both template and sandbox, so this list has grown.
}}{{#if:{{{image2|}}}|[[Category:Infobox organization using image2 param]]}}<noinclude>
{{documentation}}
<!--Please add any interwiki links etc on the /doc page, not here - thanks!-->
</noinclude>
----->
}}{{#if:{{{image2|}}}|[[Category:Infobox organization using image2 param]]}}<noinclude>{{documentation}}</noinclude>
I believe the above repairs the current template as well as adding the linewrap management, alternate parameter names, etc. The result of making these changes should match this version of the sandbox (the current version, as of posting). Sardanaphalus (talk) 18:08, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
removed the non-existing tracking category again, and fixed the if statement order on a couple. the order must be the same for both the data and the label. Frietjes (talk) 16:13, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
@Sardanaphalus: I'm not sure what problem this edit is intended to fix, but perhaps it would be better applied to the underlying {{infobox}} template? The purpose of the later is so that individual infoboxes don't need their own styling; and if there is a problem, a solution should be applied generally. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits10:20, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
If the tweaks I've made would work / be accepted globally, I agree. Meanwhile:
the padding-bottom added to titlestyle is to ensure that titles (i.e. [name]s) don't appear to touch the infobox border (e.g. the lower parts of lowercase characters such as "y", "p", etc);
excess whitespace removed from code (primarily that between "label/dataN"s and subsequent equals-signs) and some added elsewhere (primarily newlines) to aid comprehension;
labels 7 and 26's code now a little more elegant (hopefully);
the nbsp in label12 is linewrap management;
the brackets in label18 were surplus (compare label/data17) (and, in any case, distracting);
replacing the multiple instances of {{longitem}} in labels with styling in labelstyle simpler / more elegant, no..?
My apologies; I didn't read your query as rhetorical. If you're offering to amend {{Infobox}} – it uses Lua rather than wikicode/HTML and, understandably, is heavily protected – then yes, please; but I should first finish finding out what combination of padding-top and line-height in labelstyle works correctly beside the default datastyle. Sardanaphalus (talk) 17:49, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
PS "...so that individual infoboxes don't need their own styling" – given the variety in the data they present, I suspect that there'll always be infoboxes needing some styling of their own. Sardanaphalus (talk) 17:56, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
New parameters
The recent revert of my addition of the parameters |named_after=, |founding_location=, |ethnicity= and |rivals= appears to be a disruptively pointed response to a TfD not liked by the editors concerned. No argument against their use in this template has been advanced, and no discussion was started here.
However, there parameters are useful in this template regardless of that, and their removal hides valid data in articles such as Oxfam (|named_after=Oxford Famine Relief, |founding_location=Oxford). They should be restored, ASAP. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits22:18, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
I support the addition of |named_after= and |founding_location=, but would like to see some further discussion of |ethnicity= and |rivals=. Frietjes (talk) 22:24, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
"I support the addition of |named_after= and |founding_location=, but would like to see some further discussion of |ethnicity= and |rivals=." I see no "suport [sic] removing" in that statement. Frietjes (talk) 22:50, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
Frietjes, the TfD its the place to go. Especially since it was not even proposed as a merge (deletion only). There can not be discussion at two places. -DePiep (talk) 22:28, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
Re Frietjes: I don't understand. Why not discuss a merge at the central place where the marge is proposed (sort of)? -DePiep (talk) 22:51, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
I thought I had it done right, but could not see my change rendering on another article page. Well, now I see this protection message. I am trying to add a "expenses_year = " parameter. This is similar to the "budget_year = " and "revenue_year = " parameters. Once added it will allow for a year display in the left-hand column immediately below the line "Expenses". Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 00:08, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
Ah, amending the doc page has no effect on how the template operates. Perhaps you'd like to update the sandbox with your proposal? --Redrose64 (talk) 16:51, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I see that is the case with this doc page. (I have had success with a few non-protected templates in the past.) But playing in the sandbox is a bit more complicated/difficult as I know very little about how parameters work. Hence my request here. – S. Rich (talk) 17:18, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
Not done: It's fine to request someone else do the coding here. But I've deactivated the edit request template, as they are meant to be used for edits where the code is already written and tested, not for coding requests. Please reactivate it again once there is working code in the sandbox. Best — Mr. Stradivarius♪ talk ♪00:41, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
Location parameter Microformat result
I was looking at the vcard information produced by the template, and I notice that the contents of location parameter show up in the vcard as a label rather than an adr. i.e. The information is there but it will lack semantic meaning for programs reading it. Was that the intended result? (If not, changing class17 from "label" to "adr" produces the expected markup.) Since this is bound to be an issue across many infoboxes, would there be a more central place to raise the issue?
As well, since Microformat markup seems to be the major difference between headquarters and location, a hint in the docs that location is preferred for an actual address might be good. AndroidCat (talk) 17:04, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
Yes, it's the intended result'; because we often don't have sufficient granularity to determine whether or when to use "street address". "locality" or "region". Changing to "adr" will not produce a valid microformat, because those child properties are required. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits18:00, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
Ah yes, wildly popular! Fortunately as lord, master and chief drudge of my own wiki, I can enforce standards. I think I'll roll my own that uses positional rather than named parameters. e.g. {{My-adr|6331 Hollywood Blvd.|Ste 1200|Los Angeles|California|USA}} rather than {{Mf-add | street = 6331 Hollywood Blvd. | city = Los Angeles | region = CA | nation = USA | pocode = }} AndroidCat (talk) 21:22, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
Parameter order would be impossible to insure and parameters before last would not be omissible. There's also that extra second I'd have to waste on figuring out what the expected value of each parameter is; my time is very precious, indeed. As a general rule, unless the template takes only one argument, named parameters should be used. Alakzi (talk) 22:13, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
Jurisdiction
For corporate entities, this is the most important fact of their existence: Which legal jurisdiction are they founded in? Without that, parameters such as registration_id, tax_id and even name are meaningless. Is there a non-obvious parameter used to indicate this?
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
I see from the archives this has been raised before (in 2010 and 2011), but I would echo earlier points...Extinction is primarily a biological term, it is not applied to organisations. Political parties, associations, companies etc do not become "extinct"....the most accurate term would be dissolved/dissolution; FWIW I prefer the latter. Thanks. --Goldsztajn (talk) 14:12, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
@Redrose64: Thanks for the follow-up. Between 2009-15 six editors have questioned the use of "extinction", the most common response is replacement with dissolved. One editor in 2010 made a comment against the change.... 6/7 ... how many years do we wait for consensus? :) --Goldsztajn (talk) 11:33, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
I support Goldsztajn's suggestion that extinction is less useful in this context and that dissolution would be a more appropriate term for the time when organisation closes down. Drchriswilliams (talk) 11:43, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
FWIW, I also support User:Goldsztajn's suggestion that extinction is less useful in this context and that dissolution would be a more appropriate term. Donner60 (talk) 05:47, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
Editing the template
This request for help from administrators has been answered. If you need more help or have additional questions, please reapply the {{admin help}} template, or contact the responding user(s) directly on their own user talk page.
Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. This request does not require admin input, because it can be edited by template editors. Please be more clear about the edit(s) you would like to be made to this template, and if possible, use this template's sandbox to make the actual edits you desire. Thank you – Painius01:27, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
@Paine Ellsworth: As I have found on various article's infobox that the contributors have used flag which violates WP:INFOBOXFLAG. I wanted to mention the same as it is already on other infobox templates. Also, it is requested that please do not interfere in the matters which require admin actions. Change for request was quite simple which you failed to understand and of course it require experience to do so. — SanskariHangout09:00, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
You're right, I don't understand. First, you say you want WP:INFOBOXFLAG added to "the see also section". That section, which is in the documentation page, does not require an admin nor a TE to edit. You may edit that section yourself. Then you go on to say you want the icon guideline added to "other fields where one can place flag (template) while using the infobox". While I am still unclear about this, it sounds like you want the guideline referenced at different places in the documentation. And again, you can make documentation edits. Just in case there is actually something you want done that requires an administrator, I have reopened the {{Admin help}} template for you. Joys! and Best of Everything to You and Yours! – Painius13:17, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
I am not sure whether anyone could understand exactly what you are asking for from the vague explanations you have given. Please quote exactly what text you want added to the template source and where it should be added, and if that text should replace some existing text then say what existing text needs to be removed. For example, if I wanted a change to the "successor" field, I might say please replace "data6 = {{{successor|}}}" with "data6 = {{{blaa blaa blaa|}}}", I would not just say please make the successor come into line with guidelines on blaa blaa bla. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 11:58, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
A lot of organizations have logos. Can we please add a logo parameter? I like the way it works for {infobox company}, where the software automatically sizes it. I think that's better (and easier) than asking editors to try to make sure they all use 240px. Also, I believe the software will automatically size it for readers, so that's even better. Faceless Enemy (talk) 12:41, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
Frietjes, if you add the "image" parameter in, the "logo" parameter stops working. So it seems to "prefer" the "image" parameter over the "logo" parameter, even if "image" is blank. As I understand it, {infobox company} will accept both parameters. Faceless Enemy (talk) 15:54, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
@Frietjes: Can you include the logo_alt parameter into the template so we can present alt text (WP:ALT) to visually impaired individuals? It is listed in the /doc but is not actually functional in template; when previewing a page the server complains with: "unknown parameter 'logo_alt'". Any help fixing this is most appreciated. -- dsprc[talk]21:11, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
WP:MISSION gives a pretty good set of reasons why mission statements should be avoided (they are sometimes meaningless, often self-serving and non-neutral, and often non-notable). Should we be putting an organization's mission statement into its infobox? That at least has the effect of "insulating" it. Would it be worth adding a comment to the mission statement parameter like "<-- only if covered in secondary sources -->"? Or is WP:MISSION a bad/useless essay? Faceless Enemy (talk) 02:31, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
WP:MISSION is an essay, and perhaps not an automatic reason for deleting sourced material. But however it's interpreted, it should be applied consistently. Felsic2 (talk) 14:49, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
Well, the essay flows from the principle of WP:UNDUE; mission statements are often very biased and of little value to the reader. To me, the dividing line was whether it was given its own section in an article (making it very prominent) or chopped down and put into quotes for the infobox (making it smaller and attributing the POV). But if it's not due for the article, then it may not be due for the infobox. I could go either way as far as the infobox. Faceless Enemy (talk) 15:10, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
I don't see why this is just an infobox issue. The dispute is over whther to include mission statements anywhere in the article. But, if the answer is to exclude them, then it'd make sense to delete the field in the infobox.Felsic2 (talk) 16:43, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
Swapping the logo and image fields?
Normally, the logo would be above the image represented (usually a building/HQ). It looks awkward to have the logo below an image. SounderBruce22:56, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
A new parameter |wiki= could be useful for highlighting an organization's wiki site. This could generate the label Wiki site and take a {{URL}} template. Just a suggestion. RobbieIanMorrison (talk) 09:31, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
They might also have a URL for a blog, a forum, a product catalog, and 50 other things. Why would we need parameters to show this stuff in any infobox when it's already going to be available from the organization's main website's navigation? — SMcCandlish ☺☏¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 17:32, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
Not only should it not be highlighted, it has no place in the article. Thes ingle link to the website is sufficient. They are responsible for dealing with the details, and with their other social media. DGG ( talk ) 05:58, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
There can be exceptions, but they require context and sourcing. E.g., it can be readily sourced that the primary venue of technical information on the Ubuntu operating system is the "Community Wiki" site hosted by Canonical Ltd., not Canonical's formal documentation. Such a situation isn't an infobox matter. — SMcCandlish ☺☏¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 10:24, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
Unresolved
