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

Organizations Template‑class

This template is within the scope of WikiProject Organizations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Organizations 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.OrganizationsWikipedia:WikiProject OrganizationsTemplate:WikiProject Organizationsorganization Template This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2

This page has archives. Sections older than 92 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.

I suggest adding a new parameter called "flag(s)", "prayer(s)" and '"ideology" ( ideologies). Italawar (talk) 13:45, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Italawar: Can you provide an examples of where these would be useful? Ergo Sum 05:29, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Ergo Sum: I think the feature would be handy in regard to pages such as Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh, Vishva Hindu Parishad and Momentum (organisation) etc. Italawar (talk) 08:19, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ideology seems to already be covered by purpose. The other two seem to marginal to be included in the infobox. Ergo Sum 15:47, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Flag would seem to be covered by logo or image. Prayers will only be relevant for a tiny number of religious organizations (certainly not Momentum!) and is not important enough even to be mentioned in the text of the other two examples you mention, so I don't see how they could be justified for an infobox – unless you mean something different from what I think you mean. Hairy Dude (talk) 01:08, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Ergo Sum and Hairy Dude: Consider the difference between Ideology and Purpose, Flag and Logo and Flag and Image. Italawar (talk) 08:14, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

For ideology, just use the "war faction" infobox, which has it. – Illegitimate Barrister (talk • contribs), 02:17, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest adding a new parameter called "flag(s)", "prayer(s)" and '"ideology" ( ideologies). Italawar (talk) 10:28, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit template-protected}} template. You'll need to announce your discussion to the interested projects, WT:WikiProject Organizations and WT:WikiProject Infoboxes. Cabayi (talk) 11:54, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

For ideology, just use the "war faction" infobox, which has it. – Illegitimate Barrister (talk • contribs), 02:17, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. In order to implement the merge of {{Infobox motorcycle club}} to {{Infobox organization}} as decided by this TFD, I've added two parameters to the sandbox: "Marque" and "Activities". If there are no objections, I plan to add them to the main {{Infobox organization}} in 3 or more days; if there is an objection, I will wait until there is a consensus. (A link here will be posted to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Organizations and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Infoboxes). Cheers, Mdaniels5757 (talk) 14:04, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What is provided by these parameters that is not already available? Nikkimaria (talk) 15:58, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nikkimaria, "activities" is for the particular activities performed by the group (distinct from "purpose"), "marque" is a distinguishing feature. Both are required to implement the TfD. Mdaniels5757 (talk) 01:00, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

How is "activities" distinct from "purpose"? What do you mean by "distinguishing feature"? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:40, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nikkimaria, Sorry. Since I'm clearly not explaining things well, here are examples for activities/purpose and for marque. Best, Mdaniels5757 (talk) 17:16, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The latter seems particularly not useful. The former could be, although it will need clear documentation to distinguish from not only "purpose" but also products and services. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:19, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nikkimaria, fair points. Given the TfD for the merge being pending, any thoughts on how to otherwise resolve the parameter differences? Other than just removing them from the infobox entirely. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:09, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

To move forward, I have some thoughts. On that template:

• |activities= is used at [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9] (exhaustive list, according to Special:Search). During merge, I think many of these can accurately be split into |purpose=/|focus=. On some there's slight ambiguity (eg Bikers Against Child Abuse), there I think motorcycling can be stripped, the rest can be moved into lead or into the aforementioned params. Others similar: move into lead, or remove as shouldn't be in infobox anyway. Some articles use the param as a de facto "notable for".
• |marque= is used at about 5-6 articles. It's used for listing the organisation's 'characteristic mark', usually just the brand of motorcycles they can ride. We can just move this into lead.

@Nikkimaria, @Mdaniels5757: Thoughts? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:24, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

IMO moving the "activities" content to |purpose= would make sense in only two of the listed cases: Patriot Guard Riders and British Motorcyclists Federation. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:05, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nikkimaria in some of the other cases I think the value should just be removed from the infobox. e.g. at Satyrs Motorcycle Club it's not being used for activities but more of a de-facto "known for". For a couple of them, perhaps yes, purpose doesn't quite make sense. I guess an activities param for smaller organisations wouldn't be useless. Would you support just adding |activities=? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 16:27, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've yet to see a case where I think it would be a benefit. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:11, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nikkimaria, any proposals on what should be done with those 9 usages of activities? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 13:27, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Would suggest moving to text if not already present there. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:56, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, please add:

 | image5 = {{#if:{{{image_coat|}}}{{{image_symbol|}}}{{{image_flag|}}}{{{image_flag2|}}}
  |{{infobox country/imagetable
    |image1a = {{#invoke:InfoboxImage|InfoboxImage|suppressplaceholder={{main other||no}}|image={{{image_flag|}}}|sizedefault=125px|size={{{flag_width|{{{flag_size|}}}}}}|maxsize=250|border={{yesno |{{{flag_border|}}}|yes=yes|blank=yes}}|alt={{{alt_flag|{{{flag_alt|}}}}}}|title=Flag of {{{name|{{{name|{{{linking_name|{{PAGENAME}}}}}}}}}}}}}
    |image1b = {{#invoke:InfoboxImage|InfoboxImage|suppressplaceholder={{main other||no}}|image={{{image_flag2|}}}|sizedefault=125px|size={{{flag_width|}}}|maxsize=250|border={{yesno |{{{flag2_border|}}}|yes=yes|blank=yes}}|alt={{{alt_flag2|{{{flag_alt2|}}}}}}}}
    |caption1= {{#ifexist:{{if empty |{{{flag_type_article|}}} |{{{flag|}}} | {{if empty |{{{flag_type|}}} |Flag}} of {{if empty |{{{linking_name|}}} |{{{name|}}} |{{{name|}}} |{{PAGENAME}} }} }} |[[{{if empty |{{{flag_type_article|}}} |{{{flag|}}} |{{if empty |{{{flag_type|}}} |Flag}} of {{if empty |{{{linking_name|}}} |{{{name|}}} |{{{name|}}} |{{PAGENAME}} }} }}|{{if empty |{{{flag_caption|}}} |{{{flag_type|}}} |Flag}}]] |{{if empty |{{{flag_caption|}}} |{{{flag_type|}}} |Flag}} }}
    |image2  = {{#invoke:InfoboxImage|InfoboxImage|suppressplaceholder={{main other||no}}|image={{if empty|{{{image_coat|}}}|{{{image_symbol|}}}}} |size={{{symbol_width|{{{coa_size|}}}}}}|sizedefault=85px|alt={{#if:{{{image_coat|}}}|{{{alt_coat|{{{coat_alt|}}}}}}|{{{alt_symbol|}}}}}|title={{{symbol_type|Coat of arms}}} of {{{name|{{{name|{{{linking_name|{{PAGENAME}}}}}}}}}}}}}
    |caption2= {{#ifexist:{{if empty |{{{symbol_type_article|}}} |{{{symbol|}}} |{{if empty |{{{symbol_type|}}} |Coat of arms}} of {{if empty |{{{linking_name|}}} |{{{name|}}} |{{{name|}}} |{{PAGENAME}} }} }} |[[{{if empty |{{{symbol_type_article|}}} |{{{symbol|}}} |{{if empty |{{{symbol_type|}}} |Coat of arms}} of {{if empty |{{{linking_name|}}} |{{{name|}}} |{{{name|}}} |{{PAGENAME}} }} }} | {{if empty |{{{symbol_type|}}} |Coat of arms}}]] |{{if empty |{{{symbol_type|}}} |Coat of arms}} }}
    }} }}

Also make sure to add | image_coat | image_flag | image_flag2 | image_symbol | to the unknown parameters check to prevent any categorization errors. Thanks. – Illegitimate Barrister (talk • contribs), 01:12, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done for now: please provide a rationale, and is there consensus for this change? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 19:39, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Is there anything more specific than this template for a Political action committee? -- RoySmith (talk) 19:18, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Don't think so. {{Infobox union}} is used for trade orgs, but most use this (org) template. Are there any parameters missing for PAC usage? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 20:58, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ProcrastinatingReader, Not that I'm specifically aware of. I'm just curious because I reverted John C. Haynes's change where he put in {{Infobox political party}} and I got to wondering if there was a better way. -- RoySmith (talk) 21:04, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm proposing to change/remove the 'extinction' parameter because the Wikidata item is described as "termination of a kind of organism or of a group of species in a population or globally over certain period of time", which has nothing to do with an organization. I would add 'defunct' to 'dissolved' and remove 'extinction'. Funandtrvl (talk) 19:48, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dissolved is the proper term for a corporation. This is much better than extinction in general for organizations. I also note there isn't an 'acquired by' field for entities that are bought or otherwise taken over by another entity instead of merged. --Ian Korman (talk) 10:01, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like a weird word to use for organisations. Defunct would sound better for contexts where dissolved (usually for incorporated bodies) isn't appropriate. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 10:23, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, I'm proposing to keep 'dissolved' and change 'extinction' to 'defunct'. Funandtrvl (talk) 18:56, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request: 1) have the parameters extinction and dissolved show the label "Dissolved" (extinction should not show "Extinction"). 2) Add |defunct= as a choice, showing "Defunct" as the label. 3) Add the parameter 'extinction' to the tracking category Category:Pages using infobox organization with unknown parameters. I'd normally be able to do it, but I'm not sure how to do the parser functions. Thanks, Funandtrvl (talk) 20:22, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is not entirely clear, but I have replaced the label "Extinction" with "Dissolved". About 1,000 articles use |extinction=, and it is still supported by the template, so removing it from the list of parameters in the unknown parameter check is not appropriate yet. The existing uses would need to be converted first. – Jonesey95 (talk) 21:45, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Primefac has a bot which I believe is approved for things like this (deprecation of |extinction=, replace with |dissolved=, or a newly created |defunct=, depending on how this discussion goes). Polite request to put up PrimeBOT for the task, plus a bribe of cookies, may do the trick. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 16:55, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, might take me a while to remember and/or code it all up. Am I reading the discussion above correctly that it is only |extinction= being converted to |dissolved=? Primefac (talk) 18:01, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I believe to |defunct= now, as the param has now been added in from sandbox. Extinction is more akin to defunct than dissolved I think ('dissolved' is usually for incorporated companies/structures). ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 18:15, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree, dissolution (law) usually does pertain to corporations, even non-profits; but, I agree that defunct is the better choice of parameters to replace extinction. Thanks for all your help! Funandtrvl (talk) 22:38, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, @Jonesey95:, that is partly what we were striving for! The 'extinction' and 'dissolved' parameters should show 'Dissolved', as you have implemented. Is there also a way to add a 3rd choice to the set, within the same data and label parameter, which would be: if using 'defunct', instead of 'extinction' or 'dissolved' to show in the label, 'Defunct', instead of 'Dissolved'? In other words, there would be 3 choices, extinction, dissolved and defunct, with extinction and dissolved displaying Dissolved in the label, and defunct displaying Defunct in the label, instead of Dissolved. Or, do we need to add an additional parameter # to accomplish this? Thanks so much, Funandtrvl (talk) 15:38, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It can be one with one label. See my edit in the sandbox. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 17:06, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, thank you, that's what I was looking for! I'll update the template, since I re-ordered the image parameters to be in numerical order, since the sandbox version. Funandtrvl (talk) 19:00, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to somewhat forget about this, but is everything set to replace the param? Primefac (talk) 12:26, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Primefac: yes, it looks like changing 'extinction' to 'defunct' would work. Are you able to pull the parameter from the transclusions, or does it get pulled from Category:Pages using infobox organization with unknown parameters, instead? Or, do we need to create a category just for that parameter? Funandtrvl (talk) 18:01, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Given that it's not currently an "unknown" parameter, it won't show up there. With ~1000 pages using extinction (based on TemplateData that's almost a month old), and ~3000 pages in the "unknown parameter" category, it would probably make more sense to either pull the pages from the TemplateData or set up a specific tracking category. The former involves more setup (since I have to copy/paste all the pages into a list) but involves less waiting-around-for-the-29000-transclusions-to-be-cached time. Primefac (talk) 19:22, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, copy/pasting ten pages of TemplateData info isn't that onerous, so I'll just do that. I'll try to get to it at some point this week. Primefac (talk) 19:24, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like someone beat me to it, TemplateData doesn't show any uses. Primefac (talk) 17:27, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, you're right! I guess I'll remove 'extinction' from the template. Thanks for all your hard work!! Funandtrvl (talk) 18:30, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to start adding information on funders of organisations to their infoboxes with a focus on lobbying groups, astroturfing groups and think tanks, I think it will be helpful for readers to understand the groups motivations including where the group refuses to disclose its funders. However Template:Infobox organization doesn't currently have a field for funders, is someone able to add it please?

Thanks

John Cummings (talk) 17:19, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with this proposal. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:39, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]