Jump to content

Template talk:Infobox organization/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

|colspan="2" align="center"| showing up when image is added

e.g. Community Emergency Response Team, International Atomic Energy Agency, Cult Awareness Network etc. Can somebody fix that? I don't know how to. Thanks. --Rajah (talk) 17:36, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Fix request

Please There is an extraneous line break at the top of the template that I can't seem to find; it causes the box and subsequent text to be lowered one line for no reason (e.g. American Unitarian Conference.) Thanks. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:48, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Fixed. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:34, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
Thanks That's very helpful. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:37, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Broken hCard

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)

Fixed this problem. --coldacid (talk|contrib) 02:51, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Placement of title

Please tweak the template so the Organization's title is inside the box. It looks rather disconnected outside the box. The Infobox Journal is a good example. An example of its use is at Journal of the American Medical Association, whereas an example of this template is at Quackwatch, where the title looks pretty lonesome out there. -- Fyslee / talk 04:39, 2 October 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) - talk 08:15, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
We can get used to anything, but we don't have to. Infobox Journal doesn't work that way and it produces a much cleaner result. I figured we could improve things. -- Fyslee / talk 13:28, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
I'd much rather it went the other way. The old "randomly-styled wikitable using randomly-picked colours" approach to navbox design used in {{infobox Journal}} is antiquated and inconsistent. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:49, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

"Types" defined?

I was going to add this infobox to some organization articles currently lacking it, such as:

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  talk 16:58, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I've used the value "NPO" with a link to Non-profit organization. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 03:06, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Add "founder" to template

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)

Why extinction?

Why is it "extinction" instead of "disbanding"? Seems like a weird term to use. Kwsn (Ni!) 23:38, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

This was brought up again recently at Talk:LulzSec. I agree it's an odd choice of words. I think "Formed" and "Disbanded" would be better. Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 15:13, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Recent changes

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 edits 20:39, 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 edits 21:22, 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) - talk 10:02, 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 sandbox Shubi (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.
I also think that the Template:Infobox Geopolitical organization should merged here rather than redirect to Template:Infobox country. Beagel (talk) 11:58, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
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)
I agree.Shubi (talk) 16:19, 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)

Anyone?Shubi (talk) 20:26, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Protection level changed

Due to the level of transclusions, the protection level has been changed in accord with Wikipedia:High-risk templates. Skier Dude (talk) 09:05, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Predecessor and successor fields

I propose to add 'predecessor' and 'successor' fields similar to the fields in the companies infobox template. Like in case of the companies, organizations may have predecessors and successors. The practical need for these fields raised in the context of the European Network of Transmission System Operators for Electricity but they may needed also in some other articles. I propose to add these fields as they were added before reversion. Beagel (talk) 20:20, 22 January 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)
I also agree that Predecessor and former name are very different things, for example World Wide Fund for Nature, World Wrestling Entertainment, and Greenpeace have all changed their names while remaining the same entity.193.185.2.162 (talk) 15:18, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

There is no discussion for four days. Could we proceed now with restoring these fields? Beagel (talk) 11:15, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

I would say yes.Shubi (talk) 16:20, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Redirect of the geopolitical organization infobox

Currently the template:Infobox Geopolitical organization redirects to the template:Infobox country. I propose to redirect it instead to the template:Infobox organization as the geopolitical organization is also an organization and is more close to a general organizations than countries. please discuss this proposal here. Beagel (talk) 19:23, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Extinction

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)
Agree. Dissolved sounds more appropriate. Beagel (talk) 17:53, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
Not all organisations end with dissolution; hence the use of a more generic term. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 11:14, 25 March 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)

Edit request

{tlx|{Editprotected}} Please fix This template has some unnecessary line breaks at the bottom, pushing down the text of the article (e.g. European Unitarian Universalists.) Please amend this template to resolve this issue. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:18, 2 May 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)
I see no issues either, at least on that article provided (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 22:18, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
Example page renders just fine in Firefox 3.6.3 and IE 8.0.6001.18702. No need for change.  Not done  Ronhjones  (Talk) 22:29, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Suggestion for a new template

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. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 18:51, 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? 

|abovestyle = background: {{ifempty|{{{bgcolor|}}}|#C6C9FF}}; color: {{ifempty|{{{fgcolor|}}}|#000}};

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.

Oxguy3[dubious – discuss] 19:26, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

No opposition, so  Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:10, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

{{edit protected}}

Oppose: There is now a ugly purple background on articles not changing the colour. The default background should be "none":
|abovestyle = background: {{ifempty|{{{bgcolor|}}}|none}}; color: {{ifempty|{{{fgcolor|}}}|#000}};

-- d'oh! talk 06:10, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Okay,  Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:44, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Native name

Unresolved

Shall we add |native_name= and |native_name_lang=, in the same manner as in {{Infobox settlement}} and {{Infobox person}}? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:15, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Nudge. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:31, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Foundation default template

The Foundation parameter is set to use template {{Start date and years ago|YYYY|MM|DD}} as a default. This template is not usable untless a full date is provided. Is there a reason why this was chosen instead of {{Start date and age}} which does essentially the same thing but supports {{Start date and age|YYYY}}, {{Start date and age|YYYY|MM}}, and {{Start date and age|YYYY|MM|DD}}? -- Whpq (talk) 22:36, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

seems like this would be the editor to ask? Frietjes (talk) 23:03, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
I wasn't involved, but I see no reason why {{Start date and age}}, or event just {{Start date}}, shouldn't be used. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:30, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
if you weren't involved, then why did you change it? Frietjes (talk) 23:47, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
I've boldy changed the doc to use {{Start date and age|YYYY|MM|DD}} -- Whpq (talk) 23:51, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
Thank you. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:14, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
To match the other examples already on that page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:14, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Founded place

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)

seems reasonable. see also {{infobox political party}} for similar parameters. we should try to be consistent where it makes sense. Frietjes (talk) 19:36, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
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

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)

It's because you had the image inside square brackets. Now fixed. -- WOSlinker (talk) 13:38, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
Thank you!! --Derek Andrews (talk) 13:49, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

We have an option for the organizational website in the InfoBox. Perhaps we should add Twitter, LinkedIn, and Facebook page options as appropriate? -- Avi (talk) 18:51, 12 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)

Native name

Could we add a native_name in consideration of non-English language based organizations, as is done in {{infobox company}}, {{infobox university}}, {{infobox settlement}}, {{infobox school}}, and others? This had been proposed previously (Shall we add |native_name= and |native_name_lang=, in the same manner as in {{Infobox settlement}} and {{Infobox person}}? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:15, 27 April 2012 (UTC)), but was never discussed or implemented. Akola369 (talk) 16:01, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

added. Frietjes (talk) 18:02, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Board members

Organisations are often organised around a Board of directors - shouldn't there be fields so that these individuals can be listed? Zambelo (talk) 04:02, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

since there are no objections, I will add it. Frietjes (talk) 17:08, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

British English variant

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)

fixed. Frietjes (talk) 17:08, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 6 May 2014

Please update the template per the sandbox version here. Amendments made and rationale in the sandbox history; generalized example added to the testcases page. Sardanaphalus (talk) 11:24, 6 May 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 Ellsworth CLIMAX! 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.
Sardanaphalus (talk) 18:22, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
{{{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. — lfdder 01:55, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
That is subtle. Thanks for pointing out – I can see it's something I'll need to keep in mind. I've used it in the below (#List of changes). Sardanaphalus (talk) 21:20, 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 Ellsworth CLIMAX! 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:
| subheader = {{{native name|{{{native_name|}}}}}}
– Paine Ellsworth CLIMAX! 03:14, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

List of changes

I've reset the sandbox and made the following changes to it, which I hope are worth copying to the main template. Sardanaphalus (talk) 10:08, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

  • 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.

(From top to bottom:)

Typo correction: 

{{ infobox   ----->   {{Infobox

subheader doesn't seem to work fully unless: 

| subheader  = {{{native name|{{{native_name|}}}}}}   ----->   | subheader  = {{#if:{{{native name|}}} |{{{native name}}} |{{{native_name|}}} }}

Ditto image and removed rogue {{{image2|}}}: 

| image = {{#invoke:InfoboxImage|InfoboxImage|image={{{image|{{{image_border|}}}}}}|size={{{image_size|{{{size|}}}}}}|sizedefault=frameless|alt={{{alt|}}}}}{{{image|2}}}
----->
| image      = {{#invoke:InfoboxImage|InfoboxImage |image={{#if:{{{image_border|}}}|{{{image_border}}}|{{{image|}}}}} |size={{#if:{{{size|}}}|{{{size}}}|{{{image_size|}}}}} |sizedefault=frameless |alt={{{alt|}}} }}

Ditto image2 and caption2: 

| image2    = {{#invoke:InfoboxImage|InfoboxImage|image={{{map|}}}|size={{{map_size|{{{msize|}}}}}}|sizedefault=250px|alt={{{map_alt|{{{malt|}}}}}}}}
| caption2  = {{{map_caption|{{{mcaption|}}}}}}
----->
| image2    = {{#invoke:InfoboxImage|InfoboxImage |image={{{map|}}} |size={{#if:{{{msize|}}}|{{{msize}}}|{{{map_size|}}}}} |sizedefault=250px |alt={{#if:{{{malt|}}}|{{{malt}}}|{{{map_alt|}}} }}
| caption2  = {{#if:{{{mcaption|}}} |{{{mcaption}}} |{{{map_caption|}}} }}

Reapplied image3 update by Frietjes: 

| image3    = {{{map2|}}}   ----->   | image3    = {{#invoke:InfoboxImage|InfoboxImage |image={{{map2|}}} |size={{{map2_size|}}} |sizedefault=250px |alt={{{map2_alt|}}} }}

Added caption3 after image3: 

| caption3  = {{{map2_caption|}}}

Added labelstyle before label1, with blank line above and below : 

| labelstyle = padding-right:0.6em;<!--(to ensure enough gap between any (unwrapped) long labels and following data)-->

| label1    = Abbreviation

Added blank line after data1, data2, data3, data4, data5, data6.

Added plural-handling to label7: 

| label7    = Founder(s)   ----->   | label7    = Founder{{#if:{{{founder|}}} | |s}}

data7 (founder/founders) doesn't seem to work unless: 

| data7     = {{{founder|{{{founders|}}}}}}   ----->   | data7     = {{#if:{{{founders|}}} |{{{founders}}} |{{{founder|}}} }}

Added blank line after data7, data8.

label9 (typo?): 

| label9   = Merge&nbsp;of   ----->   | label9   = Merger&nbsp;of

Added blank line after data9, data10.

Gave label11 managed linewrapping: 

| label11   = Legal&nbsp;status   ----->   | label11   = {{longitem|Legal status}}

Added blank line after data11.

Replaced label12: 

| label12   = Purpose/focus   ----->   | label12   = {{#if:{{{focus|}}} |Focus |Purpose}}

Added alternate data12 parameter name, a blank line after data12 and gave label13 managed linewrapping: 

| data12    = {{{purpose|}}}   -----> | data12    = {{#if:{{{focus|}}} |{{{focus}}} |{{{purpose|}}} }}

| label13   = Professional title   ----->   | label13   = {{longitem|Professional title}}

Added blank line after data13, data14, data15, data16.

Added alternate data17 parameter name and, consequently, amended label17: 

| label17   = Region&nbsp;served     ----->   | label17   = {{longitem|Region {{#if:{{{region_served|}}} |served}}}}
| data17    = {{{region_served|}}}   ----->   | data17    = {{#if:{{{region_served|}}} |{{{region_served}}} |{{{region|}}} }}

Added blank line after data17, data18, data19.

Added alternate data20 parameter and amended label20: 

| label20   = Official&nbsp;languages   ----->   | label20   = {{longitem|Official language{{#if:{{{language|}}} | |s}}}}
| data20    = {{{language|}}}           ----->   | data20    = {{#if:{{{languages|}}} |{{{languages}}} |{{{language|}}} }}

Added blank line after data 20.

Gave label21 managed linewrapping, added alternate data21 parameter name and blank line after data21: 

| label21   = Secretary&nbsp;General   ----->   | label21   = {{longitem|Secretary General}}
| data21    = {{{general|}}}   ----->   | data21    = {{#if:{{{general|}}} |{{{general}}} |{{{sec_gen|}}} }}

Added longitem to label22 in case leader_title is long, then added blank line after data22: 

| label22   = {{#if:{{{leader_title|}}}|{{{leader_title}}}|Leader}}   ----->   | label22   = {{#if:{{{leader_title|}}} |{{longitem|{{{leader_title}}}}} |Leader}}
| data22    = {{{leader_name|}}}

Ditto labels 23, 24, 25: 

| label23   = {{{leader_title2|}}}   ----->   | label23   = {{longitem|{{{leader_title2|}}}}}
| data23    = {{{leader_name2|}}}

| label24   = {{{leader_title3|}}}   ----->   | label24   = {{longitem|{{{leader_title3|}}}}}
| data24    = {{{leader_name3|}}}

| label25   = {{{leader_title4|}}}   ----->   | label25   = {{longitem|{{{leader_title4|}}}}}
| data25    = {{{leader_name4|}}}

Added/ensured label26's managed linewrapping: 

| label26   = [[Board of directors]]   ----->   | label26   = {{longitem|[[Board of directors|{{allow wrap|Board&nbsp;of directors}}]]}}

Added blank line after data 26.

Gave label27 managed linewrapping: 

| label27   = Key people   ----->   | label27   = {{longitem|Key people}}

Added blank line after data27.

Ditto label28: 

| label28   = {{#if:{{{main_organ|}}}|Main&nbsp;organ|Publication}}   ----->   | label28   = {{#if:{{{main_organ|}}} |{{longitem|Main organ}} |Publication}}

Added blank line after data28.

Ditto label29, plus more succinct #if: 

| label29   = {{#if:{{{parent_organisation|}}}|Parent&nbsp;organisation|Parent&nbsp;organization}}   ----->   | label29   = {{longitem|Parent organi{{#if:{{{parent_organisation|}}} |s |z}}ation}}

Added blank line after data29.

data30 (subsidiaries/subsid) doesn't seem to work unless: 

| data30    = {{{subsidiaries|{{{subsid|}}}}}}   ----->   | data30    = {{#if:{{{subsid|}}} |{{{subsid}}} |{{{subsidiaries|}}} }}

Added blank line after data30, 31, 32 and 33.

Added alternate parameter names to data34 and 35 and blank line after data34: 

| data34    = {{{num_staff|}}}        ----->   | data34    = {{#if:{{{num_staff|}}} |{{{num_staff}}} |{{{staff|}}} }}

| label35   = Volunteers
| data35    = {{{num_volunteers|}}}   ----->   | data35    = {{#if:{{{num_volunteers|}}} |{{{num_volunteers}}} |{{{volunteers|}}} }}

Added blank line after data35, 36, 37 and 38.

Gave label39 managed linewrapping, corrected data39's parameter handling and added a further alternate parameter name: 

| label39   = Former name                            ----->    | label39   = {{longitem|Former name}}
| class39   = nickname
| data39    = {{{former_name|{{{former name|}}}}}}   ----->    | data39    = {{#if:{{{former name|}}}|{{{former name}}} |{{#if:{{{former_name|}}} |{{{former_name}}} |{{{formerly|}}} }} }}

Added blank line before and after before.

Simplified noinclude section after template: 

}}{{#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)

Done – and thank you very much! – Paine Ellsworth CLIMAX! 15:00, 8 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)
Thank you very much for catching my errors, Frietjes! Joys to you both! – Paine Ellsworth CLIMAX! 16:30, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Recent style change

@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 edits 10:20, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

  • If the tweaks I've made would work / be accepted globally, I agree. Meanwhile:
    1. 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);
    2. excess whitespace removed from code (primarily that between "label/dataN"s and subsequent equals-signs) and some added elsewhere (primarily newlines) to aid comprehension;
    3. labels 7 and 26's code now a little more elegant (hopefully);
    4. the nbsp in label12 is linewrap management;
    5. the brackets in label18 were surplus (compare label/data17) (and, in any case, distracting);
    6. replacing the multiple instances of {{longitem}} in labels with styling in labelstyle simpler / more elegant, no..?
Hope that's sufficient explanation. Sardanaphalus (talk) 10:36, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
Like I said, style changes would be better applied to the parent template. If they're not accepted globally, they're almost certainly not needed here. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:29, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
  • 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 edits 22:18, 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)
You suport them by removing them? *boggle*. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:35, 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)
Had you not recently removed those two parameters, they would still be in the template. Some support! Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:38, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
And I notice that you have now added Category:Pages using infobox organization with unsupported parameters, even though they are only "unsupported" because you removed them. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:33, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict) There is a discussion at TfD, as you know. Don't start forum shopping. -DePiep (talk) 22:26, 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)
DePiep, Oxfam isn't a criminal organisation, so I would rather not discuss Oxfam there. Frietjes (talk) 22:29, 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)
Once again, DePiep, please stop inventing rules in the fly. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:35, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
DePiep, I've had enough of your false accusations, lately. Stop, now. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:35, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Change template for merging banner parameter

This infobox template is currently a candidate for merging. The {{tfm}} template used to indicate this however does not specify |type=sidebar parameter. I was able to fix this on Template:Infobox criminal organization (the template being merged here), but this one is edit-protected. Thanks, hydrox (talk) 21:08, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Done, Thanks! Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 21:44, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Add "expenses_year ="

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)

@Srich32977: When you say "I thought I had it done right" - what did you change? I see no recent edits by you to the template's sandbox, see WP:TESTCASES. --Redrose64 (talk) 10:29, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
I modified the documentation page here.Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 15:19, 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 edits 18:00, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. Is there a template for specifying a full granular address, similar to template:start_date for dates? AndroidCat (talk) 19:20, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
None that I know of. Some infoboxes use separate parameters. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:02, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
There's {{Mf-adr}}, which is used in all of nine articles. Alakzi (talk) 20:07, 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?

(Allowance should be made for jurisdictions such as Delaware, which acts like an Ellis Island for foreign corporations.) AndroidCat (talk) 06:24, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Extinction (redux)

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)

Requesting change of extinction to dissolution in the organisation infobox.--Goldsztajn (talk) 09:08, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

@Goldsztajn: Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit template-protected}} template. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:53, 4 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

I would like to add WP:INFOBOXFLAG in the see also section and other fields where one can place flag (template) while using the infobox. — Sanskari Hangout 17:23, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

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 – Painius  01:27, 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. — Sanskari Hangout 09:00, 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! – Painius  13:17, 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)

I don't know what all the fuss is about. I've made the requested edit. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:17, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you @Pigsonthewing: for understanding the query. — Sanskari Hangout 13:54, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Add logo parameter?

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)

Faceless Enemy, although it is not documented, you can use |image1= and/or |logo=. Frietjes (talk) 15:05, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
Frietjes, I tried adding it in over at International Society for Bayesian Analysis and it doesn't seem to be working correctly. What am I doing wrong? Faceless Enemy (talk) 03:26, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
Faceless Enemy, I don't see any problem? Frietjes (talk) 14:10, 30 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)
okay, fixed by moving logo to below the top image. Frietjes (talk) 15:53, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

RfC announce: Religion in infoboxes

There is an RfC at Template talk:Infobox#RfC: Religion in infoboxes concerning what should be allowed in the religion entry in infoboxes. Please join the discussion and help us to arrive at a consensus on this issue. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:37, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

No alt text for visually impaired

@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)

User:Dsprc, there was a typo in the list of supported parameters, now fixed. thank you for noticing. Frietjes (talk) 22:07, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
Glad it wasn't broken too much. :) Thanks. -- dsprc [talk] 22:15, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

"Mission" parameter vs. WP:MISSION

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. SounderBruce 22:56, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

I agree, I edited European Investment Bank and others, but it looks so strange to see Headquarters image on top and logo below... Who can correct this? --Carlo Dani (talk) 17:06, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Request for new parameter 'wiki'

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)
Agree with the no votes above. This is a great example of what should go in the external links section.Timtempleton (talk) 18:43, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template_talk:Infobox_organization/Archive_1&oldid=1146459450"