Template talk:Infobox organization/Archive 2

Unknown parameter "trustee"

 * The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The template documentation lists a "Trustee" parameter, but using it in an article results in an error: Warning: Page using Template:Infobox organization with unknown parameter "trustee" – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 13:36, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
 * By looking at the template source I can confirm 'trustee' is not present in the code as a parameter, it hasn't been since at least December 2014. The questions are: 1) should the parameter be added to the code, or removed from the documentation? 2) if the parameter is be be added, should the trustees be listed under 'key people' or have a separate entry in the infobox under trustee/s? Jonpatterns (talk) 14:17, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Personally, I'd just remove it from the documentation. Nothing prevents users from listing trustees under the existing key_people parameter. A separate parameter is just bloat. Besides, trustees are not something that virtually all organizations have (cf. President, Secretary General) – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:22, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I'll start an WP:RFC to see if anyone objects. Jonpatterns (talk) 16:34, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

The parameter 'trustees' does not exist in the template code, however it has been documented. This leads to the questions:

1) should the parameter be added to the code, or removed from the documentation?

2) if the parameter is be be added, should the trustees be listed under 'key people', or have a separate entry in the infobox under trustee/s?

3) Technical question - how can it be determined if any articles using the infobox have used the parameter trustess?

Jonpatterns (talk) 16:34, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
 * The parameter as documented is trustee, not trustees or even trustess. To answer question (3) - it's already detected, see [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category:Pages_using_infobox_organization_with_unsupported_parameters&pagefrom=trustee#mw-pages this list] and ignore the three entries for the template itself and its subpages. If you remove it from the doc, those three will drop out of the cat as well. -- Red rose64 (talk) 19:14, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Of course, if the page has an infobox which uses two or more unsupported parameters, it'll only appear once in the category, and if one of the two is trustee, the page might be listed under the other one. -- Red rose64 (talk) 19:56, 9 August 2016 (UTC)


 * I am not sure I understood Redrose64's point about two or more unsupported parameters, which sounds like an undesirable effect. Assuming this can be dealt with however it makes sense to me that "key people" can be used; that is what I would do if I found myself trying to use the template for an organization that has trustees and there was no trustees field. Certainly it should be one or the other, as the mismatch would be very frustrating. Oh and if it matters, I was summoned by a bot Elinruby (talk) 05:36, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
 * What I mean is that if an article has (say) Foo and also Bar, both of these will trigger inclusion in, the first one will use the sortkey "trustee" and the second will use the sortkey "completely-fictitious-parameter". However, a limitation of the MediaWiki software is that any given page can only appear once in a category, so such a page might be listed under "T", or it might be listed under "C" - but it won't be listed under both. -- Red rose64 (talk) 20:05, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I see; thanks for explaining that Elinruby (talk) 20:18, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Called here by the bot. Remove "trustees" from the organizations infobox. If it's just in the documentation, remove it from the documentation. If it's in the code also, remove it from there also. It's bloat. Most organization's don't have trustees. Beyond that, "Trustees" is an unfamiliar word -- I myself don't know what it means means in this context, exactly, or how trustees differ from a board of directors or whatever. Therefore just sticking it in the infobox is just going to confuse many. If it's important to understanding the entity, describe in the text who the trustees are and what their role is. Herostratus (talk) 11:21, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Remove; it's just false documentation. If anyone needs to list trustees they can use the board_of_directors parameter, for cases in which the organization has a board of trustees instead of a board of directors (i.e., when "trustee" and "director" are effectively synonymous), and just use the phrase "board of trustees" in the text instead of "board of directors". For cases where "trustee" has a special meaning, distinct from that of "director"/"board member", just use key_people.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  17:37, 12 August 2016 (UTC) PS: Pending some suddenn turnabout in favor of adding such a parameter, I've removed trustee from the documentation, since its presence there is misleading, referring to code that does not exist.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  11:50, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Unless the trustee or trustees are actual the highest authority, they shouldn't be listed in key people-- I think this is essentially the same as SMcCandish just said above. We list too many people there already. I'm going to ask for an AfC on whether this should be limited to the CEO and the Chairman, or the equivalents. (There's already a separate place for the founders; I'm going to suggest that this not be used if it duplicates the ceo. The infobox is more effective if kept short. Listing vice-presidents etc does not belong there. And in my opinion, it does not even belong in the article,   except for the largest and most famous organizations. The organization's own website can deal with this better than we can, and including too man gives an air of promotionalism .  It might be simpler if we did not provide a general key person field, but afield labelled chief executive. with a parameter for the exact title    DGG ( talk ) 06:04, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
 * VPs/division directors also often belong in the article when the CEO or executive director is primarily a figurehead or cat-herder (e.g., for an advocacy organization, key policy analysts may actually be more important than the ED who may be basically a fundraiser and HR person), when divisions of the organization operate mostly independently and/or have a history as former separate entities, when those people are individually notable in their own right, etc. Agreed they don't belong in the infobox.  Also agreed founders should not be used redundantly (though for nonprofits/NGOs it's more often redundant with board members than staff).  This whole thing could be made more useful if we provided a chief and chief_title, board, board_title [that last could replace the weird and confusing main_organ which sounds like it should be answered with "Hammond" or maybe "duodenum"], etc. to cover things like an NGO with an executive director and a board of trustees, a rebel paramilitary organization with a general and a "liberation council", a corporation with a CEO and a board of directors, or whatever.  The last nonprofit I worked at had a board of advisors and a CEO, the one before that a board of directors and an ED, and my main client today is nominally a corporation, not publicly traded, and the board are just family members of the primary stockholder, who uses the title "principal" (it's just technically a corporation for legal purposes that otherwise operates as a sole proprietorship).  If we had parameters for the main leader of the organization and another for any group leadership it has, the labels of which could be renamed, and then included instructions to not use the group one unless genuinely pertinent, that's probably good enough for infobox needs. I guess we might also need to have something like board_chair and board_chair_title for cases where we want to list the chair of the board of directors/trustees/advisors/whatever and not the entire board (which might be large and full of names that don't matter for encyclopedic purposes, though they often matter a lot, especially for major nonprofits. For some readers, more can be understood, at a glance, about an organization's politics simply by who is on the board than can be spelled out in several paragraphs.  We might also need partner1 as an alternative to chief, then partner2, partner3 for partnerships with notable partners, like many major law firms, consultancies, and venture capital firms.  Not certain if three is the "magic number" here. Regardless, code could be used to suppress board, etc., if partnership parameters are used.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  10:54, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Remove - Summoned by bot. Agree with User:DGG and User:SMcCandlish.  No need for the trustee field because it's too rare that anyone is a notable trustee.  In the rare case that a trustee is notable, that can be mentioned in the article, in the history section (the date they signed on or were otherwise announced), although I have never come across a notable trustee for any article.  Re: the key_people parameter, the description found on Template:Infobox company is pretty clear about who to include, even though IMHO four people is usually too much most of the time, especially when you see how unnecessary "key_people bloat" is for valuable articles by companies like Cisco or Microsoft.  I personally disagree that including a VP should be a given if they are one of the four - I like to keep it just to Presidents or titles with Chief.  On the other hand, it is an easy way to identify inside editing.Timtempleton (talk) 17:03, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Much of my rambling point above is that org charts differ, often markedly. I've been in organizations where "chief [whatever] officer" has been exactly equivalent to "vice-president of [whatever]" and "[whatever] director" with people permitted to choose whichever they liked for their business cards. In other organizations, the org chart is president, VPs of major divisions, then chiefs of more specific divisions under the VPs, but this order (below president) can be reversed. Some use completely different structures that don't use any of these titles. A one-size-fits-all approach doesn't work here, especially since this infobox can be used for NGOs, subsidiaries, informal groups, etc.  This is why I suggest having the labels be renameable.  In general, I agree that we usually do not need to list department heads, anyway. But this doesn't get around the fact that different organizations have different names for the chief executive, and for their boards.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  17:28, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I'd like to clarify that I agree with User:DGG as far as the specific vote at hand related to not needing a trustee field. I disagree about adding more individual titles to the template, as that can create too many fields.  The aforementioned key_people parameter guidelines seem fine to me - President, CEO and Chairman are all I usually use, but sometimes a COO, CFO or COO if notable.  I'll go back again to Microsoft and Cisco's welcome brevity in this area. Microsoft is also a good example because Bill Gates is listed and labeled as a technology advisor in the key people field - this could be similar to listing a key, notable trustee.Timtempleton (talk) 18:20, 17 August 2016 (UTC)


 * The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Spokesperson vs leader and other titles for members
I wanted to add the "spokesperson" for an organisation, and i used the leader_name with a leader_title = Spokesperson. It displays well, but I feel it's semantically subpar. A spokesperson is not a leader. Is there any point in adding a separate "spokesperson" field? Or changing "leader_(name/title)" to something more generic, like "person_(nane/title)" or "member_(name/title)"? -- Ebelular (talk) 11:26, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Spokespersons aren't really key positions, they are often temporary appointments. For example, a company that is the subject of significant media coverage (because of some recent occurrence) might appoint a spokesperson from among the staff, with the short-term duty of handling all the media questions and giving replies that won't later come back to bite the company in a court case. If that spokesperson is, for example, the vice-president in charge of engineering, they wouldn't lose that position - spokesperson would be a duty additional to the engineering responsibilities. -- Red rose64 (talk) 17:31, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Sometimes the spokesperson role is quite long lasting. And sometimes the/a spokesperson can be the "public face" of the organisation. Some political activist groups don't have strict hierachies and leaders, instead people will speak for the organisation. In those cases, there will be specific spokespeople. -- Ebelular (talk) 08:22, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

additional parameters
I would suggest "ideology" to be added.--Z oupan 21:01, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I suggest pinging Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Organizations about adding this field to get more visibility and backed with consensus — Andy W.  ( talk  · ctb) 21:21, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Annotation for awards parameter, change requested
The template notates the awards parameter as Award(s) while same field in the  and  templates render Awards. In the interests of simplicity and consistency, I think the latter is preferable and that this template should be duly modified. Best wishes. RobbieIanMorrison (talk) 17:09, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Proposed wiki parameter
I was wondering if a wiki field might be useful. That would allow the page to display the primary Website or homepage followed by information about any Wiki. I have just used the following workaround (see below) and think my proposed change would be clearer to readers. It would also be machine searchable as a wiki URL which may offer additional advantages.


 * website = http://www.organization.org

http://wiki.orgainization.org

I note the need to establish consensus in the previous post and am just about to embark on that process. Best wishes. RobbieIanMorrison (talk) 09:36, 11 October 2016 (UTC)


 * There is now a new section on the WikiProject Organizations talk page at . Best wishes.  RobbieIanMorrison (talk) 09:49, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Seeing this now, I could envision several problems. Organizations' wikis are very often directed towards their employees or utilization of their products, and are (almost never, as far as I've seen), related to the organization itself, giving history, organization, location, or other pertinent information. External links should relate to the subject matter directly to increase a reader's understanding of that subject (organization). An external link anywhere that doesn't is due to be removed. I could link external link guidelines and policies if you'd like. As well, another concern of mine is that wikis are often fan-made, and such an inclusion could lead to many fan wikis being added, which is the last thing we want. ɱ  (talk) · vbm  · coi) 07:17, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Disbursements, Endowment
Could someone explain what the field value for? Endowment the organization received or gift? How about Disbursements? Matthew_hk  t  c  18:28, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 13 August 2017
Please add, per a nomination by. P p p er y 13:39, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done —&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·C) 18:44, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I consider this TFM cr*p a form of spam. KMF (talk) 00:20, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Remove TfD notice
Please remove the tfm notice. While the TfD discussion may be of interest to readers of the 728 pages that transclude Infobox institute, it is of little to no interest to the readers of the 22,000 pages that transclude this template. Toohool (talk) 08:19, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: The template cannot be removed until the TfD discussion is closed. — MRD 2014  Talk • Edits • Help! 01:56, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Pardon me, I guess what I should have requested is to noinclude the notice, as was done the last time there was a similar merge discussion about this template. Toohool (talk) 03:10, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: That will require changing Tfm/dated and Template for discussion/dated and not this template. — MRD 2014  Talk • Edits • Help! 14:21, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I added disabled. Frietjes (talk) 14:31, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

No "address" parameter?
Why not? Could someone please add one? I think there are a magnitude of organizations with only one location, therefore must have a street address. PseudoSkull (talk) 00:25, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. —&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·C) 00:35, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Please remove merge template
Please remove the merge template: the discussion was here: Templates_for_discussion/Log/2017_September_6 and was closed to keep them separate. Jytdog (talk) 19:43, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done —&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·C) 20:37, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Add "ideology" as a parameter
I think the feature would be handy in regards to pages such as Momentum (organisation).

-ThatJosh (talk) 23:46, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: Please establish a consensus before requesting a template-protected edit request. Notifying the relevant WikiProjects can be a good way of attracting input. After doing so, you are welcome to reopen this request. Ergo Sum  04:51, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Idea: Political Advocacy groups and their respective positions.
If an organization is a political advocacy group. Should we be able to add a parameter: |position = to express their political position?

32.208.86.39 (talk) 17:07, 18 February 2018 (UTC)32.208.86.39

Mission, slogan
The "Mission" field was discussed briefly back in 2016 in the now-archived section "Mission" parameter vs. WP:MISSION. I agree with the OP there that the mission field as well as the slogan field, are just marketing and are not encyclopedic. Shall we remove them? If there is something noteworthy about either - e.g. really great marketing work or some other aspect, that can of course can be discussed in the body. Am just talking about parroting a company's mission/slogan in the infobox. Jytdog (talk) 21:41, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Ah I had been thinking that these two fields are already gone from this infobox... but it is Template:Infobox company where they are not included. We should remove them from this one for the same reasons we keep them out there.  See discussions there going back to 2009 to keep them out, for example here and here. Jytdog (talk) 19:31, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Note, have posted at Template_talk:Infobox_company to get more input before making the request. Jytdog (talk) 19:44, 6 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Support removing them, per above reasoning. Lordtobi  ( &#9993; ) 07:58, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Support If there's something noteworthy about a slogan or mission statement, we can cover it in the article, similarly to the way we cover Googles "don't be evil" slogan. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  14:32, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
 * i have added a request for this. No opposition and it has been a month and a half or so... Jytdog (talk) 23:50, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done —&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·C) 01:42, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Location maps?
What do you think of adding a parameter to the infobox? Unlike most infobox location maps, this would probably be best as a Location map+. Of course, it would be ridiculous to map every McDonalds store. However, for companies like Intel, or similar organizations with a couple of offices globally, I think this could be a good addition. Certainly, I believe in adding the possibility of doing so. A concept of what the finished product would look like:

&#x2230; Bellezzasolo &#x2721;  Discuss  22:55, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Bellezzasolo, we already have this feature, it's called map. it works well with center and infobox in the location map. Frietjes (talk) 19:22, 23 February 2018 (UTC)


 * I missed that one, I was looking for the wrong parameter names. &#x2230; Bellezzasolo &#x2721;   Discuss  20:10, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Request: Swap the logo and image parameters.
Requesting someone to switch the logo and image parameters similar to what's done in Template:Infobox company. Its awkward to have the picture of the organization headquarters first rather than the logo such as the case of the Catholic Bishops' Conference of the Philippines and the European Investment Bank.Hariboneagle927 (talk) 07:29, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
 * okay, done. someone can revert the change if this is controversial. Frietjes (talk) 12:36, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Adding module fields
I'd like to see at least one module field added to this template so I can embed other infoboxes into it.Crameraj (talk) 00:01, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Crameraj, I believe most people embed using the footnotes field, which is at the bottom of the infobox. Frietjes (talk) 12:37, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 24 April 2018
Please add, per a nomination by  &#123;&#123;3x&#124;p&#125;&#125;ery (talk) 19:40, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
 * added. Frietjes (talk) 21:14, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 25 April 2018
The merge notice should be wrapped in  tags. It is being transcluded across mainspace pages. –Ammarpad (talk) 09:01, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done Galobtter (pingó mió) 09:06, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Focus/Purpose
The focus/purpose parameter seems essentially the same as the deleted mission parameter, and should also be deleted. Tornado chaser (talk) 00:22, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: I checked a few instances of its use and they don't appear to be used similarly. Mission appears to have been used for just a copy paste of the marketing while purpose isn't Galobtter (pingó mió) 06:13, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Motto
Please see Template_talk:Infobox_organization/Archive_2 and the links there, which resulted in removing "mission" and "slogan" from this infobox. "Motto" is still there, and is the same nonencyclopedic, PR-driven thing as the other two. Please delete it. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 18:04, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done —&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·C) 18:45, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
 * "Motto" variable is used in many other relevant cases. Please reintrdouce it. See for instance: Cavalry and Guards Club, Catholic German student corporation Saarland (Saarbrücken) Jena, and more. Chicbyaccident (talk) 15:07, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Thoughts? —&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·C) 04:25, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Please don't reinstate it. This is just marketing cruft. Jytdog (talk) 04:29, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
 * My two cents is that it should be reintroduced - it might be important or notable occasionally. But  is also correct - usually it's just something useless, like "Proudly serving our customers and the community!"  Maybe emphasize that the importance of mentioning it needs to be backed by reliable sources? Faceless Enemy (talk) 01:54, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
 * If there are independent sources that say something meaningful about it, this can be discussed in the body of the article. Leaving it in the infobox, just opens us to more promotional cruft and battles about whether there is sufficient independent sources to copy/paste the motto from the organization's website into the infobox. Too many people come here already wanting to turn WP pages into proxies for the organization's own website. Jytdog (talk) 02:12, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I updated the documentation page to reflect this change. Simply revert my edit there if discussion changes. – TheGridExe  ( talk )  14:38, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
 * This template is used for such things as the Royal Society and the Linnean Society, societies that have histories going back many centuries, they also have mottoes. The mottoes are as important and historic as are the mottoes of Universities and other such institutions. The infoboxes for such pages need the ability to show their mottoes. Either include this facility here or create a "Learned society infobox", "Society infobox" or "NGO infobox". At the moment the organization infobox is not appropriate or fit for purpose for these types of society. Urselius (talk) 11:20, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Given the parameter's utility in articles about older organizations like the Royal Society and the Knights of Columbus, as well as the fact that a consensus for its reintroduction exists here (all but one person being in agreement), I've re-added edit template-protected. 142.160.89.97 (talk) 19:35, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done Galobtter (pingó mió) 06:18, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

We need some consistent and neutral standard for if/when to put a motto in an infobox, not just that someone thinks a particular motto is "Orwillian" or similar IDONTLIKEIT/ILIKEIT arguments or personal opinions on mottos being marketing, ect. Tornado chaser (talk) 15:04, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
 * The correct answer is: Never. It's marketing fluff, not encyclopaedic information. No mottos, slogans, mission statements or any other such PR guff. And absolutely never when it's a self-serving bullshit statement about "your choice" made by a group promoting preventable diseases, and sourced only from their own webshite. A few organisations do have independently notable slogans, most do not. There is an exception: when an organisation has a grant of arms, then that grant may include a motto and could and probably should be displayed under the arms. Guy (Help!) 15:12, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Then we need consensus to remove the "motto" parameter from the template, editing based on personal objections to an infobox parameter that has consensus to keep is disruptive. (personally I nave no strong opinion on mottoes, but would support remove of the parameter to reduce conflict). Tornado chaser (talk) 15:19, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Or we need correct documentation to clarify it is not there for marketing statements, but only for independently notable text or grants of arms. And I would exclude it from my old school, by the way. That's a marketing slogan (it changed quite recently). Guy (Help!) 15:30, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
 * My stance is: mottos can be inserted in the infobox, so we can insert them. If there is a problem with that, then there shouldn't be a possibility to insert them. This is a huge case of IDONTLIKEIT/ILIKEIT indeed. Before I give my opinion on this: does anyone know why mottos became a parameter in the first place? Regards,Jeff5102 (talk) 16:22, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
 * The "motto" parameter was added in 2007 without a specific reason given . Tornado chaser (talk) 16:39, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I am concerned that whether a motto is "marketing" is too subjective and prone to IDONTLIKEIT/ILIKEIT edits. Tornado chaser (talk) 17:04, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
 * It's nothing to do with liking it or not liking it. Mission statements, slogans and mottos are marketing devices, they exist to promote. Consider the well-known infectious disease promoters the "National Vaccine Information Center". Their motto is "Your Health. Your Family. Your Choice" bbut, as the article shows, they spend their entire time feeding people disinformation in the hope that they will make the wrong choice to the potential serious detriment to both their and everybody else's health, because they don't believe in all that pesky science and medicine stuff, they believe that vaccines cause everything from autism to infertility and death. Reporting their Orwellian motto is a gross failure of WP:NPOV. Guy (Help!) 19:03, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Mottoes are promotional, your right, but we need to be consistent, we can't say organization X is good, so we can list their motto, but organization Y is bad so we can't list their motto. Also, if we are going to keep motto in the infobox, the fact that mottoes are promotional is not a justification for removing a particular motto. Tornado chaser (talk) 20:43, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Oh I agree, so I say remove them except in the specific case of articles on noble families with a grant of arms, of which the motto forms part, or, perhaps, where the motto is notable enough to be discussed independently. Guy (Help!) 21:24, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I would support that. Tornado chaser (talk) 02:13, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 6 November 2018
Many organisations use the title "General Secretary" rather than "Secretary General". In fact, I suspect more organisations use the former title than the latter. Accordingly I propose a new parameter, "gen_sec" to produce the label "General Secretary" as an alternative to the existing "sec_gen".

The change required is relatively simple: modify label32/data32, and add "gen_sec" to the list of valid parameters at the end.

I have made the necessary changes in the /sandbox, and tested them on the /testcases page, on which I've added an additional test case.

I will update the documentation as soon as I can after the change is made.

This change is definitely needed, and I believe is uncontroversial. To implement the change, all that is needed is to copy the /sandbox version to the live template. Thank you.

--NSH001 (talk) 07:32, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
 * ✅. Thank you for being thorough. So many of these requests don't have any sandboxing or test-casing (or sometimes just edit the s'box without first copying the current template content into it).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  15:10, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
 * - thank you for responding, and for the kind words. And yes, I can believe the rest of what you say. --NSH001 (talk) 20:21, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Mergers/Unions
Following label42 "Successors", please consider adding:


 * label43 = Mergers


 * data43 =


 * label44 = Unions


 * data44 =

Mergers would be applicable to notable organizations absorbed by the subject organization of the article. Unions would be applicable to movements, where multiple affiliates merge or prior successors rejoin each other. –Zfish118⋉talk 03:12, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
 * That's a false dichotomy. Nonprofits are also legal entities, and undergo the same merger processes as companies. And these come in various forms. The assumption that a commercial merger always involves one organization being absorbed by another isn't correct. For, say, ancient institutions that pre-date the existence of corporations, there is no problem of any kind using the word "merger", which has multiple meanings and also pre-dates modern corporation law.  I'm not  opposed to allowing some wording variation, but this is not a proper rationale for it in this case.  If we did do this, it should not be done by adding an entire extra label/data pair.  See the "General Secretary" case below for a much more efficient approach.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:43, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

"Infobox organizat on"
, your edit to the documentation page appeared to change "Infobox organization" to "Infobox organizat on" in the "Usage" section. The diff shows the change but the source code shows no change. Do we have gremlins here? StarryGrandma (talk) 22:21, 13 November 2018 (UTC)


 * It did a typo Special:Diff/868702578. But the doc is located in Template:Infobox organization/doc and unprotected. Matthew hk (talk) 22:23, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Somehow I couldn't change the page. Even though I edited it yesterday. Trying again. StarryGrandma (talk) 22:37, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Changed "tion" to "tion" to make "t on" go away, had to add a space or the editor thought there was no change and didn't save it. However it still displays as "Infobox organizat on". StarryGrandma (talk) 22:41, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Fixed. I was confused by the double display and tried to fix the wrong spot. StarryGrandma (talk) 23:11, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

RfC on the removal of "motto" parameter from infobox organization
Should the "motto" parameter be removed from this infobox? Tornado chaser (talk) 18:08, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

History of the issue (to the best of my knowledge): A content dispute in which I was involved regarding (among other things) whether to include the mission and slogan of an antivax group inspired the removal of the "mission" and "slogan" parameters  and an attempt at removing the "motto" parameter Template_talk:Infobox_organization. The removal of mission and slogan resolved the dispute at NVIC until the slogan was added under the "motto" parameter and immediately challenged with the edit summery "No mottos, they are a marketing device and in this case the motto is Orwellian, what with the group being leading advocates for preventable disease and all". Seeing this, I restarted the discussion on this talk page under "motto" but is seems that an RfC will be needed to address the issue. Pinging currently involved editors. Tornado chaser (talk) 18:08, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

So the question is: should the "motto" parameter be removed from this infobox? Tornado chaser (talk) 18:09, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

!Votes

 * Weak keep; for my considerations: see below. Regards,Jeff5102 (talk) 08:18, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Remove Just like slogan got chopped in Infobox company. Matthew hk (talk) 08:22, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep. Evidently broadly used in some areas. Chicbyaccident (talk) 22:43, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep. Non-profit organizations' mottos are distinct from advertising slogans of commercial companies, and some of them are quite famous, and a part of the organizational identity (sometimes for centuries). Companies change slogans at the drop of a hat; if it's worth covering commercial slogan, do it in the article prose. (And some of them are independently notable, like "Just Do It"; some non-commercial organization's mottoes might also be; I haven't checked.)  Finally, I don't think that an an entrenched bickering match at one article is grounds for deleting a site-wide template parameter.  By way of analogy, if your kids can't decide who gets to sleep on the top bunk, burning down the bedroom is not the solution.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  15:14, 9 November 2018 (UTC); clarfied, 02:39, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
 * remove it - it is just marketing garbage. If some organization's motto has some actual importance as demonstrated by RS it can be discussed in the body.  WP is not here to do organization's marketing for them. By the way, this applies to nonprofits especially.   The notion that non-profits are not marketing themselves is not correct. There are paid editing companies that offer Wikipedia editing services specifically to non-profits (e.g. these folks) and people advising nonprofits to abuse WP to get their message out and maintain their reputations (source, source). In my experience non-profits (including schools) are some of the most relentless abusers of WP for promotion, made doubly ick by their self-righteousness. And we should not do marketing for for-profits either. Jytdog (talk) 03:04, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I would remove due to the fact that it's likely to pick up all the slogans and mission statements that we decided we don't want. Motto is, however, a valid parameter where there is a grant of arms, so if we keep this it should be clearly identified as not for mission statements, slogans or other marketing cruft, but only for very specific cases where the motto is either inherent to a coat of arms or has been the subject of significant discussion (e.g. Be Prepared for the Scouts). Marketing fluff we do not need. Guy (Help!) 15:55, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep. Listing mottoes, even when misleading, helps people to see what kind of language is used to promote questionable ideologies. For example, if someone reads a mission statement about freedom(labeled as a mission statment) but then sees that the rest of the article talks about a fossil fuel front group, they might be less likely to fall for groups that misrepresent pollution as freedom in the future. Unless the rest of the article is written in a promotional manner, I can't see how including the motto will mislead anyone. Tornado chaser (talk) 14:41, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Remove While I do not believe the "motto" parameter is in and of itself bad, it is not that important to keep either, and selective inclusion of the motto based on editors' opinions of the organization risks opening up the encyclopedia to POV pushing. Silly arguments about the difference between mottoes and slogans have already started and are likely to occur on multiple articles. Since "slogan" was removed, lets just be consistent and remove "motto" too, rather than allow POV-pushers to endlessly debate the difference between mottoes and slogans. Tornado chaser (talk) 16:11, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Discussion

 * Or: "would removing the "motto" parameter from this infobox contribute to better articles on Wikipedia?" From one view, I would say it doesn't. Mottos can be very indicating for the identity and purposes of the organization. This even goes for the antivax group: in a rather cynical way, the motto Your Health. Your Family. Your Choice. tells people it is their choice to keep their children vulnerable for, among others, polio, measles and diphtheria. This is Orwellian indeed, but I would say that it is easy to be seen through. On the other hand, mottos also can be a load of hot air, and they may change from time to time. Considering all this, I believe that keeping the motto-parameter is the best option, although I wouldn't make much objections when it will be deleted after this discussion. Best regards, Jeff5102 (talk) 21:48, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Actually it tells you nothing because their view of health depends on rejecting all credible advice and accepting in its stead the words of mad charlatans, their conflation of "your family" and "your choice" assumes that there is no societal cost from failure to vaccinate, a belief that is absolutely categorically false. Basically they are liars, and their motto is a lie. Guy (Help!) 15:58, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

for organization's sake I am making a discussion section and a vote section, your post looks like discussion but if you mean this as a vote feel free to move it Tornado chaser (talk) 23:22, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
 * All right. I ~took the freedom to change the Votes and Discussion-headers in sub-headers. Then everyone can see that all this is related to the motto-discussion. All the best, Jeff5102 (talk) 08:22, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

I had said I supported removal(in the discussion under "motto"), but I am becoming undecided on this one. If I were King of Wikipedia I would restore the "mission" parameter, as well as keeping "motto" as it seems informative to get a bit of the organization's self description. I don't see how a slogan will misinform anyone so long as the rest of the article uses good secondary sources so as to avoid being promotional. That said, I don't see a slogan as an absolutely critical part of an article, and I am concerned that the objections to adding antivaxers' slogans are based on the fact that they are anti-vaccine, I cannot see how it is consistent with NPOV to remove slogans based on the fact that we find the organization objectionable. If consensus not to include the slogans of antivaxers develops, this would set a dangerous precedent in favor of POV-pushing, we NEED consistent standards, and it would be far better to remove all mottoes than to allow any editing decisions to be based on editors' judgement about an organization or other entity being "good" or "bad". Tornado chaser (talk) 03:22, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Mission statements can safely be left to their own webmasters. We are not here to promote them. We should describe what they do neutrally and from reliable sources, not from their own PR. It's not just antivax charlatans. There are nonprofits with high sounding missions about liberty and freedom that are merely front groups for the fossil fuel industry, for example. Guy (Help!) 15:59, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I think mission statements help people to see what kind of language is used to promote questionable groups, so when someone reads the mission statement about freedom(labeled as a mission statment) but then sees that the rest of the article talks about a fossil fuel front group, they might be less likely to fall for groups that misrepresent pollution as freedom in the future. But there are good arguments on both sides so I might not vote. But what we must be absolutely sure to avoid is selectively allowing mottoes depending on what the group promotes. Tornado chaser (talk) 16:13, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Typo
Could an admin change "Nicknme" to "Nickname"? Tornado chaser (talk) 22:23, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done Izno (talk) 22:31, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

I'm getting an "unknown parameter" error using nickname. ~Kvng (talk) 15:55, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
 * As am I. Checking...Naraht (talk) 22:56, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
 * , I don't know if the tracking category name change was intentional, but I have created the new tracking category and updated the template's documentation. See for the new category. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:05, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
 * it was not... I simply used User:Frietjes/addcheckforunknownparameters.js. I should have caught that change, but the new category name is more consistent with other cats. -- Zack mann  (Talk to me/What I been doing) 20:10, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
 * it was not... I simply used User:Frietjes/addcheckforunknownparameters.js. I should have caught that change, but the new category name is more consistent with other cats. -- Zack mann  (Talk to me/What I been doing) 20:10, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Permit embedded infoboxes
There are circumstances in which it would be appropriate to embed an infobox in Infobox Organization. For example, Cosmos Club is known both as an organization and as a historic building, so it would be appropriate to embed Infobox NRHP in Infobox Organization. Many infoboxes permit this kind of nesting. The following wikitext would accomplish this:

The new parameter would also have to be added to the tracking categories.  Ergo Sum  19:25, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Website parameter
Website parameter | label54 = Website | data54 = needs alternate text handling so that it can break. -ApexUnderground (talk) 19:41, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

main organ
This is confusing. How can the same thing be used for principal body and publication? These are quite different things. To me it means the publication. I think it would be much better to have main_publication and main_body. There are organizations where I would like to add one or the other but cannot. Chemical Engineer (talk) 20:00, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

New "Members" parameter
I suggest adding a new parameter called "Members". This would list all other organisations / entities which are members of the organisation in question. This is would be entirely different to the "membership" parameter, which is a numerical value etc. For example Russell Group currently lists universities which are part of it under membership, which is not really correct.

Do others agree? Morris Schaffer (talk) 17:38, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

add full name parameter
Can a parameter be added that would allow for the full name of an organisation to display above the native name? This is useful for cases where an organisation has a long official name but is widely known by a shorter name. Free Lula movement is an example where ideally it would be possible to put International Committee of Solidarity in Defence of Lula under the Free Lula Movement text which appears at the top (instead of using professional name which is incorrect). As an example, the template allows this option using the  parameter. --Goldsztajn (talk) 15:57, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I've used above from Infobox to display the content of the new full_name parameter. You can see an example at Template:Infobox_organization/testcases. Is this what you were thinking or did you want it displayed differently? It will also take full_name_lang to specify language. Wug·a·po·des​ 17:48, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you! A small suggested revision; keep font size the same as native name and without italics or bold.--Goldsztajn (talk) 18:37, 17 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: Up and running in the sandbox, however I'm deferring implementation until consensus for the change is reached below. Wug·a·po·des​ 21:48, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Native name parameter
Can the native_name parameter be italicised, please. Documentation seems to show it will italicise, but does not seem to be rendering. --Goldsztajn (talk) 16:06, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
 * What in the documentation makes you think it will be italicized? Wug·a·po·des​ 17:49, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I had just looked at the template page in the "usage" section and the display on the right showed native name as italicised above the image....my mistake was not seeing below the image and seeing all items have been italicised as part of the formatting. Looking at the code of the template I see it is not italicised, however, I would still like to request the change, per MOS:FOREIGNITALIC.Goldsztajn (talk) 18:27, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I see that you've edited the lang module and thought you might be able to help out here. Is the div element used in the template code here for native_name and native_name_lang redundant with the lang template? Could it be replaced with that template with something like {{code|

|{{#if:{{{native_name_lang|}}} |{{lang |{{{native_name_lang}}} |{{{native_name|{{{native name}}} }}  |  }}  | }} }} with warnings for not including the language name and such? Wug·a·po·des​ 18:48, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
 * subheader = {{#if:{{{native_name|{{{native name|}}}}}}
 * I think that {{tag|div|params=class="nickname"}} is required – it's part of the micro formats produced by this template. If you choose to use {{tlx|lang}} to render {{para|native name}} then I don't think that you need the   attribute in the {{tag|div|o}} because that will be produced by {{tld|lang}}.  I think it is a good thing to use {{tld|lang}} because editors will get error messages when they write {{para|native_name_lang|Chinese}} (meaningless as a   attribute value) so such errors will eventually get fixed (or not).
 * Perhaps what you want is this ({{lang|la|caveat lector}}: wholly untested):
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 19:32, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: I've made the changes in the sandbox, however this may significantly change how existing transclusions display, and there's the potential that some will break. I believe that by using the {{tl|ISO 639 code-3}}, whether existing transclusions use an ISO code or a language name, there should be no breakage, but there may be non-standard uses that would get an error message. We'll need to establish wider consensus for this change, so I've started an RfC below. Wug·a·po·des​ 21:55, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
 * It occurred to me that mixing data from Module:ISO 639 (via {{tlx|ISO 639 code-3}} with data from Module:Lang is not best practice. The   attribute should use the codes and language names defined in the IANA language-subtag-registry file.  That registry file contains language codes from ISO 639-1, -2, and -3.  When a language name is defined in more than one of those standards (typically -1, and -3) IANA uses the -1 code.  For example the language name 'German' in the ISO 639 standards has code:
 * -1: {{#invoke:ISO 639 name|iso_639_name_to_code|German|1}}
 * -2: {{#invoke:ISO 639 name|iso_639_name_to_code|German|2}}
 * -3: {{#invoke:ISO 639 name|iso_639_name_to_code|German|3}}
 * cf: IANA: {{#invoke:Lang/sandbox|tag_from_name|German|template=template name}}
 * Until now there hasn't been a need for Module:Lang to do reverse look up (language-name to language-code). Further,   attributes support IETF language tags which are not ISO 639 codes.  So, I have hacked Module:lang/sandbox and added a reverse lookup function to use language names that {{tlx|lang}} would recognize:
 * → {{#invoke:Lang/sandbox|tag_from_name|German}}
 * the function is indifferent to casing:
 * → {{#invoke:Lang/sandbox|tag_from_name|sPaNiSh}}
 * returns IETF tags when appropriate:
 * → {{#invoke:Lang/sandbox|tag_from_name|Serbian Cyrillic}}
 * → {{#invoke:Lang/sandbox|tag_from_name|Proto-Celtic}}
 * → {{#invoke:Lang/sandbox|tag_from_name|Celtic languages}} (an ISO 639-2 / IANA code)
 * when there are errors, can identify the template where the error occurred:
 * → {{#invoke:Lang/sandbox|tag_from_name|Friday|template=Infobox organization}}
 * → {{#invoke:Lang/sandbox|tag_from_name||template=Infobox organization}}
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 18:16, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Oh wow, this is great! One of the benefits of Module:ISO 639 is that it is able to handle input that is either a language name or code. So the use cases we need to account for are those where {{para|native_name_lang|Agob}} and {{para|native_name_lang|kit}}. Currently the Lang/sandbox seems to choke if you give it a language code (e.g. {{#invoke:Lang/sandbox|tag_from_name|kit}}). I'm not nearly as familiar with the module as you are, but I assume there's some form of dictionary that associates language names and codes? Could it check to see if the input is a code and return that (or whatever the ideal code for  is) so that the infobox is indifferent to whether it receives a language name or a language code. Wug·a·po·des​ 21:31, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
 * That is not the purpose of this function and I don't want to start heaping functionality changes into it. There is   which returns   when the argument is a known IETF language tag.  Combining that function with , perhaps in Module:Lang/utilities, should do what you want.  The equivalent is something like this (also an option):
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 23:28, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I have hacked Module:Lang/utilities/sandbox to have a function that, for lack of a better one, is currently named .  The function returns an ietf language tag when given an ietf language tag:
 * → {{#invoke:Lang/utilities/sandbox|native_name_lang|sr-cyrl}}
 * or it returns an appropriate ietf language tag when given a language name that Module:Lang recognizes:
 * → {{#invoke:Lang/utilities/sandbox|native_name_lang|Serbian Cyrillic}}
 * or it returns an error message (with template name if provided):
 * → {{#invoke:Lang/utilities/sandbox|native_name_lang|Friday}}
 * → {{#invoke:Lang/utilities/sandbox|native_name_lang|aaj|template=Infobox organization}}
 * It occurs to me to wonder if this function should be further enhanced. It could, for example:
 * call  to render the native name
 * wrap the return from  in the {{tag|dif|params=class="nickname"}} tag
 * support some sort of mechanism for multiple native names
 * This insource search suggests that there are about pages in template space that include the string .  It might be beneficial to see if there is something that might be applied to all or most of these templates.
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 14:55, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
 * wrap the return from  in the {{tag|dif|params=class="nickname"}} tag
 * support some sort of mechanism for multiple native names
 * This insource search suggests that there are about pages in template space that include the string .  It might be beneficial to see if there is something that might be applied to all or most of these templates.
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 14:55, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

RfC on native name and full name parameters

 * The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Per the edit requests by, I've updated the sandbox version of this template to have two new parameters: full name and full name lang. Additionally, I have updated native name and native name lang to use lang so that metadata on non-English scripts can be added. In most cases these changes should be non-breaking, but if existing transclusions use a non-ISO language code or use a language name not supported by ISO 639 code-3, the template produces an error message. I believe the benefit of the metadata outweighs the harm of a few errors, but want to establish consensus before these changes are made. Wug·a·po·des​ 21:55, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Support, provided there's a mechanism to track the errors down. —&thinsp;AReaderOutThataway&thinsp;t/c 05:23, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Support nom's proposal and 's added rationale. Seems reasonable. --Doug Mehus (talk) 02:22, 28 October 2019 (UTC)


 * The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Publications
Is this still a parameter? I've tried to use this and an unknown parameter error gets thrown. Kartano (talk) 13:34, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I have found no evidence that publications was ever supported. publication appears to work. – Jonesey95 (talk) 01:06, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Horizontal images
May somebody please edit the template so that the images are displayed horizontally next to each other, like country infoboxes do with their flags and coats of arms? Would make it easier to read on wide displays and save some space. – Illegitimate Barrister (talk • contribs), 12:43, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Infobox Images with transparent areas needing a different background color
For article Made with Code, image File:MwC_Logo-pink.png should have a black background
 * is this possible ?
 * http://web.archive.org/web/20180308230527/http://www.madewithcode.com/
 * Template:Infobox organization
 * Module:Infobox
 * Module:InfoboxImage says:
 * T3g5JZ50GLq (talk) 03:19, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
 * T3g5JZ50GLq (talk) 03:19, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 12 April 2020
Please add the following code below the redirect:

The redirect is from a move, and an alternative capitalization, but R from other capitalization is for mainspace redirects only, so R from modification must be used instead. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 19:18, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅.  P.I. Ellsworth   ed.  put'r there 07:35, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

More parameters
I suggest adding a new parameter called "flag(s)", "prayer(s)" and '"ideology" ( ideologies). Italawar (talk) 13:45, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Can you provide an examples of where these would be useful?  Ergo Sum  05:29, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * Consider the difference between Ideology and Purpose, Flag and Logo and Flag and Image. Italawar (talk) 08:14, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

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

Template-protected edit request on 3 January 2020
I suggest adding a new parameter called "flag(s)", "prayer(s)" and '"ideology" ( ideologies). Italawar (talk) 10:28, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the 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)
 * For ideology, just use the "war faction" infobox, which has it. – Illegitimate Barrister (talk • contribs), 02:17, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 10 May 2020
Hello, please add:

| image5 =

Also make sure to add  to the unknown parameters check to prevent any categorization errors. Thanks. – Illegitimate Barrister (talk • contribs), 01:12, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: please provide a rationale, and is there consensus for this change? &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 19:39, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

New parameters
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)
 * What is provided by these parameters that is not already available? Nikkimaria (talk) 15:58, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
 * , "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)
 * How is "activities" distinct from "purpose"? What do you mean by "distinguishing feature"? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:40, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
 * , 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)
 * 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)

, 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)

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


 * activities is used at (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.

, Thoughts? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:24, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * I've yet to see a case where I think it would be a benefit. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:11, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
 * , any proposals on what should be done with those 9 usages of activities? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 13:27, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Would suggest moving to text if not already present there. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:56, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Political action committee?
Is there anything more specific than this template for a Political action committee? -- RoySmith (talk) 19:18, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * , Not that I'm specifically aware of. I'm just curious because I reverted '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)

Proposal to remove 'extinction' parameter and change to 'dissolved'
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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * I agree, I'm proposing to keep 'dissolved' and change 'extinction' to 'defunct'. Funandtrvl (talk) 18:56, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * Yes,, 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)
 * It can be one with one label. See my edit in the sandbox. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 17:06, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * Sorry to somewhat forget about this, but is everything set to replace the param? Primefac (talk) 12:26, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * Looks like someone beat me to it, TemplateData doesn't show any uses. Primefac (talk) 17:27, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
 * 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)

Adding a field for funders
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)
 * I agree with this proposal. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:39, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , you could add a request edits to a template-protected page with the Edit template-protected template to have it listed at Category:Wikipedia_template-protected_edit_requests Vexations (talk) 17:55, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I've just tried to use it and got very confused, could you add it please? I guess it just needs to go under this heading? John Cummings (talk) 17:58, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , ✅ Vexations (talk) 18:09, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
 * thanks very much. John Cummings (talk) 22:59, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Sounds like a good idea to me. Richard Nevell (talk) 18:13, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done Use funding to access the new parameter. Please contact me with any questions/concerns. Elliot321 (talk &#124; contribs) 07:00, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
 * thanks very much indeed. John Cummings (talk) 23:44, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
 * is it possible to rename funding to funders? I think funding is probably a bit broad and could be interpreted in several different ways. John Cummings (talk) 12:36, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
 * sure. Use funders and it will be named "funders" instead of "funding". Elliot321 (talk &#124; contribs) 12:41, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
 * wonderful, thanks again. John Cummings (talk) 12:51, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
 * no problem! Elliot321 (talk &#124; contribs) 12:52, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Add field for 'journal' in organazation infobox
I would like to add the field 'journal' to the infobox template of organizations. I see the field is already available in the template for a union, so why not for all organizations? A lot of them have their own journal.

Katrien Weyns (talk) 10:45, 6 April 2021 (UTC)Katrien Weyns
 * Maybe it needs "free" and free_label" parameters, so you can add whatever is missing that would be specific to the article. Funandtrvl (talk) 16:01, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Motto parameter
This template still has motto. In 2013, was merged in and from then until 2018, there was also slogan. Slogan was removed per this discussion, as had already been done at. But motto, equivalent to slogan, was apparently overlooked (although it was briefly removed from the documentation). Is there any disagreement that motto should be removed per the now years-old consensus to remove slogan? MB 00:52, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
 * , there has been no objection to treat motto like slogan, please remove it from this template. MB 19:09, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
 * User:MB, disabled and added Category:Pages using infobox organization with motto or pledge, will see if there are any complaints. Frietjes (talk) 20:42, 1 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I don't think that motto should be removed. The initial decision to remove mission, which was the basis to remove slogan and now motto, was just two people (both with minimal editing experience) five years ago with no broad consensus and based on an essay being interpreted as a policy. slogan was removed three years ago and was only supported by three people, two of which have been blocked including the OP. This discussion wasn't really really broadly discussed (albeit, WP:SILENCE), and the truth is that a motto is different from a slogan. A slogan is an advertising line that supports a promotional campaign (which could support it's removal based on the reasons in WP:SLOGAN), but a motto is a value statement that describes an organisation's values. One is a marketing asset, the other is an overview of the organisation. I think there needs to be a bit more discussion here, and a new consensus, rather than relying on one that was really developed five years ago by two people. ItsPugle (please ping on reply) 02:58, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Also, I have literally no idea how the removal of mission statements meant that we are to remove slogans? Not to mention that the removal of mission statements seems primarily for corporate mission statements, not the organisations that this infobox is used for (Red Cross societies etc). ItsPugle (please ping on reply) 03:03, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

can I custom sort these values?
I want to put the CEO's name above the location name, for example. the "default sort" for this box puts location above CEO. thanks. skakEL 16:09, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

"Country" parameter
Can someone please add a simple "country" parameter to this infobox? This was one of the parameters which was present at the Template:Infobox union which was recently merged into this, and would be useful to have. This is distinct from the "location_country" parameter, and it would be useful to indicate the country in which the organisation operates, similar to "region". For example, the British Medical Association operates in the United Kingdom, which is currently listed as it's "location" but "country" would be more accurate. Elshad (talk) 11:53, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

former name
Could formerly please be moved up the infobox so it sits below nickname? It is daft to have it at the bottom away from the other name parameters. Gaia Octavia Agrippa Talk 10:23, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. It's been in its current location for at least a decade. Please solicit other opinions. Izno (talk) 02:09, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Boldly edited TemplateData
I describe the issue here Village_pump_(technical) and decided to edit the template's TemplateData which is stored inside Template:Infobox organization/doc, which was perhaps foolish, but considering it removed an error locally I thought I'd go for it by replacing the incorrectly implemented Spanish labels with the English ones. This template is also incorrectly listed in Category:Infoboxes without native name language parameter for this reason. Would love advice on how I can edit TemplateData going forward ~ Shushugah (he/him • talk) 18:22, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Mass cleanup of invalid parameters
In the following Category:Pages using infobox organization with unknown parameters are 3,000 pages that incorrectly implemented Infobox organization parameters. In some cases, it's due to outdated parameter names (mission got replaced with purpose, acronym with abbreviation). Another common thing I am seeing is File:Example.png with params instead of standard Example.png. Is there an AWB extention to help with this? Otherwise it can be a nice project push for us to collectively empty the queue. I also saw native_name is frequently omitting the native_name_lang. For cases with multiple languages, that's harder but let's tackle the low hanging fruit first. I have already fixed about 100 of these. ~ Shushugah (he/him • talk) 15:39, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Motto seems to be broken?
It looks like mottos no longer display. When I attempt to add a motto to a page it doesn't display, and in the example on this page the motto dummy text isn't showing either?
 * It was disabled a few months ago. See multiple discussions at Template talk:Infobox organization/Archive 2. – Jonesey95 (talk) 22:39, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 14 November 2021
Please add the parameter from Module:InfoboxImage, as is the case on Infobox football club Jonteemil (talk) 18:46, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅ &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:50, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks, but the upright parameter still can't be used. I think this has to do with . The parameter {logo-size} doesn't work either. Is there a way to overule this default without removing it?Jonteemil (talk) 18:00, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I'm not familiar with that module. may be able to assist. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 18:38, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Upright usage is documented at Help:Pictures. It only works with thumb or frameless images when the size is not specified. You can either use |upright=yes|logo_size=frameless when calling the template or get the default in the template changed from 250px to frameless in the template code.  -- WOSlinker (talk) 19:01, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Fallback Wikidata item
Is it possible to allow Fallback Wikidata items, like the Template:Infobox company does? In a lot of cases, the Template:Infobox organization/Wikidata with only Wikidata-Data is not really suitable. But especially for foreign organizations, which are edited in their regional wiki, it would be great to fall back to Wikidata. The German de:Vorlage:Infobox_Organisation allows this in a similar way. --Newt713 (talk) 13:48, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
 * If you try to code this in the sandbox by copying the format from infobox company, make sure to use yes and to prefer local values when they are supplied. – Jonesey95 (talk) 22:06, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
 * It is possible to overwrite data in Template:Infobox organization/Wikidata, only not all fields from this infobox are there yet. I tried it with a missing one. --Newt713 (talk) 15:58, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Donations
It would be great to have a field for the amount of donations an organization is receiving. Combined with revenue this is showing dependencies of the organization. --Newt713 (talk) 16:01, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 16 June 2022
CHANGE PHOTO SansPE475 (talk) 17:07, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: this is the talk page for discussing improvements to the template . If possible, please make your request at the talk page for the article concerned. If you cannot edit the article's talk page, you can instead make your request at Requests for page protection. Photos are used in individual articles, and there are no photos to change on this template page. Is there anything I can do to help?  P.I. Ellsworth &thinsp;, ed.  put'r there 20:54, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 1 July 2022
Please add the upright parameter to all instances of Module:InfoboxImage in this template. Jonteemil (talk) 18:27, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅. upright and image_upright were already in this template. Added were map_upright and map2_upright. This has been documented at Template:Infobox organization.  P.I. Ellsworth &thinsp;, ed.  put'r there 03:22, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Main organ?
I think that this term is unclear and should be renamed/removed. I was surprised to see a field called "main organ" in the info box, and it was unclear to me what information was supposed to be in that field. 2603:7080:9600:19:61C5:8841:3C95:CA32 (talk) 15:49, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
 * It is documented, and it is used in 1,787 articles. What do you suggest as a replacement? – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:44, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
 * An "organ" can be a journal published by the organization. In this template, main_organ can mean a journal or other publication, and may also mean the organization's principal body (assembly, committee, board, etc.) as noted in the documentation. So "organ" is the common organizational term; "main" just qualifies the organ as the most important one to note in the infobox. Other organs would be described in the content of the organization's article. There are three parameters that can be used for this: main_organ, publication or journal. Use of "publication=" or "journal=" changes the label from "Main organ" to "Publication". Hope this helps!  P.I. Ellsworth &thinsp;, ed.  put'r there 04:36, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Colors for the infobox
I'd really appreciate if it was possible to have a field for colors, and even better if those colors in turn colored the infobox, like Infobox political party. I'll be using this template for a number of student organizations with distinct flag colors, is why. ~ lovkal (talk) 00:38, 2 June 2022 (UTC) E.g the "colorcode" and "color" parameters from the aforementioned political party infobox, would be nice. ~ lovkal (talk) 07:56, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: looks like a consensus needs to be established for this alteration. Please garner the needed consensus before using the template again.  P.I. Ellsworth &thinsp;,  ed.  put'r there 21:15, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

For "motto" what use instead?
Today, I updated European Certification and Qualification Association article. Within the Infobox organization, it had "motto" which I see is Deprecated. For now, I moved the motto to "Remarks". Question: is there a different/better/recommended way or is this Okay? JoeNMLC (talk) 15:51, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

PAGE ]]) 21:21, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
 * @JoeNMLC Mottos are generally marketing driven and not encyclopedic, which is why that parameter was removed. Don't try to circumvent it by putting the motto somewhere else. --Ahecht ([[User talk:Ahecht|TALK
 * If motto is notable for some reason, include it, along with a reliable source showing why it is worth mentioning, in the body of the article. But not in the infobox. – Jonesey95 (talk) 21:44, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Thankyou for this info. Can the "Tracking categories" section be updated to avoid future questions & confusion of more editors? For example, after Category:Pages using infobox organization with motto or pledge wording something like . I'm not sure of wording, but something like that. JoeNMLC (talk) 13:59, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I have clarified the instructions at . – Jonesey95 (talk) 12:22, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you for updating. JoeNMLC (talk) 13:25, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Removal seems like an appropriate task for AutoWikiBrowser, any particular things that should be looked at other than simple removal?Naraht (talk) 16:38, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Removal should be fine. Any notable mottoes can be mentioned in the body of the article. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:59, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
 * That "any notable mottoes can be mentioned in the body of the article" is to say that "simple removal" is not fine then as each case requires judgment about whether the motto is itself important to the article. Jahaza (talk) 03:24, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Fine, then comment them out. People can use an insource search to see if there are any that are worth putting into the body. – Jonesey95 (talk) 03:31, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Where was this decision made? Jahaza (talk) 03:23, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I found a discussion here, but there's not a clear consensus there for removing mottos. In fact, they were removed and then added back and there was no further edit request.Jahaza (talk) 03:28, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I've been removing them. If they aren't expressed by the template, I don't see the point of them being kept in the template.Naraht (talk) 13:32, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I removed about 85% of them where the page was prior to the middle of "H". See Category:Pages_using_infobox_organization_with_motto_or_pledge before I saw Jahaza's comment.Naraht (talk) 15:53, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I do not see any consensus for removal of this info rather a transfer to the body of the if appropriate, so is not an AWB task but should be done manually. I would suggest reinstating until a proper consensus is arrived at. Keith D (talk) 16:00, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
 * If there is no consensus, I understand. If you don't mind, I'd like to see if consensus could be reached before I figure out how to undo 800 edits. :(Naraht (talk) 18:05, 12 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Comment I too am concerned by the deprecation of the "motto" parameter. The notability of an organizations motto will very so greater from article to article that making the decision here, with undiscussed edits to hundreds of articles without discussion as to the nobility seems problematic. For instance, in the Dominican Order article, the motto is hundreds of years old. In another example, the Boy Scouts of America's motto, "Be Prepared" is one of the organization's core values. I'd be hard-pressed to say that the motto as used here is "unencyclopedic". –Zfish118⋉talk 18:16, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
 * If the motto exists as a parameter in the infobox, then it is highly likely to be "abused" by being used in organizations where the motto is not notable. For the exceptions, like the Boy Scouts, the motto can be put into the prose. MB 20:01, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Text at Category:Pages_using_infobox_organization_with_motto_or_pledge
The text there says "This category tracks transclusions of using" and then I checked here, and Jonesey95 indicated that I could go ahead and do so. I honestly feel that given the current text that straight removal was appropriate. Whether or not it was appropriate to remove, *It is not currently being displayed* and no effort to find a motto should require the user to edit the article.Naraht (talk) 19:20, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Undocumented parameter
Looks like there is an undocumented parameter, pushpin_map. Can someone update documentation for this? Keith D (talk) 21:26, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I have added some basic documentation for the parameter. – Jonesey95 (talk) 22:24, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

Edit request 17 January 2023
Description of suggested change: Add a second official website. For example, SANS_Institute has two official website: https://sans.org and https://sans.edu. Naugahyde (talk) 15:38, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: This is an unnecessary change @Naugahyde You can just add multiple websites to the website parameter. To use your example, the following could be added:

website = sans.org/

sans.edu/ Terasail [✉️] 07:26, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the response, @Tersail. I didn't realize they could be nested via a list. That was perfect.
 * Naugahyde (talk) 18:01, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Coordinates
Please restore the coordinates parameter to this infobox. A glance at a few articles on organizations reveals that editors are adding the coords to the articles anyway, and the template should reflect usage. Abductive (reasoning) 04:58, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Add optional Research Organisation Repository (ROR) attribute
Description of suggested change: Hello everybody, since a growing number of organizations are being registered with a unique ID in the Research_Organization_Registry I would propose to add ROR ID as an optional attribute to the template. PIXEL2021 (talk) 09:54, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
 * ❌ malformed request, please test in the sandbox, validate, correct, then reactivate the edit request. — xaosflux  Talk 16:55, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
 * For, this has been sandboxed, [tested], implemented and added to the /doc page.  P.I. Ellsworth &thinsp;, ed.  put'er there 07:01, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
 * re-enqueud. — xaosflux  Talk 11:02, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Is there something amiss with the edit, ?  P.I. Ellsworth &thinsp;, ed.  put'er there 11:14, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Paine Ellsworth sorry I missed the "implemented" part, wanted to make sure this wasn't ignored. However, unrelated to me - it looks like someone wants an undo of this below now. —  xaosflux  Talk 15:16, 8 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose: would perhaps make a more suitable addition to Template:Authority control. Please consider proposing there instead &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:07, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Interesting, as I had that same thought when I first came across this request; however, I have no idea how to begin to implement something like this in Wikidata. or, do either or both of you know the procedure to install this in Wikidata so it will appear in the Authority control template?  P.I. Ellsworth &thinsp;,  ed.  put'er there 16:15, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
 * already exists on Wikidata &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 18:38, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Also, according to Authority control integration proposal/FAQ, #3, Authority control only covers people, not orgs. It's been three years since that FAQ has been updated, so I don't know if people are still the only coverage.  P.I. Ellsworth &thinsp;, ed.  put'er there 16:35, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I wasn't aware of that FAQ actually. As far as I know we cover a lot of topics besides people. I personally added a lot of identifiers for lighthouses. I will bring the FAQ up for discussion to see if it needs review. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 18:37, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Placement of "__ (year)"
Greetings and felicitations. I find the placement of (year) (e.g. staff (year)) under the field's title (as in the article OnPoint NYC) to be confusing. Would it possible to place the year fields on the same line as the [something] number fields, separated by a space? (I don't have the knowledge to make a specific edit request, and am also wondering how other people feel about this, thus this type of post.) —DocWatson42 (talk) 21:37, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

parameter "location"
I see some inboxes in articles with the parameter location. But this parameter is not defined nor otherwise described here. What is the syntax for using this parameter, if it is still a valid parameter in the first place? And should this be used instead of location_city and location_country or along with those (for whatever reason). Also the "TemplateData" section of the article does not reference nor describe the location_city parameter, but it does do so for the location_city2 parameter. Is the location_city parameter just missing from that section? Thanks for any elaboration. L.Smithfield (talk) 01:54, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
 * location and location2 are supported by the template but apparently not documented. I do not see any discussion of them in the archive. location is used in about 12,000 articles. As for location_city not showing up in the Template Data section, that appears to be an oversight; it should probably be added to that section. – Jonesey95 (talk) 23:56, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the information. The lack of documentation for location sort of suggested to me that it might have been deprecated, and to use location_city and location_country primarily instead, which I have done. Of course, if someone (out there) is possibly trying to programmatically extract information from the template, then the location_xxx parameters would server better. Also location_city2 and location_country2 and their cousins allow for multiple locations to be included (which some articles take advantage of). Thanks again. L.Smithfield (talk) 17:29, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I added 'location_city' to the TemplateData for Infobox organization. It was missing. --L.Smithfield (talk) 20:26, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I just noticed that it appears that the template parameter 'location_city' is supposed to be an invalid parameter (I guess deprecated). This probably explains why it was not listed in the 'TemplateData' section; that is, it was removed due to being deprecated. If this parameter is indeed deprecated (and no longer supposed to be used), can someone with some knowledge of the matter please remove it as seems appropriate. Thank you. --L.Smithfield (talk) 20:44, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Noticed where? I do not see any such deprecation notice for any parameters containing "location" in the template code or in the documentation. Did I miss it? (Disclaimer: I have not yet searched through this talk page's archives.) – Jonesey95 (talk) 21:31, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
 * The parameter 'location_city' was listed as invalid (not valid) on this page. But it is now listed as valid. So I think this is a case of me not knowing what I was looking at (or seeing). It appears that "validity' (at least on that page I referenced) is derived from its presence on the TemplateData list and not from some other source (which I had assumed). I apologize for any confusion I have caused (due to my own ignorance of these matters). --L.Smithfield (talk) 22:36, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

"Tax_id" field needs fix
The label for the tax_id field is a wikilink, and points to Taxpayer Identification Number. We want to link to Employer Identification Number instead. Taxpayer Identification Number is a broad article that mostly covers stuff like Social Security numbers of individuals. Employer Identification Number is what is used for organizations.

At the same time the label of the field (as the reader sees it) should be changed from "Tax ID no." to "EIN". "Tax ID no." includes various categories of which EIN is one (SSN is another). But this is the infobox for organizations, and the Tax ID number will always be the EIN (except for sole proprietorships with no employees, in which the case the Tax ID number might be the persons Social Security number which we don't want to publish anyway).

Per protocol I'm putting this out for debate before making the edit request. Herostratus (talk) 05:40, 28 September 2023 (UTC)


 * While the EIN is technically public information, is there any reason to include it in Wikipedia? We don't normally do that for corporations or government agencies, which also have EINs. Maybe the solution here is to just deprecate the field? Jahaza (talk) 16:38, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Not significant enough for inclusion. Also very US-centric. oknazevad (talk) 17:12, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Cleaning Category:Pages using infobox organization with unknown parameters
Cleaning this category up, looks like mission is the single largest.Naraht (talk) 03:30, 31 December 2023 (UTC)