Category talk:Companies
Latest comment: 5 years ago by Blood Red Sandman
{{flag}}
Categories in Companies [for example: Disney, eBay, AOL] should not be mentioned in Category:Economy and business.
•–• 10:26, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
- Actually, companies could be non-profit, and in that case, classifying companies under Economy and Business is wrong.
•–• 10:28, 28 November 2017 (UTC)- It's not immediately clear what you mean in your first comment. The answer to the second is easy, don't put non-profit organizations in the category companies. I don't know anybody who thinks of the Red Cross or the Make-A-Wish Foundation as a company. --SVTCobra 04:49, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
- Agreed--a non-profit doesn't fit a "company". —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:26, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
- Disney is under Economy and business as well as Companies. That is not how categorisation should happen. Mozilla is under companies which is in turn under Economy and business, which is again incorrect; it should be in a non-profit organisation internal category. The categories which are present in Economy and business as well as internal category Companies should be fixed such that the can be found only in one. That is, commercial organisations/[for-profit] companies.
223.227.118.219 (talk) 07:17, 21 January 2018 (UTC)- Looking at this again, almost all companies listed in "Economy and business" are also in "Companies". Why don't we just eliminate Category:Companies. It seems redundant. --SVTCobra 23:42, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
- Categories in Companies don't also need to be in Economy and business... except that some companies are not only for-profit, but their business is money (banks come to mind). The point of a category like Companies is that, on one hand, one's list of companies isn't cluttered by things that aren't companies, while on the other hand, Economy and business is (well, should be) less cluttered by many company subcategories. --Pi zero (talk) 00:48, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
- Eliminating "Companies" eliminates the problem. Alternatively, we could move all companies from "Economy and business" to "Companies" but then the clutter is identical, just in a different place, no? And what are you saying about banks? They are not for profit? Are you OK, Pi zero?
- You should re-read pizero's comment: “NOT ONLY for profit, but their business is money” and to be honest, that is very thoughtful and adds more confusion how to takeover this issue.
•–• 01:31, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
- You should re-read pizero's comment: “NOT ONLY for profit, but their business is money” and to be honest, that is very thoughtful and adds more confusion how to takeover this issue.
- Eliminating "Companies" eliminates the problem. Alternatively, we could move all companies from "Economy and business" to "Companies" but then the clutter is identical, just in a different place, no? And what are you saying about banks? They are not for profit? Are you OK, Pi zero?
- Categories in Companies don't also need to be in Economy and business... except that some companies are not only for-profit, but their business is money (banks come to mind). The point of a category like Companies is that, on one hand, one's list of companies isn't cluttered by things that aren't companies, while on the other hand, Economy and business is (well, should be) less cluttered by many company subcategories. --Pi zero (talk) 00:48, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
- Looking at this again, almost all companies listed in "Economy and business" are also in "Companies". Why don't we just eliminate Category:Companies. It seems redundant. --SVTCobra 23:42, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
- It's not immediately clear what you mean in your first comment. The answer to the second is easy, don't put non-profit organizations in the category companies. I don't know anybody who thinks of the Red Cross or the Make-A-Wish Foundation as a company. --SVTCobra 04:49, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
- I'm not sure why this is flagged; I'm removing the flag. While the remark PiZ makes about financial institutions is interesting, there was never anything preventing any user from reorganising the companies; much of our internal categorisation is messy. (If we have enough financial institutions such as banks for it to be a problem we could give them their own category, listed as a subcat of both companies and economy and business.) What is being suggested is, in fact, the way categories here work: just, with internal stuff, we're less good at getting round to actually doing it. Feel free. BRS (Talk) (Contribs) 13:43, 10 January 2019 (UTC)