Template talk:Infobox Defunct company

message: Test infobox to form basis for an infobox on defunct companies. Suggestions welcome. --Mark83 15:12, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks good! Nice work. Isopropyl 20:51, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Untitled 

message: I just tried to switch the Atari Games article (Atari Games is a defunct company) from  to this infobox. I found that a lot of important information disappeared. Thus, I've added a bunch of infobox company's optional parameters. However, this is my first time working with optional parameters and #if, and some testing and debugging may be needed. SeahenNeonMerlin 00:01, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New parameters 

message: This template leaves a huge space on top of articles, see  for example Vickers. The line with the logo in the infobox is the problem. I couldn't fix it. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 22:57, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed.  The same problem occurred with  a while back, so I applied the same solution here. Slambo (Speak) 15:01, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I suppose it has to do with the fact that the company's name appears outside of the box; in a regular Company infobox, the company's name appears inside the box. I think that should be fixed: in both cases, the name should be inside the box.  -- Stormwatch 05:24, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Huge space left by template 

message: If someone could fix this it would be great. Epson291 06:57, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Figured it out. Epson291 07:03, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  I need some help with the caption 

message: I reverted this edit, as the change of syntax had affected all 415 articles which transclude this template.  It begs the question, is "closed" a better term than "defunct" anyway?  For instance, Safeway didn't close as such: the company was taken over and the majority of its stores were rebranded and continue trading, so you can't really say that it "closed".  That said, "Defunct" isn't great either, as it's an adjective rather than a verb.  --RFBailey (talk) 05:09, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Defunct" versus "Closed" 

message: Shouldn't the company name be in the table instead of being an outlier? Most other templates are like that. contribsSTYROFOAM☭1994TALK 03:49, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Location of Company Name

message: I am trying to determine why the See also section from Template:Infobox Defunct company/doc is not displaying on the main page.  Any help would be greatly appreciated.--JKeene (talk) 23:33, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: See also

message: Almost all the properties of Infobox company such as founder should be part of this Infobox too. All that information is highly useful and is getting lost when the templates are changed...Chirag (talk) 01:31, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Add Founder and other information from Company 

message: the documentaion for this template is really abysmal. it would be great if someone could outline the acceptable parameter variables to give it some clarity.  --emerson7 18:14, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  documentation 

message: Hello, after seeing how the style of :Template:Infobox Company was updated, I decided to rewrite this infobox to use a similar style. It turned out great, but there was a problem with the num_employees parameter that took me several edits to finally get it right. Sorry for all the edits. The new infobox retains all the features of the old one. I am a complete novice at templates, this is my first try, so that's why it took so many edits for me to get it right. Regards. [|Retro00064 | (talk/contribs) |] 23:05, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  New style 

message: I noticed on my talk page that a fair use image I used in the Infobox Defunct company template was marked as orphaned. When I investigated, I found that a double redirect was causing the problem. Normally, I generally ignore the "ignore all rules" rule because rules exist for a reason, and this rule flies in the face of that. However, I realized that the double redirect was breaking many pages using the template, causing a mass page-breaking emergency. Therefore, I used the rule that I normally ignore, because real societies allow rulebreaking under limited circumstances like self-defense. Jesse Viviano (talk) 20:18, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Congratulations, I think. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:15, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  About my "ignore all rules" moment in editing the redirect