Template talk:Industries
 | This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
| ||||||||
Template Revamped (Nov 2020)
[edit]So it took a while, but I've expanded the template to be as complete as possible, following the ISIC Rev 4. I'm leaving a few notes here for posterity, but the upshot is I realize the template is now definitely too large. The question going forward is the best way to prune it back.
- In a way, the template is now effectively a version of Outline of industry too.
- I decided not to edit the outline because it may still have the same ambiguity the industry article previously had (large-scale manufacturing vs. general economic categories).
- Someone looking for some straight-forward edits could probably migrate a lot of the template entries to the outline.
- Because the template involved so much, I used a lot of HTML comments (some blank to add a little spacing between groups).
- They might be worth keeping to check my work or track further updates.
- Now that the template's filled out though, I don't see any problem with just wiping them either.
- I was largely able to align individual entries with the ISIC, but I deviated from the organization in places.
- In particular, the Manufacturing section wound up arranged very differently (e.g. emphasizing light-to-heavy industry like in city zoning codes).
- Perhaps the single biggest issue now is that a lot of industries don't have clear articles / subsections.
- As a result, there are many links that go to industrial process, product, or even occupation pages instead.
Long-run, I think the biggest improvements might rely on having more consistent coverage of the actual industries, whether in separate articles or subsections. An Industry infobox (similar to others like the company or industrial process ones) could be an especially good way to realize that. I make no guarantees but maybe I can get around to working on that down-the-road. --Zar2gar1 (talk) 05:31, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
- great template, but we might have to pare it down a little. I had trouble ending it, while updating the links so that they go to the pages, instead of the redirects. That way, it will "bold" the link when displayed on those pages. Funandtrvl (talk) 01:19, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
- @Funandtrvl: Thank you, I'm glad you think it turned out well. As for paring it back, I'd actually go further and say it definitely needs to be smaller, probably by a lot. I just didn't want to be the one to do it, partly because I wanted to have some sort of system or consensus for the cuts, partly because I'm ready to step back & forget about it for a while.
- I did have those two "wishlist" items for further updates: copying the actual lists into Outline of industry (at least before they shrink too much) and condensing the template in tandem with recombining / standardizing the actual articles. Those are just my personal preferences though; however you want to trim it or clean it up, I say go for it. --Zar2gar1 (talk) 06:09, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
- great template, but we might have to pare it down a little. I had trouble ending it, while updating the links so that they go to the pages, instead of the redirects. That way, it will "bold" the link when displayed on those pages. Funandtrvl (talk) 01:19, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
Suggest merging the Information Sector subheading into Services
[edit]Creation of this additional group in inconsistent with Outline of industry or any other classification of industries like ISIC. It is also inconsistent with extensions to the Three-sector model proposed by some scholars. This seems like an arbitrary carving out of entertainment, education and related industries. I propose we merge this section back to service sector. Vinay84 (talk) 11:37, 28 September 2024 (UTC)
- Since there is no comment on this topic, I will go ahead and make the proposed change. Vinay84 (talk) 00:56, 6 October 2024 (UTC)