Talk:Industry classification

Complaint

The topics need further development. It would have been useful to more details.

Relation to Industry article?

I'm looking at possibly splitting the Industry article (see discussion here) into two major concepts:

1. A way to categorize production
2. Manufacturing at/above factory-scale.

Currently, this article discusses the methodology behind the 1st meaning, but I wanted to check if there's a consensus to keep it separate from the wider concept. Essentially, with the classification aspect in the current Industry article isolated, should it stay in a separate article from the content here?

I saw some text was already migrated from Industry, which makes sense since that article is still sort of a grab-bag. My thinking is that if the 2nd meaning above can be split off though, it makes more sense to have the details here in the same article as a general discussion of the 1st meaning. I'm not sure yet if that unified article would be here or there; it probably depends on whether other articles can absorb the text for the 2nd concept.

@Funandtrvl, Macrakis, and MarnetteD: Since this article isn't very active, I thought I'd ping you all as active editors that have made notable changes here. Any thoughts? Zar2gar1 (talk) 03:48, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

I merely formatted the bare urls and don't have enough expertise about the article to give you an opinion. You could try asking for input at either of the wikiprojects mentioned above. I wish you well in working on this. MarnetteD|Talk 03:51, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Hi, if the main Industry article will be split, then this article could be added to that split article. This article has turned out to be not more than a list article. While helpful, it could be developed more to show the relationship between the classifications and the main article. Funandtrvl (talk) 04:04, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

I don't fully understand what outcome you envisage but would strongly oppose any reduction in the importance given, by Wikipedia, to the concept "Industry classification". Looking at the "Industry" article, I am unable to imagine how the information contained in the "Industry classification" article could be folded into it without that outcome. The "Industry" article is currently a summary of content found elsewhere in Wikipedia. Why should the subject "Industry classification" be treated differently from all of that content by being absorbed into the "Industry" article? Misha Wolf (talk) 10:21, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

I disagree:

• Industry classification covers not just the secondary sector (which is the focus of the Industry article), but also the primary and tertiary sectors.
• The discipline of taxonomizing industry is quite different from the discussion of industry itself. Perhaps the Industry article could have a brief section on the different ways that industry can be taxonomized (by process, by output, by input, by consumer), but the Template:Main article should remain this one.
• Most people interested in understanding Industry are probably not interested in taxonomy.
• Conversely, most people interested in Industry classification are in the information sector.
• Do not merge

--Macrakis (talk) 14:28, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

So I actually agree with your argument here 100%, but the catch is I'm not sure the Industry article will remain focused on the secondary sector. The lede still emphasizes the taxonomic meaning, and at WP:Vital Articles (which is ultimately what brought me here), their current lists make it look like they also have that meaning in mind. For example, most of the Vital Article sub-items currently under it are actually primary sector.

Now, I haven't made it to Talk:Manufacturing to ask yet, but my personal feeling is merging most of the "industrialization" content into the Manufacturing page could be best. It would achieve the split and help fill out the Manufacturing article, which is already more focused.

Industry is a slightly bigger article than Manufacturing at the moment, but the taxonomic parts don't count in that comparison, plus most of the history stub-sections will probably get pared down & referred out too.

With that in mind, would you still want to keep them separate, or do you think some kind of merge (possibly from here) could work? If we did merge, for those interested in the classification process itself, not just the basics, we could make "industry classification" a redirect to a specific section. Zar2gar1 (talk) 23:33, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

I am strongly opposed to a merge of the Industry classification article into some other article. Misha Wolf (talk) 23:38, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. They are two distinct topics. Merging them would be like merging Taxonomy (biology) into Biology. --Macrakis (talk) 14:56, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

In reality

Some of them like the UN one's are not free to even download and look at, it seems. Mind boggling. There is also the Wikipedia's own volunteer developed, bottom up, category tree style Category:Companies by industry. And I also googled a few, none of which seem to be in our list: ILO, US BLS, Statista, WSJ,. Out of these, the ILO and BLS one seem pretty serious, ILO after all is a UN's branch. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:33, 8 March 2022 (UTC)