Template talk:Infobox Company

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Template:Infobox Company page.
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5
Companies Portal
This article is within the scope of Companies WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of companies. If you would like to participate please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
NA This article has been rated as NA-Class on the assessment scale.
NA This article has been rated as NA-importance on the assessment scale.


This page is protected.

 Template:Infobox Company is currently protected from editing.
To edit the template documentation, categorize the template, or add interwiki links, edit Template:Infobox Company/doc. To request a change to the template itself, add {{editprotected}} to this page, followed by a description of your request.
To-do list for Template:Infobox Company: edit · history · watch · refresh
  • Change Net income to Net income (profit)
  • Redesign or fork template to reduce 27 variables to the essentials!
  • Repositioned Table of Contents for cleanliness. Adraeus 21:25, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Moved Syntax and Resources to separate pages for cleanliness. Adraeus 21:25, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Archive talk page activity up to July 2006. Adraeus 20:55, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Archive
Archives
1, 2, 3, 4, 5


Contents

[edit] Edit request

{{editprotected}} I would like to change the text for the locations parameter to read "Number of locations" or "No. of locations" as opposed to "# of Locations."

Appears to have been changed by MZMcBride (talk · contribs) [1]. - auburnpilot talk 16:27, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Doc page redesign

I was attempting to use this template and found a significant lack of, or significantly out of date, documentation. Would there be any opposition to me redesigning the /doc page to include updated syntax documentation (basically, moving the three documents in the above #Using the template section) so it's easier for editors to use? -- Huntster T • @ • C 02:31, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I think it's a great idea, thanks for volunteering! Richc80 12:03, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
Right, well then, I'll get to it as soon as possible. I'll just say school and work must take priority, but hopefully it won't take too long. -- Huntster T • @ • C 01:15, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Predecessor companies

Is there a way to mention predecessor companies in the infobox? At the moment, the date of founding can be misleading if the history really goes back further through different companies. Have a look at 20th Century Fox. It says "founded 1935", but the Fox history goes back to 1913-1915, whcih I've now noted. It would be tidier to note that one of the predecessor companies was Fox Film (the other was 20th Century Pictures). Carcharoth 11:31, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Total asset

Is there a place for Total Asset and rough cashing of the premiums in the Infobox ? It will be usefull for bank and insurance... Jamcib 20:09, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

There should be - in Newcastle Building Society total assets is shoehorned into the redundant revenue field - which just looks wrong. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 22:43, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
I strongly support the request for assets. I'm doing several banks and assets is a very important gauge. Americasroof (talk) 02:59, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Doc update notification and request

Okay, documentation is completely overhauled (nitpicks welcome!), and alongside this I've slightly modded the base code. If an admin could please copy from User:Huntster/Sandbox/4, I'd be quite appreciative. -- Huntster T • @ • C 11:31, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Y Done —METS501 (talk) 16:31, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
One question/nitpick, since you asked...:) Does the logo space have to be cramped like it is now? Before the change, there was a more normal level of spacing between the lines and the logo, now the logo seems tightly sandwiched in between the name and type. Enigma3542002 23:33, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
Ah, I did leave something out, thanks for noticing that. Admin, please add " padding:16px 0 16px 0;" to the "td" tag directly before {{{logo|}}} bit, or simply copy/paste from User:Huntster/Sandbox/4. Any more error reports? -- Huntster T • @ • C 00:20, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
Done. Cheers. --MZMcBride 16:12, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
Thx for the fix. Enigma3542002 23:37, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

{{editprotected}} I hadn't noticed that Mets501 made an additional fix to the template when he copied it from my Userspace the first time around. Thus, MZMcBride's copy/paste didn't have that fix applied. If one more copy from User:Huntster/Sandbox/4 could be made, I think we'll have this straightened out. -- Huntster T • @ • C 22:59, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

done. — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:53, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for updating the documentation. I'm no longer contributing to Wikipedia in any significant capacity, so I'm thankful that others are investing themselves in the project. Adraeus 10:21, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Revenue"

I know the non-US-terminology thing has been discussed before, and I accept that it might just be quite complicated to have separate infoboxes for each country... but it really does look terribly out of place to see "Revenue" on an article like W H Smith. Here in the UK, while I have no idea what happens in the City of London, in general parlance "turnover" is what we use. We simply do not use "revenue" in the way it's used in the Infobox. 86.132.138.205 01:28, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Template Popularity

This template is currently used on the English-language Wikipedia in 11,044 articles excluding all links from outside the Main namespace. Congratulations, everyone! I believe that makes this template, created on 20 November 2004, one of the most widely used content templates on the English-language Wikipedia. Adraeus 11:03, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I wish there was a way to see how many articles on businesses are missing this template. Hrm... Adraeus 11:28, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
I saw user pages using the template and removed it with a long edit summary explaining that the template is not meant to be used in the user space. The same user also assigned himself to main space categories (reference to a category without the ":" before "Category:xxx". What is the proper way of dealing with this, if you come across this. For the template, isn't possible to have a bot sweep the user space to remove any "Infobox xxx" template? --roy<sac> Talk! .oOo. 23:30, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
All that needs to be done is to add a request to WP:BOTREQ. If there is a bot capable of doing this, this is the best place to go I believe. This would be good for periodic sweeping, but a start could be made by using AWB and filtering out non-Userspace pages. -- Huntster T • @ • C 03:20, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Flag

{{editprotected}} Please add

{{#ifeq:{{{flag}}}}|yes|{{flagicon|{{{location_country}}}}}|}}

just before

{{#if:{{{location_city|}}}

It will allow to display the flag of the country if this parameter is specified and if flag=yes. 16@r 18:50, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't see that this is a useful change - we don't need to put a flag on everything. If you would like more comments, you could ask at the village pump. — Carl (CBM · talk) 17:11, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
I don't want to put a flag on everything. I just notice some articles infobox have a flag (Sony, Yamaha, etc.) and so we could improve the code by providing a way to automatically add a flag on the infobox if there is a consensus about it. 16@r 11:57, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Since the previous comment, I looked at WP:FLAG, which explicitly discourages this sort of thing. I think this needs to be put forward at WP:VPR or a similar forum before being implemented. The more likely outcome is that the flags in the company articles linked about should be removed. — Carl (CBM · talk) 20:26, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree this may need discussion but as for WP:FLAG I didn't find which specific line discourage the use of flag in a company infobox. Please give a quote. 16@r 09:54, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Services disambiguation

{{editprotected}}
Please change the "Services" field text to Services. Services is a disambiguation page, not an article. Thanks on behalf of the WP:DPL team. Paddles TC 10:25, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Y Done as another member of the DPL group :) Nihiltres(t.l) 13:06, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Picture

What if we don't have the logo (and don't really care) but have a picture of headquarters or something? I think that should be incorporated into the infobox, but I don't see that it is right now. See Chūbu Electric Power Company for an example. Thanks. -Theanphibian (talk • contribs) 00:14, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Chūbu Electric Power Company has a logo. I don't think photos have any business in the infobox. They belong in the main article, preferably in an appropriate section describing the facility. Adraeus 01:37, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
I know it has a logo, but we can't use that under anything other than fair-use. Free media should be preferred over non-free in all cases. -Theanphibian (talk • contribs) 06:28, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Preferred doesn't mean required. There's a logo. Use it. Adraeus 11:25, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
I'll try some logos for the companies. But fair-use stuff does tend to get deleted. And yeah... sad. -Theanphibian (talk • contribs) 11:46, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
I don't agree with those policies either. Logos and other official media (e.g., press kit photos) are intended to be distributed at-will. *sigh* The proactive censoring of content on Wikipedia is completely ridiculous. YouTube doesn't even do that. If the logos you upload are deleted for some equally ridiculous reason, just remember: not having that content available devalues Wikipedia, and that devaluation is Wikipedia's fault, not yours. Adraeus 11:53, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the explanation! But yeah, Wikipedia is way way way more strict about copyright than something like youtube. lol, or would it be more accurate to say that sites like youtube are a blatant and systematic violation of copyright while we aren't. -Theanphibian (talk • contribs) 12:32, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
No copyright law requires that Wikipedia be tediously bureaucratic. All that Wikipedia has to do is use a big, fat disclaimer a la YouTube. See this and this. Adraeus 03:06, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Can you put those on Wikipedia Commons? -Theanphibian (talk • contribs) 11:49, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
I don't know anything about Wikipedia Commons. Adraeus 11:53, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia commons rocks my socks. You can use an image on the commons for articles in as many languages as you want. That said, it makes the already complicated media uploading process a little more complicated. Flickr + the Commons = teh winz for building articles. -Theanphibian (talk • contribs) 12:32, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
So long as you can include a fair-use rationale and license for the image, and no free version can or does exist, using non-free images is acceptable to a degree. However, you cannot include them on Commons, as only free license images are accepted. Remember though that Wikipedia is supposed to be "The Free Encyclopedia", so it makes sense that non-free material is discouraged. For the same reason, we strongly discourage links to non-free content on YouTube...I see folk all the time trying to use illegal copyrighted material as a reference. Yes, it is complex, but there is a reason behind it all. -- Huntster T • @ • C 17:31, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Another question

Do you have to write a fair-use rationale for every non free logo used? As I look at all major company articles, I don't see that any of the logos include them. Admitably, this doesn't make sense to me, but that's how I'll do them until I'm convinced otherwise.

So what is it, are all of those logos uploaded incorrectly, or does the non free logo tag just take care of it all? -Theanphibian (talk • contribs) 00:46, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Best to just follow all those damn rules if you really, really want the content you upload to stay online... I don't bother re-uploading assets when they're deleted. Adraeus 01:41, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Fair-use policy states that a fair-use rationale must be included for every article that the object is used on. In other words, if you cannot strongly justify its existance on the page, it should not be there, period. Just because some images do not include those rationales does not mean that this is acceptable behaviour...it just means they haven't been detected or tagged yet (this is the same principle as "Just because it is done one way, this doesn't make it right"). Yes, there are a lot of rules, but my take is that Wikimedia would not have them in place if there wasn't a darn good reason for it. Perhaps it relates to fair-use laws? Irregardless, we are told to do it, so we do it. -- Huntster T • @ • C 03:07, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Okay, that's fine. I do kind of want to know what on Earth is going on with images like Image:Heinz.png though. I really just don't know. -Theanphibian (talk • contribs) 05:48, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
I was just about to ask what was wrong with the image page, but I see someone stepped in and fixed it up overnight. Just remember, using that as a basis (plus {{Information}}, which organises data) you can apply fixes to any image that is currently without. Remember that the four necessary components are "Author", "Source", "License" and "Rationale". -- Huntster T • @ • C 14:02, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Got it. The action on the Heinz logo answers my question entirely. -Theanphibian (talk • contribs) 21:00, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Request

I was wondering, Hoovers has five categories for financial information for publicly traded companies, yet the box only includes three of them: revenue, operating and total net income. Would it be possible to have the other two be added to the infobox template? They are for gross profit and diluted EPS (net income).

An example can be found here (I used Burger King as an example) and a definition of these terms is here

Thanks for the time, Jeremy (Jerem43 (talk) 19:39, 19 November 2007 (UTC))

[edit] field for "production locations"

Is there any chance of adding a field for "production locations"??

As an example, I quote the carmaker Audi - whilst the company headquarters are able to be listed (as Ingolstadt), I can not add the many different locations where Audi cars are produced. These include: Ingolstadt & Neckarsulm, Germany
Györ, Hungary
Brussels, Belgium
Curitiba, Brazil
Changchun, China.

I personally think that large multi-national manufacturing companies should be able to detail their main production plants.

Is my suggestion worthy of an amendment? Regards -- Teutonic Tamer 12:08, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I feel this is a bit excessive for the infobox...it's fine for companies with two, three, four locations, but what about those that have tens of locations? It would be inappropriate to allow locations for one company but exclude them for another due to having a large number. I'd avoid this one. -- Huntster T • @ • C 14:17, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] making the "name" parameter optional

{{editprotected}}

Easy one this, and I've done it in a few infoboxen now. Replace any instances of

{{{name}}}

with

{{{name|{{PAGENAME}}}}}

That way, the "name" parameter can be omitted entirely if the article title matches the company name. Chris Cunningham (talk) 15:06, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

changed. — Carl (CBM · talk) 18:17, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

This change has caused a problem with the name on articles. See Transport for London. MRSC • Talk 21:40, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

It's been reverted. "company_name" should be overwritten by "name", not preceeded by it. The fix would be to take this:
{{{name|}}}<!--deprecated:-->{{{company_name|}}}

And change it to this:

{{{name|{{{company_name|{{PAGENAME}}}}}}}}

Re-requesting edit. Chris Cunningham (talk) 21:47, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Done. - auburnpilot talk 21:57, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Foundation Date Question

Apologies if this has been discussed somewhere else, but I wanted to talk about what foundation date should be listed in the infobox. I think a standard should be established & noted in the instructions. While this may seem straightforward in most cases, when the company changes owners, changes names, merges with another or liquidates and the remaining properties are acquired the answer is not so clear.

For an example, let's look at Standard & Poor's

1860 is the year that S&P "traces it's history back to" as the date one of the founders published their first statistics book 1906 is the year that one of the companies that would become S&P was founded 1941 is the year that S&P was formed by merger

So which date do we use? My personal preference has always been the date the entity the article is about was first formed (so in the case of S&P this would be 1941). The other dates can be noted in the article under a Corporate History section. Other benefits of using that date include:

  • If prior entities are notable enough for their own article then the dates between articles will "flow" correctly (we could even do something like with a band's discography in the artist infobox, where previous & newer entities are displayed)
  • Establishing a standard will mean the infobox data is consistent, regardless of what each company calls their foundation date.

Thoughts? Thanks - Richc80 (talk) 18:57, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

It seems logical enough that the date used would be the date that the current company came into existence. There seems to be plenty of examples of previous incarnations having their own articles (BellSouth Telecommunications seems to be a good example, and it uses the date of the merge between Southern Bell and South Central Bell as the founding date). Setting a standard would be a good idea...getting the community to use that standard is another issue :) — Huntster (t • @ • c) 06:44, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
It seems logical to me as well to use the date associated with the topic entity. Something to consider is the impact of knowing the foundation date. Yes, it is a 'milestone' that is encyclopedic. One use of the information is to place the company in a historical context, to be able to (across multiple articles) build a composite view of (for instance) 1941. In that case, the 1941 value in the example is a bit misleading, because in reality actors doing the business of S&P were working prior to 1941, just under a different organizational banner. Therefore, it would be prudent to add a post-script note such as [[#Corporate history|see history]] in those cases where the foundation date might be misleading with respect to the impact of 'persons acting in concert' prior to the stated foundation date ('persons acting in concert' could be a synonym for 'organization' in many cases). A suggested phrasing of an addendum to the instruction (this would be a line below the 'example' line): "Note: For companies that have undergone splits and mergers, clarification by cross-reference to a Company History section may be needed." (next line) "Examples: see S&P and {another one}". The "S&P" and "another one" would be permalinks to versions that reflect current consensus as to how to treat this, which would provide flexibility in exemplifying the field content. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 11:25, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Edit request

This template inserts unwanted vertical whitespace. This should be fixed by putting the <noinclude> directly after the </includeonly>, without intervening newline. – gpvos (talk) 11:26, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Done. --Geniac (talk) 16:58, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Microformats

I have a fresh install of mediawiki and would like to use this template. But it will not work ... I have not been able to find (other that basic definitions) what extensions I need to allow the microformatting for this to work on my wiki. Can someone tell me what extensions I need to get this to work? WoodBASE (talk) 19:35, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Tighten relationship with Infobox Defunct Company

I'd like to suggest that {{Infobox Defunct Company}} be kept in sync with {{Infobox Company}}. For example, type, one of the required company fields, is missing from {{Infobox Defunct Company}}. That specific example would be easy to add (even without logging in) but perhaps someone familiar with the syntax of intricate templates could come up with a core set of fields that all company-derived templates could share.

— 68.167.191.137 (contribs) 23:34, 4 March 2008 (UTC).

[edit] Request field for "Sound Trademark"

It's getting to the point where many companies have registered, recognizable sound trademarks that are used as logos in radio, television, and other audio formats. For example: NBC, AT&T, Intel, Southwest Airlines, Tivo, Aamco, and many others:

See here for a list from the U.S. Patent office.

Considering these sound trademarks are used as audible logos in non-visual mediums, tied with the company, and available online - and no other reference exists on Wikipedia, I propose that the template be modified in a way to allow the standard playback box. A proposed example: (non-free image removed per WP:NFCC#9) With a requirement that the sound trademark be made available as an ogg file and marked as copyrighted work used for illustration - much in the same way corporate graphic logos are now classed. See information for above example. Lexlex (talk) 23:37, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

If we are already allowing fair-use logos, can we really justify fair-use sounds under the guidelines? We are supposed to be restricting use to bare minimums, not expanding it. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 02:53, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
I wouldn't classify this as an "expansion" of existing logos, more a classification of another type of logo that hitherto had not been presented here. What other encyclopedia would have this information? I'm, not aware of any. The only database of such a thing is the U.S. patent office, and that doesn't cover logo use in other countries or for non-US companies. I really see a need here. Lexlex (talk) 06:10, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Bueler? Bueler? Anyone? 76.90.12.243 (talk) 04:58, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
My two cents - I don't think that the infobox should be modified to accommodate these. It makes more sense to me to incorporate sound trademarks, where notable, into the article somewhere, most likely in a section that talks about it's creation, use, notability etc. This seems to be how music samples are incorporated into artist articles. - Richc80 (talk) 04:57, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Change indicators for revenue and income -- commonly misused?

In an admittedly casual search of pages using this infobox, what I saw seemed to indicate the change indicators are not well understood by editors, and probably are confusing to the typical reader as well. The most common misreading was using the arrows as sign indicators rather than year-over-year change indicators, so that positive income was always accompanied by an "up" arrow. The similar belief seemed to be that the revenue field should either not have an indicator, or that it should always be "up", since any company reporting results will have a positive amount of cash coming in... .

As a related question: is there a convention for negative results? If a company reports a net loss, should that be reported with a negative number or parentheses? Should "loss" be added somewhere to make it even clearer?

Does anyone else see these as problems? If so, are the remedies in better documentation, or would changes of some kind to the template itself help?

Perhaps example of common situations would help:

  • Profit, higher than the previous year's profit (positive number, increase indicator)
  • Profit, but less than the previous year (positive / decrease)
  • Loss, more than the previous year's (negative / decrease)
  • Loss, narrower than the previous year's (negative, increase)
  • Profit in line with previous year (positive / steady)
  • Loss in line with previous year (negative / steady )

--NapoliRoma (talk) 18:19, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Slogans

I've been watching a number of companies' pages and have come to the conclusion that the "slogan" line in this infobox is doing more harm than good. Problems include:

  • The slogan changes very frequently, making it difficult to keep current.
  • The slogan is advertising copy, not a substantive statement about the company, it's capabilities, history or mission. Advertising copy doesn't really fit with the purpose of an encyclopedia article.

While the slogan of a company may, in some rare circumstances, be stable enough and notable enough to earn a mention in an encyclopedia article about the company, I no longer think that discussion belongs in the infobox. Where it does, it should be added in as the exception, not the rule. Rossami (talk) 13:45, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Agreed with removal. Infoboxes should, in my opinion, present mostly static information about the topic. If inclusion is truly desired, perhaps a "free_label" field could be included for such purposes? — Huntster (t • @ • c) 19:05, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
I disagree, I don't see a problem with having a field for it in the infobox, it is optional after all. Can you provide a couple of examples of slogans that change "very frequently"? Due to the fact that it is typically incorporated into marketing materials, letterhead etc., I don't see how it could change more than say once a year, which from an update perspective would put it on par with a company's financial information. Richc80 (talk) 04:10, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Capgemini, for one, has changed every few months. And no, it's not incorporated into major marketing materials or letterhead. That would be their tagline under their logo. The slogan only shows up on their website - so it's very easy for them to change. Rossami (talk) 12:05, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Ah I see, I'm confusing my terminology again. :-) Thanks for the clarification. In that case I guess I am OK with removing the slogan field so long as there is still a tagline field. Richc80 (talk) 13:37, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I remember the slogan being removed by popular choice shortly after I created the infobox. Then someone added the slogan back without approval. Then someone protected the infobox from further edits. *sigh* Adraeus (talk) 06:13, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

So who understands the code well enough to take it out? Rossami (talk)
Please replace the template page with code from my sandbox. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 00:24, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Y Done. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 06:48, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Market capitalization

Market cap looks like a useful new addition to the infobox. Thanks – it's something I would love to see in an encyclopedia. However, market cap changes minute by minute according to the share price, so I am not sure how effective it is in a wiki.

Perhaps, instead of the applicable year, we should pick a date and time, such as market close on December 31 XXXX, and say so in a footnote. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 13:56, 12 May 2008 (UTC)