This is an archive of past discussions about Template:Infobox company. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Hello, a while back the definition of the term "Genre" was changed on the documentation page from "primarily used in publishing and media companies" to "only used for publishing and media companies". While this may seem like a minor change it actually makes a huge difference on how the term is utilized.
Within the Food and Drink WikiProject, we use the term genre in info boxes to denote what subset a food service company is, e.g. McDonald's is a Restaurant whose kind is a Fast food restaurant. This usage is consistent with the definition of the term: A kind; a stylistic category or sort, especially of literature or other artworks, which exactly the manner we are using it - to specifically denote a kind. (Wikt:Genre)
While we primarily associate the term with the publishing industry, the primary definition of the word is kind. Because of this I would like to change the usage instruction back to the original as this change seems to have been made without discussion. Unless we wish to add a new parameter to cover the specific subset of an industry a company does business in, I however think that would be redundant to the existing tern genre. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!)22:16, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
I also noticed another problematic entry made during that edit run, one that contradicts our policy of WP:Common name: The definition of name was changed from Name of the company to The full legal name of the company. This may be different from the common name of the company used for the article title. As I stated, this is contrary to Wikipedia's policy on naming which states Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's "official" name as an article title; it prefers to use the name that is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources. and since the infobox contains information pertinent to the subject of the article, should it not also display the common name? This should also be changed back to the original and clarified to reflect our established MoS. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!)22:23, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
What specific purpose does this serve? Generally adding multiple aliases for parameter names is discouraged as template bloat. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c)00:16, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
The purpose is that the label shows up in the template as "Founded", not "Foundation", and there is no logical reason to have those be different as it makes adding or editing the template more burdensome. If adding an alias is bloat, then I would have no problem with running a bot to correct all uses of "foundation" to "founded" and removing "foundation" as an option altogether. --Ahecht (TALK PAGE) 18:39, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
A couple of times (see Template_talk:Infobox_company/Archive_6), questions on how to format negative numbers have been asked, but no discussion has followed.
It seems that the most common way is to write the currency symbol, followed by digits in parentheses, then followed by a multiple (e.g. "millions"). Among the FTSE 100 companies, this is currently the only way of denoting negative amounts that is in actual use. See [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], and [8]. E.g.: "£(0.802) billion (2013)" For one FTSE 100 company, Barclays, a potentially confusing notation with positive dollar amounts in parentheses is used, though: "£1.297 billion (2013) ($2.224B USD)"
I have only been able to find a few major American companies with negative financial amounts: [9], [10], and [11]. For these three, hyphens were used in order to denote negative amounts, which is against MOS:MINUS, where the use of − is prescribed (now fixed for those). E.g.: "US$ -6.544 billion (2013)"
The template documentation does not comment on how to express negative amounts. If it were not for the precedent, I would advocate specifying in the documentation that a minus should be used. Not every Wikipedia user is accustomed to reading financial tables, and adding to potential confusion, there are prescribed uses in the infobox of parentheses around digits with other meanings than negative numbers, e.g. years and ownership percentages. Finally, of course, in most non-financial contexts, negative numbers are denoted by minus signs.
But it seems like an uphill struggle to reverse the currently most common notation, and as long as the parentheses are placed strictly just around the digits, there can be little confusion about their meaning. Does anyone have a clear opinion about this? The use of a hyphen is clearly wrong, as upon a quick glance, the hyphen is almost invisible in the default font. Perhaps the documentation should specify the use of "either the appropriate '−' minus sign, or no minus sign at all but instead parentheses around the digits?" --OttoG (talk) 17:35, 4 September 2014 (UTC) --OttoG (talk) 18:31, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
As far as this matter goes, whenever I update the infoboxes for any type company - and coming from the retail industry myself for the last 15 years - I always use the parantheses to signify a negative amount. Though, it is confusing as to what icon to use ( or ). Like, if they're in the red for 2012, but the amount is less in 2013, do I use but still use the () to signify a loss? (i.e. $(2.343) million (2012), $(1.254) million (2012)) Thanks! FriarTuck1981 (talk) 01:00, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
This is likely to confuse readers. We need a clearer system. For those familiar with the use of parens for negative numbers, it may make sense, but that's jargon; for other readers - lay readers - it looks just like a positive number. bobrayner (talk) 23:52, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
Using the hyphen for negative is insufficient. I do wish we could use parentheses, but I agree with bobrayner that it is likely to confuse the lay reader. Is it possible to use some clearer indication? Perhaps red font to indicate negative? Mcenedella (talk)(contribs) 02:33, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
Please change the bottom of the template for a couple of days. It is for tracking purpose (really nothing interesting), will request removing it after I'm done (it will happen after some few days). And no, there isn't another way to doing that.
From:
}}{{#if:{{{bodystyle|}}} |[[Category:Pages using infobox company with bodystyle]]}}<noinclude>
{{Documentation}}
</noinclude>
To:
}}<includeonly>[[Category:Pages using Infobox company]]</includeonly>{{#if:{{{bodystyle|}}} |[[Category:Pages using infobox company with bodystyle]]}}<noinclude>
{{Documentation}}
</noinclude>
But you can make some things with category, what you can't do with information from Whatlinkshere page. For example, some manipulations with this tool (not the tool/functions what I'm using, but something similar). Is it so hard to add that line? It won't harm anybody or anyone :) --Edgars2007 (talk/contribs) 15:37, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
@Acagastya: These are sometimes included in the key_people section. However, our featured articles typically only have one or two of the most important officials.
|key_people= Sir [[Roger Carr (businessman)|Roger Carr]] <small>(Chairman)</small> <br />
[[Ian King (BAE Systems)|Ian King]] <small>(CEO)</small>
However, remember that Wikipedia is not a directory, so keep the infobox brief and relevant. In my opinion, CFO would be most relevant for financial companies such as banks.
Please add a parameter Alexa Rank to this Infobox. I feel so because most of the companies do have their websites. And some of the companies have a small revenue from their website: but it doesn't have a separate article. aGastya✉ Dicere Aliquid :) 23:15, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
No. This seems only to be relevant to e-commerce sites and domainers. I think Alexa rank belongs in the prose of e-commerce sites, but not in the infobox of corporations. (Other rankings are available.) I don't think the rank of apple.com or www.ge.com would be broadly interesting to infobox readers. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 11:57, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
{{Infobox website}} probably meets your needs. In my eyes, store.apple.com counts as an ecommerce website. See Apple Store (online). (I wonder if Alexa rank is meaningful if the Alexa toolbar isn't installed on a broad cross-section of Apple devices, and if many online Apple shoppers use apps instead of the web.) --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 13:18, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
Do you think adding a "registered office" section would be justified?
It is crucial to legal and taxation purpose. I think many people might use infobox to check "what taxation?" "what legal framework?" the company has to follow. It also underlines the fact that registered office and headquarters could be separate. In some cases it is important. Do you agree? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.42.102.224 (talk) 10:21, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
I agree. I usually feel that encyclopedia readers are most interested in knowing the HQ city, but on reflection, registered office can be interesting too.
This situation is perhaps most common in North America, a company could have an HQ in Pittsburgh or San Jose, but be a 'Delaware corporation', a 'North Dakota corporation' or even be registered in the Bahamas or Caymans. I don't think we can or should be strict or thorough about this, as some companies are complex networks of entities that Wikipedia would struggle to reflect well, or at all. (Places where a company does business usually also assert some legal and tax jurisdiction.)
I struggle to suggest a name for the field that doesn't sound too complex or stuffy. I fear 'registered office' would encourage a 'business directory' approach of including a full street address.
Two sections of the documentation have contradictory advice for |intl=. One says:
"Set positively ("true"/"yes"/etc) if company is international, otherwise omit"
the other:
"Set positively (true, on, etc) to switch applicable labels from American to international terminology, otherwise omit this parameter.
An "international" company is one which operates across borders, not one which uses "non-American terminology". It seems to me that, if the latter is what is intended, the parameter is misnamed. How can we best clear up this confusion? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits08:36, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
All it does is control whether one of the labels is shown as Profit or Net income. Since there is also |net_income= and |profit=, there doesn't seem to be a need for it as the label could show Net income if the net_income is used and Profit if the profit parameter is used. -- WOSlinker (talk) 12:13, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Done I used {{fullurl:toollabs:isin/|language=en&isin={{urlencode:{{{ISIN}}}}} instead of hardcoding the toollabs URL. Ahecht (TALK PAGE) 01:45, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
Wikidata
Following Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2015 August 2#Template:Infobox bank I've merged in the new fields from Infobox bank which had been forked from here. The following items were altered in bank to copy in values from Wikidata. I tried it in the sandbox but couldn't find any cases where I could check it either worked or didn't break anything.
data8 = {{{industry|{{#invoke:Wikidata|getValue|P452|FETCH_WIKIDATA}}}}}
data13 = {{{foundation|{{{founded|{{#invoke:Wikidata|getValue|P571|FETCH_WIKIDATA}}}}}}}}
data24 = {{{services|{{#invoke:Wikidata|getValue|P452|FETCH_WIKIDATA}}}}}
data33 = {{{num_employees|{{#invoke:Wikidata|getValue|P1128|FETCH_WIKIDATA}}}}}
data41 = {{{homepage|{{{website|{{#invoke:Wikidata|getValue|P856|FETCH_WIKIDATA}}}}}}}}
This version of num_employees omits the num_employees_year. Thoughts please, Bazj (talk) 12:08, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
When the trading_name parameter is used, the Trading name label displayed in the infobox links to Doing business as. However, that page is a redirect to Trade name, which is the actual content page. The label should link to Trade name.
Since Trade name is the name of the article, the Trading name label should be changed to Trade name to match the article name. If that is done, either the parameter name should be changed to trade_name, with trading_name as an alternate parameter name, or trading_name should remain the parameter name with trade_name added as an alternate parameter name.—Finell23:31, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
Adjust |production_year to be formatted after the |production content, so that it has the same formatting as |revenue and |revenue_year, |operating_income and |income_year, |net_income and |net_income_year, etc.
— c16sh (speakup)21:08, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
I propose that we start checking for Wikidata properties that are relevant, and if they exist, without an explicit override, that they be used. As a first item, I propose that we add "oc_id" or "opencorporates_id" parameter that, when not explicitly set in the infobox, will use the Wikidata property (P1320) if it exists. OpenCorporates pulls information from, e.g., Companies House which neither has a Wikidata property nor parameter, many if not most US states, and others which would not be easy to implement nor maintain individually.
And should adding it automatically be undesirable, I alternatively propose adding it as a parameter but not automatically used, with {{#property:P1320}} as a suggested value and the URL automatically built. int21h (talk · contribs · email) 20:59, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
Pigsonthewing recently added the "proposed merge" template to this infobox. Since this is a very widely used template, and this template wouldn't get any breaking changes as a result of this merge, I don't think it makes sense to transclude this notice on the 60,000+ pages that aren't US banks. Shouldn't this template only be transcluded in Template:Infobox U.S. national banks, and put in <noinclude>...</noinclude> here? --Ahecht (TALK PAGE) 14:27, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. — Andy W. (talk · contrib)03:43, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
Hi. Would you care to give us an example of how its value should look for one or two of the existing articles? Thanks. Codename Lisa (talk) 19:46, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
Start the easy way. Choose an article. Then write "In Article X, I'd add ... to the infobox right under ...". Replace "Article X" with the name of your article. Replace the first ... with what you'd like to add and the second ... with what the readers sees there. I will convert into the computer code myself; of course, after having someone from the community validate it. Two or three examples are better.
A reader contacted Wikimedia to suggest that it would be useful to include the legal name of companies, a name which often is not the same as the common name.
I agree this would be useful.
I note the template has many references to "full, legal name”, there is no such field. While I haven't read all of the archives, this entry may be reelvant, as it suggests the field “name” at one time was defined to be the “full, legal name”. I fully agree with the decision that we should opt for common name over “full, legal name” in the “name” field, but we can eat our cake and have it, too. I think it would be helpful to the reader to also supply the full legal name, at least in those instances where it is not the same as the common name.
I propose an additional field:
"legal name" The full, legal name of the entity, only to be used if it differs from the name in the (common name) "name" field.
(While I have some experience editing templates, if this proposal is accepted, given the large number of transclusions, I would prefer that a more experienced template editor made the change.)--S Philbrick(Talk)17:14, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
I agree with this. on Big Ass Solutions, that is a dba name. The legal name is Delta T Corporation per this. Right now in the article, Delta T is listed in the infobox as the "parent" and that seems to be a bad answer. Jytdog (talk) 00:16, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
This sounds like a reasonable and helpful addition, so I went to work on the template, adding the legal_name parameter to the sandbox version. You can see the result on the template's test cases page. Then, before applying the update to the production version, I wanted to update the documentation, and I noticed that it currently says that the name parameter should contain the full legal name of the company, so that legal_name would be a duplicate. However, this rule does not seem to be followed by actual company infoboxes, including the one that is quoted as an example in the documentation, Verizon Wireless whose legal name is "Cellco Partnership". The reasoning seemed to be that the legal name should be displayed at the top of the infobox and then trading_name should be displayed for the more commonly used name under which the company is known, but obviously this is not what a majority of editors have done. I believe that the logic should be to display the WP:COMMON NAME as name, and then the legal name separately if different. Trading name can still be used in cases where it differs from the common name, or if there are several such trading names under the same legal entity. This would require adding the legal_name as suggested here and also changing the documentation so that name would be reserved for the common name, and default to the page name as it does today. Given that this reversal of the currently documented logic may be controversial, I'd like to gather some consensus here before proceeding. Fire away! — JFGtalk09:27, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
Support. I agree with Sphilbrick that we need more clarity that "name" is used for the common name, and that we need an appropriate field for the legal name. The documentation does seems to be out of sync with actual usage, and JFG's plan seems to be a sound enough way of rectifying the situation without breaking numerous existing company infoboxes. Lwarrenwiki (talk) 17:28, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
support with change of documentation as well. nice to see an infobox change be resolved amicably. :) Jytdog (talk) 21:09, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
Image size
Hi.
I see someone has added a |upright=1.35 to the infobox image, in violation of WP:IMAGESIZE policy. (This renders the image 1.35 times bigger than the user preference. e.g., 297 instead of 220 and 405 instead of 300.) This change impacts thousands of articles and I have already contested it twice in the past. Where is the discussion supporting this change? Alternatively, if there is a convincing motive, I'd like to hear it.
However, if the only motive is one editor's preference, the correct course of action changing the personal preference in the Special:Preferences page. Also, if the motive is the width of the infobox, that can be adjusted separately. (The default width is 22em but a 300px image may stretch an infobox up to 26em.)
I think we should follow WP:IMAGESIZE and avoid enlarging infoboxes unnecessarily. If there is a problem with the size of the certain image in the certain infobox, it could be enlarged individually. Otherwise, the way how images are shown could be changed in the personal preferences. Beagel (talk) 05:52, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
So it's clear that the type can be public or private, but what are the other options? It would be great to link the template to all the options. There is a list here [[Category:Types of business entity]], but the word Type in the Template:Infobox company infobox is wikilinked to the Types of business entity article. That article doesn't really help users understand the type field.
Can we do two things: wikilink the description of the Type field in Template:Infobox company to [[Category:Types of business entity]], instead of Types of business entity, and change the wikilinking of the word Type in the Template:Infobox company template to go to [[Category:Types of business entity]]? And, while we're at it, shouldn't entity be plural, since types is plural, i.e. Types of business entities?Timtempleton (talk) 19:26, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
Hi.
I'll try to answer each of your questions with a numbered answer, so that you can inquire about each easier.
You are right, "of The Walt Disney Company" is not part of the type. Another person tried the same thing in Yammer article and I reverted it.
Other options are all that you can see in Types of business entity article, e.g., a Romanian company article can specify "S.R.L." while an Iranian company article can specify "شرکت سهامی عام". A Chinese company can specify [[Partnership (China)|partnership (有限公司)]]. No one said a Wikilink is mandatory!
According to what I said above, the wikilink should stay what it is.
"Entity" need not be plural. In English language, in a noun group, it is always the head word that becomes plural; other words may or not be plural out of their own merit without any obligation to the noun group. In this example, S.R.L. is a "type of business entity". "Type" is the head word.
The consensus is against the proposal. Editors suggested providing a link to a conversion tool that would convert from the local currency to a second currency. Cunard (talk) 00:08, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
In many cases company income/revenue/etc. is indicated in a native currency. I always have to go convert it to a currency I can related to, and that can be compared to other companies. And there's additional work for defunct companies where you have to look up historic exchange rates.
What do you think of standardizing it to use US$, possibly with the inclusion of the native currency as an extra?
¤ ehudshapira22:28, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
I think it would be useful to use US$ for all other currencies, except in the case of €. If € is used as a currency, the amount in US$ may be added in brackets, but amounts in € should remain. Beagel (talk) 18:24, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
Euro is common, but I think US$ is still more relatable to English-speaking people. Another option is the reverse: Native currency (then US$ equivalent in brackets). ¤ ehudshapira17:08, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
English-speaking people are not the only readers of English Wikipedia. English is the lingua franca after all. (Feel free to ask a checkuser though.) And anyway, when it comes to a company's income and expenditure, all I can say is that the number is far bigger than my income. But I find no other meaning in it unless I apply context to it. —Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 07:40, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
@Ehudshapira: Your second option is fine for me but it really needs very precise guidelines how the value in US$ should be calculated if it not reported by the company itself. Beagel (talk) 14:03, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
Beagel: I think the exact conversion method isn't that critical? There are multiple exchange rates even from the same source. No one is going to use it for business decisions, so 1-2% off is no big deal. Maybe take the rate from Jan 1st of the following year using whichever reliable source: Yahoo Finance, XE, or one of the others. Lisa: Yes, by English-speaking I meant all those who read English Wikipedia. ¤ ehudshapira17:35, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
Oppose: Instead, standardize on using the local currency and providing conversion somehow. A link to a conversion tool would probably be the best solution, since readers in New Zealand or Belize really don't give a damn what 2.8 million Swedish krona comes out to in US dollars or UK pounds or euros. — SMcCandlish ☺☏¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 08:45, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
Oppose - WP:V, the figure cited should be verifiable, which means it should be given in local currency. SMcCandlish's suggestion of a conversion tool seems the most sensible option. for (;;)(talk)10:04, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
Oppose: The currency should be local currency - changes year over year should purely reflect the business performance, without additional unrelated factors such as fluctuations in the exchange rates that are out of a business' control. I'm all for making conversion tools available to users but there are plenty of third party sites one can go to, including my favorite, XE.com.Timtempleton (talk) 20:14, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
Telephone numbers are more useful to readers - There are services which keep accurate financial figures, which often vary widely from quarter to quarter, up to date. Wikipedians are unlikely to be able to keep up. We should, however, include the official telephone numbers listed in securities filings, which typical readers need far more often than financial figures. EllenCT (talk) 12:34, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
The revenue numbers are useful and provide a sense of relative scale. They only change once a year and so aren't hard to update. The link to a business' web site should suffice rather than putting in a phone number - interested readers can find investor relations and corporate contact info on the company's web site.Timtempleton (talk) 22:03, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
Support -- I see that most editors oppose and they offer good reasons. I tend to like to see more information provided as opposed to less, allowing researchers to have details at their screen without, at the OP editor suggests, bringing up more tools to do further research. A short auto conversion in yen and other script would be helpful. Damotclese (talk) 15:31, 13 July 2016 (UTC)\
Usually I also like more info rather than less, but only if it's static info. This is a changing number. Also, how are you going to decide which currencies to include? It obviously would have to be automated since many articles don't even have current local currency info, but which of the many non-local currencies for foreign businesses should be supported? US$, Pound, Euro, Yen, Renminbi, Ruble, Rupee? And which conversion rates are going to be used? Those discussions, assuming majority consensus changes and the vote it to add some sort of conversion, are going to take much longer than this one.Timtempleton (talk) 21:32, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
Oppose: Wikipedia is to present information not to modify it. I don't see what is the problem with keeping the currency from the resource (in native currency or otherwise). Another argument opposing the conversion from the original resource is what currency to convert to? There are many English speaking countries and no reason to chose US$ as a standard. We are trying to be objective and to avoid favoritism. I could chose yen or Canadian dollar, conversion from the bank I use and not of my neighbor etc.Gpeja (talk) 22:38, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
A reply to some points brought up above.
Verifiable: Can be made easy by including both local and USD values. It's also not difficult to verify a USD value by back-converting to the native one. Also, how many people want to verify vs how many people just want to get the general sense on a quick glance?
Present info, not modify: It's not modifying, but making readable and relevant. Let me ask those who oppose: why do you look at these figures? For me it's either to get a comparative scale of one company versus another (needs uniform units), or the get an absolute scale (needs units I can relate to).
YoY changes: These can be based on the native currency, regardless of whether USD is shown (by itself or in addition to native).
Convertion script: That's an interesting idea. I don't know how to implement it, but that would also unify the exchange rates source. Though again, I don't think a few percent off due to using different exchange rates is that big a deal when the idea is to get the rough scale of a company. ¤ ehudshapira00:33, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Proposal to add a field - CEO
I've recently run across a few emails to Wikimedia (OTRS) requesting a correction because the CEO of some company is incorrect.
The narrow response is to point out to them that they are looking at the Google knowledge graph not Wikipedia. That's what I'm doing but I think we should discuss whether we can do something to solve the problem.
I think the problem is that we do not have a field for CEO. We have a field for key people in the name of the CEO with a parenthetical explanation is often used. However, my guess is that the Google knowledge graph scraping algorithm is looking for a field call CEO and not finding one, goes somewhere else to pick up the information.
Arguably, this is not a problem as our information is often correct. However I hope we are interested in making sure the correct information is portrayed. Many people mistakenly assumed that all of the fields in the Google knowledge graph come from Wikipedia and while this is incorrect it doesn't help us if fields are wrong because of something we could fix.
In short, I propose that a CEO field be added to this template.
If this makes sense there are other templates which need to be considered. The most recent specific issue arose from INFOBOX airline.--S Philbrick(Talk)16:35, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
First thoughts...
Could you provide an example of the complained articles please?
Is wikipedia the guilty party?, Have you cross checked with wikidata? d:Property:P169, eg at d:Q37156.
The CEO is going to need to be moved from the Key People item in many articles.
A specific example is South African Airways whose current (acting) CEO is Musa Zwane. Recently, a google search listed a former CEO - that field is not now shown, perhpas becasue I gave them instruction on how to let Google know it was in error.
I do see that, for example, the Apple CEO is shown in a Google search, and is in the Wikidata item. Perhaps that is where Google gets it.
I can provide the advice that they can "fix" the Google search problem by editing Wikidata, if that is the source of the info, but why would we decide that chief executive officer is a useful field in Wikidata, but not in an infobox?--S Philbrick(Talk)16:28, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
I am not very enthusiastic about this as it just makes the infobox code larger and more complicated. However, if this is implemented, we should jave a separate field also for Chairman and in this case, CEO and Chairman fields should be used as alternative and not as addition for the Key people field. Beagel (talk) 18:54, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
I would like (again) to raise the issue of the slogan field. Last time it was restored in 2014 with reference to discussion back in 2006. However, it fully ignored the fact that after 2006 had been a lot of discussions about this without consensus for inclusion. I believe that we should not to include this field in the infobox as this is not the basic (and neutral) information about the company which is the main purpose of the infobox. Vice versa, companies slogans are quite promotional and with few exceptions they are not notable. If the slogan is notable, it should be included in the body text of the article; otherwise, it does not belong to the article (including article's infobox) at all. Therefore, I propose to remove the slogan field from the infobox. Beagel (talk) 12:07, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
Back in 2010 there was a request to add a coordinates field. That time there was a clear consensus against it. In 2014, this field was added anyway without any prior discussion and it was clear that there was no consensus for inclusion. I propose to remove this field as the field coordinates is applicable for the physical objects, not for legal persons. It may be usable for a small companies such as a single shop or workhouse, but not for the larger companies. Even worse, the documentation does not specify what is meant by the location. It could be that the company is registered in Delaware, has its main headquarters in Houston and operates in Paris. Or what shold be the coordinates in the case of Royal Dutch Shell? Once more, differently from the physical objects, the legal persons does not have coordinates. In the case some location related to the company is notable, it coordinates could be provided in the body text by using {{coord}}. Beagel (talk) 12:41, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
I completely agree Beagel, well stated. — Huntster (t@c) 21:07, 29 July 2016 (UTC
I say keep it' and label it "Headquarters location". There is a clear and repeated demand for such a field; and an equivalent property in Wikidata. Using coordinates in the body text does not include them in the metadata emitted by the infobox. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits21:27, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
Done It seems like the 2014 discussion following the addition of that parameter was to remove it, though it appears the discussion died down before a formal "tally" could be taken. That being said, I have removed the coordinates parameter. Users on either end of this discussion are invited to submit a formal RFC to cement/reverse this if they feel it is necessary. Primefac (talk) 21:08, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
Parent field redefinition
I just learned about this yesterday, as I have not seen anything that strictly followed it the way it should. I'm talking about what is stated as definition for the "parent" parameter; it says "[...], list the full, legal name of the parent company, correctly reproducing punctuation and abbreviations or lack thereof." The example given is, for Solar Turbines, Caterpillar Inc., however, the example is not really good, as "Caterpillar Inc." IS the common name, or at least current article name, to distringuish it from the eponymous animal. It was not given in the original version of the definitions, where it said "Google" instead of "Google Inc.", but it was changed without any explanation or prior discussion in 2011. I believe it should be changed back, as it is a guidelined violation to WP:COMMONNAME, and also in use by just about no article, only a handful, far from being the majority. Lordtobi (✉) 16:36, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
There is an information box on the right side of the main template's page below the first default information box which contains a listing of wikidata properties used. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:16, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
Despite that long list of related properties in the documentation, the template's code doesn't appear to use anything but website/P856. It appears someone added it to the documentation without implementing it. -- ferret (talk) 01:22, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
Fixed. The whitespace after each parameter was apparently some sort of hidden character, rather than spaces. -- ferret (talk) 14:52, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
When a company (or other entity) become defunct, how should the URL field be handled? I've seen some editors remove it while others leave it as-is. As an encyclopedia, I feel the old (ie, last known) domain name should continue to be listed, but not linked. This is similar to how old ticker symbols are handled. While this can certainly be accomplished by entering plain text and not using the URL tag, what do people think about adding a "was" designator on the URL field? This would allow the defunct domain name to continue to be displayed, but not linked. This is useful for when another, unrelated company takes over a domain. For example, see Bay Networks. Pjhansen (talk) 17:14, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
I propose changing the documentation for the "owner" tag to allow its use in public companies, ONLY on the case for name and percentage of a large long-term strategic owner (I'm thinking like TD Bank's 42% ownership of TD Ameritrade, or the Walton family's 51% ownership of Walmart, and similar). Any strong objections? UnitedStatesian (talk) 02:02, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
No objections. For sure with mandatory percentage, but sometime there may be discrepancy between percentage of subscribed capital and voting rights (I would prefer subscribed capital) and also beware of companies with multiple classes of shares. Also for some companies with fragmented ownership even 5% share may be large or largest.--Jklamo (talk) 08:24, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
It is in most cases usually problematic to actually source the field properly, regardless if we use people or companies, and it is not commonly a public thing (except for self-promotion, like Vivendi does every time they hit 1% further in Ubisoft). It would actually be a logical move to kill the parameter alltogether, as parent is a publicly-known and easier to source/retrieve. Lordtobi (✉) 10:29, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
For listed companies there is no big problem with sourcing, as most of stock exchanges require 5%+ (or even less) shareholding disclosure. Apart of these disclosures companies also disclosing their largest shareholders in annual reports.--Jklamo (talk) 13:40, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
I would like to the above suggestion, which has since reached the documentation, that we should change the small detail of having to put the full legal name of owning companies, which goes against WP:COMMONNAME (and in a slight way against WP:COMMONSENSE), also adding to it that we often don't know if a company owns another company through holding subsidiaries, operating subsidiaries, or key individuals that attribute their ownership to the company (e.g. DMA Design Holdings is a subsidiary of Rockstar North (formerly DMA Design), which in turn is a subsidiary of Rockstar Games, which in turn is 100% owned by and a subsidiary of Take-Two Interactive, wherefore DMA Design Holdings is, by crossing over two other companies, 100% owned by Take-Two Interactive, which its ownership is attributed to). Therefore, I would suggest that we remove that little, uncrucial detail, which is often disregarded by many editors anyway. This may be optional for companies that do not have their own article, but shouldn't be a must. Lordtobi (✉) 13:38, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
While I read WP:COMMONNAME as referring only to article titles, and not at all to content within articles, including infoboxes, I am fine with removing the full legal name suggestion from the owner tag documentation in this infobox. UnitedStatesian (talk) 14:01, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
I'm not sure I 100% follow your logic here. In the case above, DMA Design Holdings is a subsidiary and should use the parent field, not the owner field. As for not requiring full legal name, I've no issue with removing that, it seems to generate a lot of pointless name tweaking. -- ferret (talk) 14:23, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
I'm not sure I 100% follow my logic, either. I did a lot of things at once and probably got things mixed up down the road, so I striked it out to avoid unnecessary confusion. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Lordtobi (✉) 14:43, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
Change:
Assets under management (AUM) to Assets under advisement (AUA) to reflect that not all assets are directly managed by Winton. Sean.Bernard (talk) 14:14, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
Not done: You seem to be asking to change the data of the infobox on a specific article. This page is only for asking for changes to the template itself. You'll have to ask this as the article in question. -- ferret (talk) 14:17, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
This is a bad idea. Wikidata entries are already targets for SEO operators (e.g this "howto"). Wikidata is badly patrolled and creating a flow of Wikidata into WP like this makes our articles about companies worse, not better. We already have a big problem with promotional editing in en-WP in this topic. Jytdog (talk) 19:12, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
I second that. Plus, we still don't have adequate means of importing WikiData fields without a hitch. Everything is clunky and needs very complex Lua coding to complement. —Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 05:37, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
Au contraire!, I strongly support this initiative. Let's face it: corporate information is usually very poor and outdated on Wikipedia. Importing relevant facts from Wikidata would go a long way towards improving our coverage. Also, by exposing more data to a higher viewership on Wikipedia, any rogue entries will be detected and corrected faster than if the information remains buried on Wikidata. — JFGtalk06:53, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
I have no desire to go into Wikidata and change things, and even if I did they have a completely different conception of sourcing there, and somebody could just revert and there is no way to resolve that. What you are saying is basically blackmail - "we are going to stick this content into WP, and if it is bad, fix it. And if you don't, well too bad for WP readers". It is messed up on every level. Jytdog (talk) 11:14, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
Idea for a change to the explanation about data being automatically included from Wikidata
The comments here are in reference to the state of the template [usage] documentation (about how to use the template "{{Infobox company}}") in (or as of) this specific version of the "Template:" file that goes with this "Talk:" page. It is / "was" the latest (current) version "as of" when this was written.
My comments about the explanation [the sweeping statement] that says
"Data will be automatically included from Wikidata."
have already been entered into a big HTML comment in the article about Vupen. (...that would have been way too big to fit in to a Wikipedia [article-space] edit comment.)
To find that big HTML comment, please [feel free to] see this edit to the article about Vupen. (I later realized that maybe that big HTML comment should be posted to this "Talk:" page.)
Please don't make big hidden comments like that. You're essentially asking a question for this template page... just post it here. I've removed the section in question from the documentation. This template does not support Wikidata, except in the case of the webpage parameter, so a section directing users to put the template in with no parameters so Wikidata will populate is incorrect. -- ferret (talk) 21:14, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
Not really the issue. The documentation was worded as if the entire template supported Wikidata, but it never has. It was inserted in this diff. I have removed that text now, since it is not correct. -- ferret (talk) 21:20, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
Isn't the template suppose to provide basic info about the company? The slogan is also part of the basic info and would be better than creating an entire section of it on an article. Also, then why doesn't template: infobox organization and template: infobox network remove them if they are nonsense? Most infobox templates have them. Even this template has it in other languages. Hessa94 (talk) 12:02, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
No, not again. We have had this discussion repeated again and again over the years. I fully agree with Codename Lisa that the company's slogan is usually worthless nonsense and as a rule, it srves only promotional purposes. It it is a notable, it could be added to the body text, but there is no need for it at the infobox. Beagel (talk) 20:23, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
Formatting of negative amounts of money (again)
It seems there was a previous attempt (Template talk:Infobox company/Archive 10#Formatting of negative amounts of money) to solve the issue of how to represent negative numbers in the infobox. However nothing has been decided and there is still no guidelines in the infobox documentation on this.
I propose to once and for all decide on a standard. I personally suggest using "−" sign as in "US$ −6.544 billion (2013)" instead of the parentheses, which may be confusing as already mentioned in the archived discussion.
Please share your opinions. --Ita140188 (talk) 06:49, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
'&minus' might be overkill, but a standard minus should do the trick: {{US$|-6.544 billion|link=yes}} (US$−6.544 billion) appears to me as the best format (currency template should IMO always be in-place). Lordtobi (✉) 07:03, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
standard dash is also good for me. My suggestion was just following MOS:MINUS. Anyway these is all quite technical, what I think is important is to decide whether to use minus or parentheses. Right now there are examples of very non-standard representations of negative numbers which are confusing (and ugly in my opinion), for example: Banca Adriatica --Ita140188 (talk) 07:28, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
Wasn't keen about MOS:MINUS, merci for the link. Either way, I'd say just use dashed (as you point out, using −) values. No colors, no "negative", and no parenthesis (as you'd find in press releases). If possible, and preferred by me, use the specific currency template and to avoid linebreaking. Lordtobi (✉) 07:36, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
How should we proceed to gain consensus for an update of the infobox documentation to include the recommended use of the minus sign? --Ita140188 (talk) 08:38, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
If nobody opposes the change, at a 2:0 ratio, we'd have 2×∞ the times for inclusion in comparison to against . We should wait till tomorrow and then go ahead with the inclusion, unless there is reasonable opposition, of course. Lordtobi (✉) 08:51, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
Why would you want decrease/increase to be removed? The template currently suggests including previous numbers as well, but with the simple colored arrows, we can show that it was more/less before. Lordtobi (✉) 10:27, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
@Michael Bednarek: I was not trying to remove the decrease or increase symbols. My proposal only concerns the way to represent negative numbers in the infobox. These only appear in the profit (as far as I know that's the only quantity that can be negative in this infobox). In particular, I was proposing to suggest in the documentation the use of the minus symbol as opposed to the parentheses (which are often used in financial statements). Decrease and increase symbol still apply. For example:
<--comment added by Ita140188 on 02:48, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
(WP:Notifications don't work if you don't sign.) Thanks for the clarification. IMO no additional guidelines are required for the display of negative numbers. MOS:MINUS at MOS:NUM, and MOS:COLOUR, are the obvious places to look. The example you mention at Banca Adriatica is not recommended by those guides, and it should be undone. It should show either "€772 million loss" or "772 million euros loss" or "€−772 million" or "−772 million euros". -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 10:18, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
Oops with all the stuff in the unbulleted list I forgot to sign! Anyway the fact that you give so many examples is precisely the reason why I think we should have a standard. Also the current situation at that article is the result of me not being able to find any guideline on negative numbers in financial contexts thus not being able to revert that change (right now it essentially depends on the preferences of each user) --Ita140188 (talk) 11:07, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
Many companies are listed in local currency, which makes comparison difficult, even approximate comparison is difficult for something listed in Swedish Krona, vs Swiss Francs, versus New Zealand dollars. I appreciate that having local currency is best for sourcing and authenticity purposes, but even indicative values in USD would be helpful. As a workaround, some companies, eg. Haier Group provide both values with break sign in between, but not every user is comfortable calculating all this info. Ideally, there would be an "auto" currency conversion field, with data sourced perhaps sourcing from wikidata. It's similar to how population density is calculated in settlement infobox. An "auto" box could have only one parameter: original currency code, values would be converted to "Revenue_USD" automatically. If the user wants to override the auto setting, it could accept original currency code, final currency code, and value.
--Amphibia07 (talk) 12:12, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
Right, the "Google argument", what's the point of Wikipedia then, when you can google everything. My point is, the currency itself is often ambiguous, eg "kr", or "lira", and you have to guess from context. Sure you can always convert in google, but there will be limitations. One example is when figures in the article are out of date, then google-converting 2006 revenues by current exchange rates is not the best idea. Ideally the infobox would do "auto" convertion based on information entered, but understanding this is not an easy to do, leaving it for consideration here. --Amphibia07 (talk) 11:20, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
You'd also need to look out that the currency conversion is time-specific: "So Company X made 500M Swedish kroner in 1996? How much was that in US$ back then?" Also, we would still see people complaining that they could not relate to either US$ or Swedish kr. Lordtobi (✉) 17:54, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
Two years of financial data
The template documentation calls for the financial fields (revenue, net_income, assets, etc.) to list numbers for the most recent two years. It used to call for only one year of data, but this was changed in 2012 by an IP editor, apparently without any discussion. This instruction has not been widely followed. I looked at about 100 articles from List of S&P 500 companies, and only about 15% had two years of data. Two years seems excessive and arbitrary to me. The financials mainly serve the purpose of showing how big the company is, and that can be conveyed with just one year of data. If two years, then why not three or five years? I propose changing the documentation back to showing only one year of data. Toohool (talk) 19:12, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
I think two years makes the most sense because the financial section also tends to use the green up/red down arrows; without the prior year those arrows lack context (did it increase by 1% or 90%?) and use of the wrong arrow is less likely to be caught. I would prefer the documentation not be changed and instead we work to get the second year of data into more articles. UnitedStatesian (talk) 17:48, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
Good point, but my answer is that the up/down arrows shouldn't be included either. Why on earth is the fact that "the company's revenue increased/decreased from 2015 to 2016" important enough to include in the infobox? Yes, that increase/decrease may be part of a trend that's worth noting in the article, but there's no way to reliably extrapolate such a trend from a single year's change. Toohool (talk) 19:10, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
Jurisdiction of incorporation
Many companies are incorporated in a different jurisdiction from their headquarters; for example many American companies are incorporated in Delaware, and many Chinese companies are incorporated in Hong Kong. I would like a "Jurisdiction of incorporation" parameter to be added to the infobox.--Pigu (talk) 19:53, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
I disagree. Jurisdiction of incorporation is a minor technical detail that, in most cases, nobody but lawyers and accountants has any reason to be interested in. In the occasional case where the jurisdiction has some significance to readers, it can be noted in the article text. Toohool (talk) 20:55, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
Can a corporation be credited as a founder of a company?
With the founder section of the infobox, can a corporation be credited with the foundation of a company if there is explicit evidence stating that "Company A founded company B"? Iftekharahmed96 (talk) 16:30, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
Your edits that related to this question have already been reverted by multiple users stating that companies do not belong into that field. Our current documentation, as pointed out earlier, states that it should hold the entrepreneurs [read: people] that founded the company. That is also unlikely to change, as it is factually wrong to say that a company founded a company, as it is collective for all people working there, not the actual individuals that signed the papers to get a subsidiary running. As asked previously, if you come across such instances on articles, please just remove them instead of using them as means of WP:OTHERSTUFF. Lordtobi (✉) 21:50, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
@Spshu:, A lot of company infoboxes that you create have companies as founders. Care to explain this if Wikipedia states that founders cannot be corporate entities? Iftekharahmed96 (talk) 11:55, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
I don't see, Lordtobi, that it is factually wrong to say that a company founded a company. A corporation is a legal person for contracting and the like. Second, if you are saying the executives founded the company that is find, but they don't need to sign the papers to get a subsidiary running that is usually done by legal counsel and corporate secretary or any designed corporate officer. Company could be a division.
A corporation is a file in a legal registrar that can be used by its holders to trade products/services/etc. A corporation is, however, not a living being. Every foundation, if just of a division or a subsidiary passed on to the legal registrar as well, has a human driving force behind it. This person is the founder. The word "founder" itself is defined as a person who founds something.[12][13][14][15][16] Our guideline also says entrepreneur; companies aren't entrepreneurs.
Furthermore, stating a company as a founder uncredits the actual people that founded the entity; give that Nintendo "founded" a new studio, that would mean that any, or all, of its 5000+ employees could have created that company, or else, a piece of paper that denotes the tradability of a company. Should a company have been founded by a piece of paper or 5000 people? I don't think so. An unwanted side-effect is also that the founder and parent fields are 100% identical making one of them redundant. Lordtobi (✉) 21:46, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
Adding Co-founder info "or Cofounder"
I may not be smart man or editor or even know how to explain this but I think it would be beneficial to add some more distinction for the Founder section on the side of company wikipedia pages, At the moment people have to add info boxes for Co-founders or people recognized as co-founders.
A good example of this: Elon musk co-founder of Tesla ; shows up on on google as a Founder and first search result when you google "Founder of Tesla" and i think its because Wikipedia lacks a "Co-founder" and only has Founder.
example; from
| founders = {{ubl
| [[Martin Eberhard]]
| [[Marc Tarpenning]]
| Ian Wright{{efn-lr|name=founders|1=The company was initially registered in 2003 by Eberhard and Tarpenning, although the company also considers Musk, Straubel and Wright as its co-founders.<ref name="cnetfounders" />}}
| [[Elon Musk]]{{efn-lr|name=founders}}
| [[JB Straubel]]{{efn-lr|name=founders}} }}
"This makes it cleaner and better for google results"
"This also applies for other wikipedia pages i'm just not gonna look for all of them"
A co-founder is basically a person who helps the founder set up the company, and lends their skills or resources to the business and idea. ... The term is commonly used in the context of business and startups, where the founder is basically someone who founds and establishes a business or start-up.
So if anyone wants to add it, that would be great, Infobox is permanently protected so i can't do it.
I believe the real issue here is not formatting, but factual inaccuracy. "A co-founder is basically a person who helps the founder set up the company" ... no, this is not the case. co- is defined as "together; mutually; jointly", as such "co-"founder means that this person was one of multiple founders; everyone founding a company alongside other people is automatically a founder or the co-founder. Because of this, it appears illogical to me that these should be seperated in the infobox.
If you wish to hear to hear my opinion on the situation for Tesla, Musk, Wright and Straubel were not part of the foundation process and should not be covered in the infobox that way. In any other case, the note must suffice (or alternatively you can put these three names into the note instead of directly into the box). It'd be best if you sought consensus on what exactly to use with Tesla's editorship on that article's talk page, a template change is far from likely. Lordtobi (✉) 08:15, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
Agreed. We already have a Founder/Founders switch in the template call, and as stated you can't have a single founder and also co-founders, it's one or the other. Primefac (talk) 13:53, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
Formerly called to formerly
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Can we change "formerly called" to simply "formerly"? It's far less cumbersome, and shouldn't pose any problems for former names of corporations. --Tærkast (Discuss) 21:22, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
Suggestion: I spend a lot of time, it seems, trying to identify a company's (or nation's or organization's) fiscal year. To me, it would be useful to have it shown in the infobox. Thanks, Seligne (talk) 13:10, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
Fiscal years only outline when companies are required to hand out their annual reports and subsequently financial filings. This is relevant to investors (possibly), but to an encyclopedia? I don't really see the necesity for it here. Lordtobi (✉) 14:09, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
Employing your logic, why include revenues, assets, net income, etc.? They're only of interest to investors (possibly). We do include those things in the template. Why not include the period that accounts for the revenues, et al.? Seligne (talk) 14:34, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
Financials are usually an indication of livelines of a company (just like employee count or age), while fiscal year is just a date margin that also never-ever changes and is irrelevant to the majority of users. I agree that some financial elements are superflous (revenue, the most popular factor I would say, would suffice), but that's been established and surely they had a good point when implementing it back then. Lordtobi (✉) 14:49, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
I'm with Lordtobi on this one; I see no encyclopaedic reason why someone would need to know the fiscal year of a company as it's an arbitrary point in the year. Every company has one, and it doesn't really matter if that ends in January or July. Primefac (talk) 15:13, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
