Can someone add the Companies portal template at the bottom of the infobox Companies template ? Thanks, Jamcib (talk) 11:12, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
Not done...such portal templates should be included on a per-article basis, and should go down in the See also section. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 04:54, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
Request for wiki admins. This Template should automatically classify any wiki page that uses it under \"Category:List of Companies" Miscinfo123 (talk) 02:59, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
- Not done, considering the category doesn't exist and we generally do not lump all articles of one type into a single category, when there are more appropriate categories to subdivide them in. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 04:54, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
{{editprotected}}
Please remove the single space from between location city and the trailing comma. I.e., "Seattle, Washington , U.S." should be "Seattle, Washington, U.S." Nurg (talk) 04:02, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
- Done - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 16:24, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
The template should include a note to go on the page its copied to to tell people not to remove unused items as it hinders expansion when more data is available, as you then have to look up the missing items espicialy with the non intuitve headings used in it, (that are ambiguous in UK based articles) - BulldozerD11 (talk) 01:38, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
I have noticed that this infobox is missing the 'Slogan' field (displaying the company's slogan), even though Template:Infobox Defunct company does have the 'Slogan' field. Could someone please add it? Thanks. [|Retro00064 | (talk/contribs) |] 03:12, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
- See the above #Slogans discussion for removing it. This has been brought up previously, and I think consensus here has been to keep it out. If possible, just discuss it in the prose. I'll look at the Defunct template and likely remove it from there as well. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 03:28, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
I have noticed that there is a template called Template:Infobox financial in existence. But it happens that that template is an almost exact duplicate of this template except for a few additional fields in that template specific to financial companies. Could someone please merge that template into this one? [|Retro00064 | (talk/contribs) |] 05:39, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
- I support such a merger, but we might need to wait until the above merge is completed, first. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 09:56, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
- Piece of piss - there was only one additional field (assets under management). I've folded into the current sandbox, so the editprotected above will take care of it. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:40, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
Why does this infobox have the 'dissolved' field? I mean, we already have a Template:Infobox Defunct company that can have the 'fate' field set to 'Dissolved'. What is the dissolved field in here doing? [|Retro00064 | (talk/contribs) |] 20:00, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
- It would be better to merge the two templates. The only fields on the "defunct" one, but not this one, are "fate", "Predecessor", "successor" & "defunct". Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 20:15, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
- I see, and in the code for the 'Type' we could use the 'if' stuff to make it where if the 'defunct' field is set then the 'Type' field could say 'Former Type' instead of just 'Type'. Just an idea. [|Retro00064 | (talk/contribs) |] 20:59, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
- I just wanted to voice my support for merging Infobox Defunct Company into this main Infobox Company template. I'm finding it's rather confusing to have two entirely separate templates that, save for one or two small differences, are practically identical. (I see the defunct template uses the "defunct" attribute, while this one uses "dissolved" — presumably the same idea.)
- BTW, presumably even articles for some existing companies could benefit from attributes like "predecessor". Perhaps another reason to pull the two templates together. Huwmanbeing ☀★ 12:32, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
- And also, using the method above I mentioned for the Type field, we could also use the 'if' stuff to make it where if the 'defunct' field is set then it could also change the 'Employees' field to say 'Peak size' just to make this template seem more like the defunct one if we do proceed with the merge. Yet another idea. Under these conditions, I Strongly Support the merger. [|Retro00064 | (talk/contribs) |] 05:53, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
Merge
{{editprotected}}
I've updated the sandbox with a merged version of the templates, including all the missing fields from {{infobox defunct company}} (and {{infobox financial}}). Just needs synced. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 08:11, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
- Good work. Just needs a little bit of tidying up, which I'll go ahead and do. I can also apply those ideas I mentioned above to make this infobox seem more like Infobox Defunct company when it is used as such, as long as everybody is OK with it. [|Retro00064 | (talk/contribs) |] 05:30, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
Done --Elonka 04:21, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
- Nice. I must be silly the idea I had back there for the 'Type' field is actually making a lot of sense... one the defunct template for a defunct company it can say "Former Type: Public -- Fate: ...." etc. Now imagine this infobox being used for a defunct company and saying "Type: Public -- Fate:...." Looks like I'll head on over to the template sandbox to fix it out of common sense before we turn Infobox Defunct Company into a redirect!....Other than that it's a brilliant merge. [|Retro00064 | (talk/contribs) |] 08:11, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
Not finished yet...
{{editprotected}}
It was only a few hours ago that the merged version of this template was completed. It looks great and is very functional, however there is one last thing we forgot... I had ideas above about using the if-else parsing thingy to changed the label for the 'Type' field to 'Former Type' which is more like the old defunct template. Well, actually we really need that in this merged template. Imagine: The old Infobox defucnt company would start out like "Former Type: Public -- Fate:...." etc. But in this current version, it would say "Type: Public -- Fate:...." which makes no sense as if the company still existed. Infobox defunct company has already been turned into a redirect. I have updated the sandbox with a new version that applies that idea to the Type field only as I just described. Let's hurry--before long, the page for NeXT (a defunct company) will have a infobox saying "Type: Private -- Fate: Bought by Apple Inc....."! [|Retro00064 | (talk/contribs) |] 08:37, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
- In addition to the above edit, I also just fixed a bug with the Predecessor field that was passed along from Infobox Defunct company. Totally unnoticeable in normal use. Remember, we need to get this edit made before defunct infoboxes liek on NeXT start looking terrible! [|Retro00064 | (talk/contribs) |] 08:45, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
- Done --Elonka 16:03, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
The vertical list that we are supposed to copy doesn't have the items from the Defunct Company template such as Fate etc is not included. If someone can sort it out we can redirect otherwise all articles that use the old template are compromised. Thanks Thruxton (talk) 16:23, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
- Replied on user's talk. The documentation just needs updated. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 16:27, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
- There does seem to be a problem with the redirect. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 16:38, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
- Double redirects on {{infobox defunct company}} and {{infobox Defunct Company}}. I dearly wish we would impose a lowercase-only restriction on templates. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 16:46, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
- Doh! I should have spotted that! Thanks for fixing it. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 17:12, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
- Well if the documentation is outdated I can try to fix it, it is as simple as editing an article about the template. [|Retro00064 | (talk/contribs) |] 07:33, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, please go ahead and update it. Thanks. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:44, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
- Done. (finally!) By the way, can anybody come up with an example usage of the 'predecessor' field, to use in its entry in the "Description of fields" section of the documentation? I have not been able to find one. Thanks. [|Retro00064 | (talk/contribs) |] 07:55, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
- I have finally found an example for the predecssor field, see Berliner-Joyce Aircraft. That gives updating the documentation a complete and true Done. Finally! [|Retro00064 | (talk/contribs) |] 07:43, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
{{editprotected}}
Shouldn't the "Founder" field be "Founder(s)"? Rambo's Revenge (talk) 11:32, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
- I approve this change. --Attilios (talk) 08:41, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
I have just added an editprotected tag as the template has not been changed, and the suggestion has been supported and is uncontroversial. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 18:55, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
Done--Jac16888 (talk) 19:13, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
This shouldn't be too difficult. Fields to merge:
| label5 = Dissolved
| class5 = note
| data5 = {{{dissolved|}}}
| label16 = [[Owner]]
| class16 = note
| data16 = {{{owner|}}}
| label21 = [[Slogan]]
| class21 = note
| data21 = {{{company_slogan||}}}
| data22 = {{{footnotes|}}}
| label24 = Type of site
| class24 = note
| data24 = {{{website_type|}}}
| label25 = [[Online advertising|Advertising]]
| class25 = note
| data25 = {{{advertising|}}}
| label26 = Registration
| class26 = note
| data26 = {{{registration|}}}
| label27 = [[Human language|Available in]]
| class27 = note
| data27 = {{{language|}}}
| label28 = Launched
| class28 = note
| data28 = {{{launch_date|}}}
| label29 = Current status
| class29 = note
| data29 = {{{current_status|}}}
| data30 = {{#if:{{{screenshot|}}}|{{hidden|Screenshot|{{{screenshot}}}{{#if:{{{caption|}}}|<br/><span style="font-size:smaller;">{{{caption}}}</span>}}|headerstyle=background:#ccccff;|bodystyle=text-align:center;}}}}
| class30 = screenshot
I'll do this myself if there are no takers. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 13:28, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
While you are at it, {{Infobox Co-operative}} is worthy of merging here. It lacks several fields that can be found here. The only field that needs to be added here is
| label6 = Members
| data6 = {{{members|}}}
At the original template, the label is "Active members" but there is not an agreed definition of the word 'active', and sources rarely identify the number of active members.
--Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 14:30, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
- Wait a minute, in the list of fields to merge above from Infobox Dotcom company there is a field called "Dissolved". Please please Please Please do not add that field to this template! (emphasis added) This template already has a "Defunct" field, which looks better and is used for the same purpose. [|Retro00064 | (talk/contribs) |] 07:01, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
- Oh, in addition, please don't add the Owner and Slogan fields listed above into this template. We already have an Owner field, and previously we decided to remove the Slogan field from this template as it's advertising copy. [|Retro00064 | (talk/contribs) |] 07:52, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
- {{{dissolved}}} will be added as an alternative parameter to {{{defunct}}}, rather than an additional one. You're right about {{{owner}}}. {{{slogan}}} will be dropped. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:46, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
- What??? Alternative??? That just does not make any sense! Think about it, the terms "defunct" and "dissolved" have virtually the same meaning, which would make adding {{{dissolved}}} unnecessary if you were planning on keeping the {{{defunct}}} field but adding {{{dissolved}}} as an alternative. And if what you actually meant is to replace the {{{defunct}}} field with the {{{dissolved}}} field, then let's please have a poll first to see whether it would be preferred to use "dissolved" over "defunct". [|Retro00064 | (talk/contribs) |] 08:24, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
- BTW, the {{{footnotes}}} field in the above list is also redundant, this infobox already has a {{{footnotes}}} field. [|Retro00064 | (talk/contribs) |] 08:01, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
- We're not having any polls. What I mean is that the parameter will have two possible names, but the output will remain "Defunct". This means that we don't need to go editing all the dotcom templates to replace "dissolved" with "defunct". Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:03, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
- Oh, that's what you meant! (boy, I guess I can be a real dunce sometimes!) It's just like with the {{{name}}}, {{{logo}}}, and {{{type}}} field. The fields originally were {{{company_name}}}, {{{company_logo}}}, and {{{company_type}}}, but when they removed the "company_" prefix from the parameter names, they retained support for those original parameters as alternatives for backward compatability. I get it all now. Yes, the alternative parameter thing is neccesary in this case. [|Retro00064 | (talk/contribs) |] 02:45, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
Shouldn't status be a better word than fate. It sounds like broken english. --Ramu50 (talk) 21:30, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
- There's a difference. Fate is what happened to the company, not just where that they are currently doing - a dissolved company's status could be "defunct" while its fate could be "declared bankrupt". Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 08:35, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
Some guy just modified this template by changing the alternative label for the {{{type}}} field, "Former Type", to "Former type", without giving any reason for the change or asking about it on the talk page, and without even modifying the sandbox. Which label is preferred, "Former Type" or "Former type"? [|Retro00064 | (talk/contribs) |] 06:44, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
- Why would this be controversial? Just like section headers should not capitalise first letters unless they are proper nouns, so should Infobox labels avoid the same. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 08:12, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
- Exactly. Labels use sentence case. Nothing controversial here. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:26, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
- Sentence case is more consistent with Wikipedia style. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 10:29, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
- At least this has reminded me that the proper term is "sentence case", not the run-on garbage I wrote ;) — Huntster (t • @ • c) 11:57, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
- So I see (I should've known... :-)) Well that settles it. [|Retro00064 | (talk/contribs) |] 07:33, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
You should be able to add an image, e.g. a photo of the company, as well as the logo. Adding it lower down, especially when only one is used, is not a good alternative. Richard001 (talk) 03:58, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
I don't like uploading logos unless they are free content. I try to post a free photograph in the "logo=" parameter, which works fine. Once you have a good photograph, a logo is less important. Non-free content is unlikely to appear at mirrors like answers.com so reliance on a non-free logo harms the article. If you discuss a logo in the body of the article, post a thumbnail of it there instead. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 23:32, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
For companies where no logo is available, it would be useful to have a more generic "image" property, which could be used for, say, a picture of their head quarters (see, for instance, the pic of Cambridge University Press's HQ, which could be in the info box on that article), or a well-known product. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 19:59, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
- The field can be utilised for that purpose if required; however, ideally it should be the company logo. I don't see a need to generalise the parameter name for that reason. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:33, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
- Exactly. Besides, a logo serves the purpose of identifying the company's article to the reader, assuring them that they have reached the right article. A photo of the company's HQ, on the other hand, doesn't: a reader would likely know the company's logo when they see it. But the reader would most likely have no clue as to what the company's HQ looks like. So a photo of the HQ should never be used in place of the company's logo. Also, never use both logo and photo in the infobox, it just adds extra clutter. [|Retro00064 | (talk/contribs) |] 06:34, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
- a reader would likely know the company's logo when they see it.
- Not if the reader sees the article on any of our mirrors with fair use images excised. Less than half the company logos we use are free.
- But the reader would most likely have no clue as to what the company's HQ looks like.
- Depends utterly on the organization, though I concede that for most companies you will be right. However the BT Tower evokes BT far better for an encyclopedia than its several logos over the years. The same could be said for dozens or hundreds of others, while a free photo of Richard Branson is more relevant to a Virgin article than any logo. Bushmills Distillery is not the only business to use its building for its label artwork, instead of an abstract logo.
- never use both logo and photo in the infobox, it just adds extra clutter
- A map and photo seem to work ok in geographic infoboxes. Perhaps it is a matter of taste.
- --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 11:11, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
(outdent) I believe the infobox should be reserved for a logo, a photo of something that shows the company name would be acceptable. Pictures of old logos could be acceptable to the right of the "History" section. Pictures of people should only be on their biography page. Noting Branson mentioned above, I would submit that the Virgin logo should be on the Virgin page, or at least a picture of the tail of one of their planes. -- Mjquin_id (talk) 04:38, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
- I generally don't like viewing Wikipedia articles from other sites ("mirrors"), as the mirrors' versions are usually outdated anyway. [|Retro00064 | (talk/contribs) |] 07:52, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
- Neither do I, but our readers (or their school district) make that choice, not we editors. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 10:41, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
- I'm going with Chris Cunningham and Mjquin_id. The logo field can be used for a photo if required, however ideally it should be either the company logo or a photo of something that shows the company logo. [|Retro00064 | (talk/contribs) |] 06:24, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
Add "Total Liabilities" to this template! —Preceding unsigned comment added by DIEXEL (talk • contribs) 21:43, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
What about adding these 3 items to the "Infobox Company":
- Slogan(s)
- Vision(s)
- Mission(s)
Fanoftheworld (talk) 01:34, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
- I'm not to so keen. Companies often have many slogans and tag lines, that change frequently. Slogans are frequently requested (see above.)
- If slogan, mission and vision are encyclopedic (this will vary from company to company), then they can be discussed in the body of the article. An infobox is supposed to be a brief summary of key facts.
- --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 12:44, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
- Yeah, as pointed out, this type of thing gets requested quite often. I personally view these types of things as "advertising" (though I know that isn't the requesters' intent) and not really encyclopaedic. Remember, the infobox is intended as a summary of the subject, and needn't get into that level of detail. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 18:56, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
- I understand. Thanks for your answers. Fanoftheworld (talk) 19:40, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
What about adding the item "Picture" to the "Infobox Company".
- If you don't have the company's logo then you could ad a picture of the company to the infobox.
- If you have both the company's logo and a picture of the company then you could be apple to ad both logo and picture to the infobox. (Like the danish Wikipedia's article about da:Microsoft).
Fanoftheworld (talk) 19:48, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
- This has been requested before (see above), but I think that if a photo of the company's HQ is encyclopedic (varies from company to company), then it should be disscused in the body of the article, after all, as Hroðulf just said, "An infobox is supposed to be a brief summary of key facts." --[|Retro00064 | (talk/contribs) |] 09:38, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Do I put here the date the company was registered with the government, or the date the company started trading with customers?F (talk) 11:42, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
- You put the date the company was registered with the government, I think, that does seem to be the general-followed principal. [|Retro00064 | (talk/contribs) |] 21:35, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
Please replace the Defunct field with Ceased Operations and please unprotect the page.
- You gave no reason as to why we should replace Defunct with Ceased Operations. "Defunct" is an established term for a company that no longer does business, see the Wiktionary definition on "defunct" here.
- Oh yes, the reason the template is protected is because it is a highly used template, and is therefore protected from editing to prevent vandalism. If you want to request a change, do so on this talk page, and let the consensus decide. [|Retro00064 | (talk/contribs) |] 09:23, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
- I request that the Defunct be replaced with Ceased Operations because Ceased Operations means the company stops operations and someone should review the permanently lock on the page.
Y21 (talk) 13:08, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
- But "defunct" means exactly the same thing and is more concise, which helps keep the infobox as compact as possible. As for page protection, I have to agree with it in this case. As Retro says, the template is in widespread use and so vandalism will affect a great many pages. A change can be implemented if consensus is reached here first. Gr1st (talk) 13:50, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
- Err, yeah, most definitely Not done. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 19:05, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
These links are not necessary: Industry Products Services Owner Employees Website Jacob Lundberg (talk) 22:59, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
- I disagree, all of the above are useful. The infobox is supposed to give a summary or snapshot of the company in question: I'd say what the company does (industry, products, services), who (if anyone) owns it, and how many people it employs are all pretty fundamental. Gr1st (talk) 20:42, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
- Me too, all that stuff is very notable for an encyclopedia, and perfect for an infobox. [|Retro00064 | (talk/contribs) |] 21:37, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
- I don't think Jacob Lundberg was suggesting that these fields don't need to be included in the template; I think he was suggesting that those words don't need to be linked, i.e. most people will be familiar with the meanings of these words. DH85868993 (talk) 22:28, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
