Template talk:Infobox company/Archive 5

British Aerospace plc
Founded	29 April, 1977
Defunct	30 November, 1999
Fate	Merged with Marconi Electronic Systems
Successor	BAE Systems
Headquarters	Farnborough, United Kingdom

This is an archive of past discussions. 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.

Archive 1

←

→

Colons

Colons have recently been added to the first 3 items on the template, personally I think that they make the boxes too busy, however could we at least make it consistent, so that either all the fields have or do not have colons, take a look at a page which uses the infobox. Many thanks Ian3055 22:48, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Key people

Is there a policy on when the key people were key to the company? BP lists someone who died in 1917....

See Nokia. As a general rule, key people include those who either founded the company, achieved celebrity status, or are currently employed in a top executive position. When these key people were born, died, or departed the company is irrelevant. They remain people who were important to the company. Adraeus 22:25, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Type of what?

I've said this before, but this infobox can be really confusing in some situations. Nowhere does it say that this is information about a company. I encountered it on the Infocom page, a page about a computer game company. The obvious assumption to me is that 'type' the first item in the box should read 'text adventure games', or similar. In many contexts I would imagine this could be unclear to some readers. The word 'company' needs to be included somewhere in the box. To me it makes most sense to rename 'type' to 'company type' or 'type of company'. What are people's thoughts? Last time I was 'bold' but this caused a lot of fuss, however it is still something I feel strongly about. We should not be confusing our readers! --HappyDog 22:56, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't agree. An infobox that displays information about a company on a page in which the company is described is clearly an infobox concerning the company described on the page. Using your example, the lead to Infocom begins with, "Infocom was an American software company..." Infocom was not a "text adventure game". A "text adventure game" was a product of Infocom. I don't think there are many readers who would be confused by the infobox. Adraeus 22:21, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

If I go to Adventure game and read about the 'types of adventure game' and then click on Infocom to read more about their role in the development of adventure games, I expect 'type' to mean 'type of adventure game they produced', in this case 'text adventure'. I don't see why people have such a problem acknowledging that without giving a context the label 'type' is confusing, and why there is such a resistance to relabelling this field as 'company type', which would give the infobox a context and remove this ambiguity! --HappyDog 23:40, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I think "type" always looks stupid, because it doesn't say type of what, and "type" is a fairly ambiguous word. NickelShoe (Talk) 19:42, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Interwiki:PT

Can anyone add this interwiki to the template?

Predefinição:Info Empresa

U.S. centric

This infobox is U.S. centric. The primary profit number used in the UK is profit before tax, and that is not shown here. It should be changed or a separate UK box should be created. Carina22 12:45, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

You obviously haven't realised that that one would still create the problem of have two infoboxes, which collectively only apply to the US and UK. What about Canada, Ireland, Australia, New Zealand etc. and they're just the anglophones I can think of. I personally don't see the problem with the current one. I'm not positive, but isn't operating income profit before tax? - ^Рэд _хот 22:54, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

That's how I understood it! Mark83 20:42, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Then you are both wrong. Operating income is not profit before tax it is profit before interest and tax. As currently used this infobox is generating egregious errors of fact on UK articles. Greg Grahame 14:56, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Entrepeneur/founder

A large number of pages using this infobox need Disambiguation link repair - You can help!.

The pages in question are linking to [[Founder]] or co-[[founder]], when they should be linking to [[Entrepreneur|Founder]] or co-[[Entrepreneur|founder]].

I considered putting a note within the <noinclude> Usage section of the template (not discussion) page, but people who maintain this page may have other solutions. I'll watch this page for about a week. If there are no other solutions, I'll put in a note as described. Thanks! Ling.Nut 00:22, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Correctly linking the roles of key people is a responsibility external to the development of this template. As of 21 August 2006, there are 4,049 articles that use this template. I suggest using a bot to correct the aforementioned links on pages which use this template. Adraeus 08:43, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, that's a good suggestion... I put a note on the Syntax Descriptions page for this template. To help forestall future issues, would a note on the actual template's <noinclude>Usage section which merely says the following be acceptable/appropriate? Like this: "See Template talk:Infobox Company/Syntax Descriptions for important syntax and usage notes."

Thanks again for your patience, Ling.Nut 10:56, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

This problem still seems to be happening; the infobox automatically links to Founder rather then Entrepreneur whenever it is used. I tried to fix it by editing the template, but it doesn't seem to have worked. I'm not sure how to fix it. ~ ONUnicorn (Talk / Contribs) 21:10, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Charities

Could we add an option for charity efficacy (or whatever it's called)? 24.126.199.129 17:41, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Charity efficacy? What? Adraeus 05:20, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Updated currency style

Please note that I have updated the syntax page to use the correct currency style. Refer to the Wikipedia Manual of Style. Also note that the United States Government Printing Office 2000 Style Manual promotes this currency style. Adraeus 11:40, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Dissolved?

Anyone think it might be a good idea to add a Dissolved: field for businesses which no longer exist or exist in another form? - ^Рэд _хот 17:39, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

The "Type" field works for that. For example:

Type: Defunct (1998)

Adraeus 20:31, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I created Template:Infobox Defunct Company. I've been thinking lately it would be better to use this template but with the following parameters:

| fate = Suggestions: bankrupt, merged etc.

| successor = company merged into etc.

| date defunct =

Example of current use >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Mark83 10:21, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Foundation: Year or location?

In KFC, the foundation is set to a location, and in Reynolds Metals, it's set to a year. Which one is correct? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stevietheman (talk • contribs)

I'd say the latter. Regards, David Kernow (talk) 18:22, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Yet another ambiguity in the template. Don't clarify what it means though - that might help someone! --HappyDog 16:04, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Read the accompanying documentation. Adraeus 06:36, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

And, additionally, expect all readers of pages that use the template to read the accompanying documentation as well. --HappyDog 00:37, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Slogan is back

Was the consensus not to remove this. It's slipped back in! Mark83 10:16, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

There are so many extra variables that I just don't give a damn anymore. I guess we can rationalize and say it's better to have information we disapprove of than to have a broken template. Adraeus 06:40, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't personally disapprove of the slogan filed, but to place it at the very top is ridiculous, so I'm moving it to the second bottom position, right above the website link. If someone wants to delete it entirely I won't kick up a stink though. --DeLarge 11:07, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Additional parameters

Does anyone think it would be helpful to have additional fields that can be named by additional parameters? I'm primarily interested in Investment Management companies, like AIM Funds and BlackRock. One of the most used methods of comparing these companies is by Assets Under Management. So we could have extra parameters in this template like:

{{Infobox Company
...
extraParamName1   = Assets Under Management
extraParamValue1  = $500 billion
}}

Is this worth putting in this template? I can see a lot of other uses for something like this (number of stores for a retail chain, % market share for a consumer product...things like that) Or would it be better just to make different templates for these... {{Infobox Asset Management Company}} or {{Infobox Retail Company}}, for example? tiZom_(2¢) 06:44, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Genre

I recently was asked what the Genre section was for.

This section is optional and is for the use of Publishing companies. It really has no use aside from that type of comapany, hence why it is optional.

I hope this clears up any confusion that may exist. --MJHankel 10:52, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Companies with multiple logos.

Are there any guidelines as to choosing among the logos of companies that have more then one? As an example, I was adding this infobox to the article on Angie's List. Angie's list has two logos. Image:Angie's List Logo.gif is the one they use on their website. Image:Angie's List Logo.jpg is the one they use on their magazine, and it's the one that some external sources use to identify them (I've seen it on news websites and such). I'd already uploaded the first one when I found the second one and uploaded it. I think the second one has a stronger connection with the company in people's minds; but is there any guidance as to which one to use in the infobox? Or should both be in the article someplace? ~ ONUnicorn (Talk / Contribs) 21:18, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I would say include the one in the template that readers will recognize most easily. The other logo I would put elsewhere in the page, possibly with a caption that notes where and why the company uses the alternate logo. tiZom_(2¢) 06:17, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)} 21:46, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Area Served

What's that? Searched all archives and subpages, no luck. Is it for location of sales (e.g. Wordwide or Europe) or for area (in m²) of shops/facilities/headquarters etc? Help needed in Ferretti Group. Thanks. •NikoSilver• 20:55, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

On August 13, 2006, User:Smjg added the "Area served" parameter (diff). He then updated BT Group (diff) and Kellogg Company (diff). The parameter is meant to show the name of the geographic location that the company serves. We should probably come up with explanations for all the parameters, and include them in the template page with a noinclude tag. tiZom_(2¢) 23:54, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I guess that'd be 'worldwide' for my case then. •NikoSilver• 22:42, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Passed Names?

Could someone introduce a new "section": "Passed names"? Thank you! ES Vic 17:52, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I could definitely do that, but I'm hesitant to do so because name changes usually come about from mergers and acquisitions, and this could give possibly inaccurate info (Imagine that Duracell and Energizer merge to form Duragizer - On Duragizer's page, it would be inappropriate to say that Duragizer's past name was Duracell, or Energizer, since that entity didn't technically exist prior to the merger. Similarly, if McDonald's acquired Burger King, then you couldn't say on the McDonald's page that Burger King was a past name, since that incorrect because you're still talking about different entities.) Perhaps this information is better served in the text? Or can someone think of a better title for it, other than "past names" or "formerly known as" or the like? tiZom_(2¢) 06:08, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Installation

I am a newbie, but have spent some 10 hours investigating the use of the Template:Infobox Company. I copied the code to create my own template on my site, however as we all know this one uses some classes in some .css files. Could you please help me install this template on my site please?? There is a huge lack of instructions when it comes to this template or anyone that uses classes.. I'd really appreciate some guidlines. Basically, I need to know everything else that I need to do other than create a template and copy the code to it, for example: what is the .css file that I need to edit and what should I add?

Right now i just get code intermixed with parameters... html code that my wikimedia is not interpreting and displaying as text....

Thanks! 75.72.146.217 05:08, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm confused... Are you using this template in your own wiki? Or if it is indeed being used in Wikipedia, do you have any examples? Get me some links (either external links, or links within WP), and I'm sure I could help out! tiZom_(2¢) 05:52, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. I copied the code from wikipedia into my own wiki.

Please be aware that you are breaking the terms of the GFDL by including Wikipedia content on your wiki. You either need to change your license to GFDL or refrain from using Wikipedia content. I am not sure whether this restriction also applies to the use of templates created on Wikipedia, but I suspect it does. --HappyDog 04:21, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, i will change the license. But no one has answered me on how to get the company template running

Hi, I could also use some help on getting the correct css to make the infobox display correctly on my 1.8.2 mediawiki install. I believe I have the GFDL license setup correctly. An example of this can be found at : http://www.wikistock.com/wiki/Tokyo_Stock_Exchange . I almost got it, but seem to missing one thing. I greatly appreciate any feedback on this. Thanks Rovo79 15:40, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

"Type" link

The "type" listing in the infobox currently links to Category:Types of companies ; Wouldn't it be better if it linked to Business organizations (this being an overview article of business types)? --66.82.9.79 15:35, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Location

I propose to split the parameter location into two parameters, location_city and location_country so that the parameter country can be used to indicate it with use {{flagicon}}. So it will allow readers to see at first glance what the company origin is. 16@r 13:41, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Ok, now both works. Old location still works and couple (location_city, location_country) automatically displays the flag of see country (see Microsoft for example). 16@r 14:15, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

The aim of using flagicon is only to allow readers to see at first sight where is located the HQ and not to say « that the company has some sort patriotism or special interest in the country ». 16@r 20:37, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

The flag only does that if the reader can identify it, which isn't guaranteed. We should be putting text there first, and if there's text, the flagicon is unnecessary; we're just saying the same thing twice. --DeLarge 22:45, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

In addition to being redundant, it is misleading. Many of these companies are international, they have headquarters in a certain country but their business is elsewhere. It also makes it appear as though there is a certain patriotism involved, "flying the flag" rather than simply happening to be located in a country. It is at best pointless and at worst just wrong. These flagicons were intended to be used in situations where there is not enough space to put the whole name of the country, and in the stub templates to make them more noticeable and substantial. —Centrx→talk • 22:55, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Also, anyone editing an article is capable of adding the flag if it is somehow necessary; that does not mean it should be used for the overwhelming majority where it is not appropriate. —Centrx→talk • 02:11, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

We should organise a survey about this question. 16@r 12:22, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Looks like the Infobox might be broken. See TVUnetworks which lists two places as the location. I'm seeing [[ and ]] showing up inside the Infobox, surrounding the data in the location field. What's up with that? Paul.w.bennett 16:02, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

It was something to do with the recently introduced location_city parameter. Changing it to the more straightforward location parameter, it works fine. Another good reason not to fix it if it ain't broken? KISS. --DeLarge 19:17, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Confusing

This infobox is confusing; it should clearly show what sort of thing it is an infobox about. See, for instance, roadfly which I came across and had no idea what it was talking about for a moment, because the article seems to be talking more about a web site than a company, so I was thinking "type of website ... private?". Perhaps if "Type" were changed to "Type of corporation" or "Corporate organisation" or something more subject-specific, it would be less ambiguous. JulesH 21:35, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I have raised this issue several times, but when I have made changes they have been reverted. This is a real problem - can someone please fix it! --HappyDog 11:44, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Roadfly is a company. Companies have websites. Shocking! Your complaint is just as ridiculous as HappyDog's. Adraeus 07:03, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Whoah, WP:NPA, please. I changed it to "company type" because this is a Company infobox - this is not just corporations, but other companies as well, including sole proprietorships, partnerships, etc. tiZom_(2¢) 07:29, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

WP:NPA doesn't apply. I said the comment was ridiculous, not the person making the ridiculous comment. Adraeus 08:42, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

And it's gone again! Why are people so obstinate about this - it is clearly a necessity to explain what the infobox means! There have been several complaints about people being confused by the box - surely it is our job to stop that confusion! Is it some kind of 'ownership' thing - I don't get it. --HappyDog 03:55, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

When "type" is linked to Category:Types of companies when an infobox is empty, it is easy to understand what this means. And when an infobox has been filled and states public, private etc. it is even easier to understand. I wasn't aware there was prior debate on this - as I explained in my edit summary what I objected to was "of co." - that is too informal and possibly an unencyclopedic format. Please don't SHOUT. Mark83 19:22, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry you thought I was shouting - I wasn't (correct capitalisation throughout, note!).

It is a poor user interface to expect all users to click the link to find out what the 'type' field is referring to. I first came here when I was reading about adventure games. When I saw the Infocom page list 'type' as 'private' my reaction was "that knowledge isn't private - everyone knows it was 'text adventures'". In the context of someone looking at computer games, type is 'type of game'. In the context of browsing websites, type is 'type of website' (as JulesH mentions, above).

The point is that having 'type' on it's own is confusing because it relies on the user understanding the context, which they often won't. Think principle of least surprise. Using 'company type' gives context. Adding 'Company Infobox' as a heading to the box would also work, and I'm sure there are other alternatives too. This is a long-standing problem that I and others have tried to fix several times, both by editing which gets reverted, and discussion which (normally) gets ignored, or shouted down, as per Adraeus' comment. --HappyDog 01:37, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Editors use the template. Readers just read it. It's obvious what "type" means when the type of company is the value of the field, and the sidebar is in an article about a company. No need for stupid redundancy. We also have extensive editing documentation that explains every field except the stupid ones. Adraeus 08:42, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Again with the put-downs. Please - just because you don't understand something, it doesn't make it 'stupid'. Your incorrect assumption is that people are concious that they are reading an article about a company. When I am browsing Category:Commerce websites and click on amazon.com, I am not (to my mind) looking at a company article - I am looking at a website article, so 'type' should be either 'commerce' (if it is a 'website' infobox) or list the type of products sold (if it is a 'commerce website' infobox). Labelling the box 'Company Infobox', or labelling the 'type' field 'Company Type' would solve this problem - and yes, it is a problem (even if you don't understand it). --HappyDog 09:02, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

You're using the wrong Wikipedia. Use simple.wikipedia.org. Amazon.com is a business—a business whose website enables them to directly interface with customers. A website is a tool to facilitate exchange of information. It's not my fault you're not computer-literate. And it's certainly not the fault of this template. Learn about websites before attempting to create policy. kkthxbye Adraeus 20:40, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

You're clearly not listening, and you clearly haven't read the comment I left on your talk page (which, I notice, echoes a lot of other comments already left there by other people). You don't seem to be able to grasp my point, nor tiZom's point about WP:NPA, nor to engage in this discussion with civility or maturity. I am aware that you created this infobox (as it is highlighted in bold on your user page), so perhaps it is just that you are too close to it to be objective any more. I am sorry that you are such a brick-wall in this process, and I'm not going to go banging my head against it any more. --HappyDog 00:19, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I wholly understand that there exist people who are unable to understand information that is provided to them. Their lack of comprehension is not my problem or the problem of this template. In fact, that problem is their problem and their problem alone with which to contend. Adraeus 03:38, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I am happy with "type of company" - as I said above it was the abbreviation I was unhappy with. Also the shouting comment referred to an edit summary on the template page. Mark83 10:09, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh - OK. I will change it to that. --HappyDog 14:57, 14 December 2006 (UTC) btw - couldn't see any shouting in the history either! :-)

Can we at least come up with an alternative which prevents the text in that field wrapping onto a second line? That's the only reason I abbreviated it. Personally, I don't get the whole "informal" argument though; it's routine to abbreviate when discussing a company's legal status (e.g. Ltd., Co., GmbH, LLC, etc), and that's a formal linguistic style, so how it's "unencyclopedic" I don't know. And this is the edit summary User:Mark83 was referring to. --DeLarge 12:35, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Well I'm sorry about that. I wasn't shouting, but looking back I can see that it could be construed that way. Damn this text-based medium! :-) --HappyDog 09:06, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Redesign the template!

Not that I'm particularly concerned about the efficiency of Wikipedia...

The template is seriously in need of a new design. Over time, variables have been added, many of which are utterly useless, junk, or specific to a particular industry. There are currently 27 variables! That's insane!

I started this project with the purpose of providing a general template for commercial organizations that would help readers find important facts about a company immediately with just a quick glance. I never intended this template to be used as the only template for all commercial organizations. I expected people to fork the template for other uses, not add bloat and more bloat to fit a square peg into round holes.

A redesign that encompasses the original principles is long overdue. I suggest to those still interested in maintaining this template and associated articles to think about rehauling the template to provide readers easy access to important facts at a quick glance. In addition, the template should be easily maintainable, easily configurable, and easy to place in articles. The redesign of the template must consider both the needs of readers and editors.

Adraeus 07:19, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree with this. I had mentioned something before about how the parameters didn't match the types of companies I typically edit (Investment Management companies). I think the best solution to this problem is to divide the template into a variety of templates, based on the type of company: Manufacturing, Retail, etc. (This list could go on and on, and for each category there are most likely dozens of pages that could use a template that is specific to that type of company).

Does this sound like something that might help this template? If so, step one is to list the types of companies we'll cover... tiZom_(2¢) 07:51, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

That seems to be suggesting two courses of action:

Adreaus: Simplify
tiZom: Split

I think simplfy is the way to go, if you start splitting the template people will just keep on creating new ones for the most obscure of reasons to the point where we have hundres of templates. Either way I couldn't agree more that something needs to be done. Mark83 09:07, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

You sure that's going to work? I mean, there are certain things that you look for, depending on the type of company it is.

Retail companies - # of stores
Manufacturing companies - the product
Pharmaceutical companies - major drugs produced
Airline companies - fleet size
Investment companies - Assets Under Management

Yes, the list goes on and on, but we could keep track of all the sub-templates right here on the Infobox company page. And it would help us in the long-run, as {{Infobox Retail company}} could automatically categorize that company as a retail company.

Consider this as well... {{Infobox person}} doesn't cover every person out there - it's divided into a ton of different templates: {{Infobox Actor}}, {{Infobox Politician}}, {{Infobox Chef}}, {{Infobox Cricketer}}... there are probably dozens upon dozens. Now like I said, we could be a bit more organized about it by saying on the main page something to the effect of "depending on the type of company, you may want to consider the following templates instead..." and keep the main template just in case the company in question doesn't fall under one of the categories.

In short, I guess my vote is to simplify the main template and split it into other specific templates. tiZom_(2¢) 18:09, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't think the number of retail stores is necessary. There's a products field that manufacturing and pharmaceutical companes should use. Is fleet size for airlines really that basic and important for the infobox? Maybe, but I doubt it. For investment companies, client companies can be listed in the article. You have to seriously consider that the infobox is for basic yet important information about the company. It's not intended to detail everything. That's why there's a main article and the infobox is just a sidebar. Adraeus 08:37, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

That said, the core sidebar for companies should accept and display only very general data. If you absolutely need to be more specific, fork the template. Adraeus 08:45, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't know if what is up there now is a "redesign" - it looks like vandalism. Dougieb 01:34, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

There is a seperate template for Airlines, {{Infobox Airline}}, just as there is one for railway companies {{Infobox Rail companies}} etc etc. The airline infobox contains airline specific info like fleet size, IATA code, Frequent flyer program, hubs and a lot more, in addition to general corporate info like headquarter and web site. Arsenikk 04:29, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Market cap should be included instead of Revenue/net income. It would vary less and we can always link to a consistently updating source for revenue/income. --68.239.240.144 02:09, 20 March 2007 (UTC)