Template talk:Infobox company

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This template is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Business (Rated Template-class)
WikiProject icon This template is within the scope of WikiProject Business, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of business articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 Template  This template does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
WikiProject Companies (Rated Template-class)
WikiProject icon This template is within the scope of WikiProject Companies, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of companies on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 Template  This template does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
edit·history·watch·refresh Stock post message.svg To-do list for Template:Infobox company:
  • Change Net income to Net income (profit)
  • Redesign or fork template to reduce 27 variables to the essentials!
  • Allow a photo field in addition to logo
  • Please add a field for the DUNS of the company.

Formatting of negative amounts of money[edit]

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 (Decrease or Increase). Like, if they're in the red for 2012, but the amount is less in 2013, do I use Increase but still use the () to signify a loss? (i.e. Decrease$(2.343) million (2012), Increase$(1.254) million (2012)) Thanks! FriarTuck1981 (talk) 01:00, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
If they lost $3 million in 2011 and $2.343 million in 2012, I assume you would use Increase$(1.254) million (2012). --Ahecht (TALK
) 02:47, 9 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)

Template-protected edit request on 23 March 2015[edit]

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.


}}{{#if:{{{bodystyle|}}} |[[Category:Pages using infobox company with bodystyle]]}}<noinclude>


}}<includeonly>[[Category:Pages using Infobox company]]</includeonly>{{#if:{{{bodystyle|}}} |[[Category:Pages using infobox company with bodystyle]]}}<noinclude>

The only change is adding this code: <includeonly>[[Category:Pages using Infobox company]]</includeonly> --Edgars2007 (talk/contribs) 14:16, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

What is wrong with this list? --Redrose64 (talk) 14:48, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
I need a category. That list doesn't have information, what I need. And no, this also doesn't do what I need. --Edgars2007 (talk/contribs) 15:04, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
It lists page names - a category would do the same. --Redrose64 (talk) 15:13, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
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)
It will put 57754 pages into the job queue. You still haven't explained why you need it. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:15, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit template-protected}} template. — {{U|Technical 13}} (etc) 17:30, 23 March 2015 (UTC)


Why is there no mention of CFO, CCO and CTO?
Should not they be included?
aGastya  ✉ let's talk about it :) 04:24, 1 April 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.
For example, Oliver Typewriter Company's infobox has
| key_people       = {{ubl | Thomas Oliver, | [[namesake]]/[[inventor]]
| Delavan Smith, | [[vice president]] }}
and BAE Systems has
|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.
--Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 19:13, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
@Hroðulf: Thank you for answering!
aGastya  ✉ let's talk about it :) 16:45, 2 April 2015 (UTC)


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)

Explicit example is Apple.com Though we have stores like iVenus and all, still purchases are made through website.
aGastya  ✉ Dicere Aliquid :) 23:20, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
Wordings: Instead of alexa rank we can call alexa rank of official website.
aGastya  ✉ Dicere Aliquid :) 23:24, 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)

How often are Alexa rankings updated? I would imagine that it's more often than once a year. --Redrose64 (talk) 12:34, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
okay, so does apple.com qualify for e commerce website? But using e commerce company info box is okay? And does that even exist?
aGastya  ✉ Dicere Aliquid :) 18:21, 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)

hq_location code broken[edit]

The hq_location code broke today after this edit by User:Alakzi to {{Comma separated entries}}. I'm not a Lua coder and will not try to work on it. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:22, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Alakzi has fixed it. Thanks. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:32, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Registered office field[edit]

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 (talk) 10:21, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

It may be important if you need to serve papers on the company, but is it encyclopedic? --Redrose64 (talk) 12:40, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict)
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.
Does Registered in: work?
--Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 12:46, 15 June 2015 (UTC)