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.

Image size[edit]


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.)

Attn: ‪SlimVirgin‬

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 11:34, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

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)
Considering how they are almost always photos, yes. If the image is too small, Media Viewer comes to rescue. —Codename Lisa (talk) 08:27, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Standardize revenue/income currency[edit]

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? ¤ ehudshapira 22:28, 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). ¤ ehudshapira 17:08, 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. ¤ ehudshapira 17:35, 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 ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  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)
@EllenCT: See WP:NOTYELLOW. --Ahecht (TALK
) 14:36, 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. ¤ ehudshapira 00:33, 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.

Clarification of Type field[edit]

On the page Disney Media Distribution, a user just changed the type from type = Public subsidiary to type = subsidiary of The Walt Disney Company

I know that's wrong, since there's a separate field for parent, but I wanted to confirm what should be in the type field.

The description page for Template:Infobox company describes the Type field as follows:

Type of company, wikilinked where possible. To list percentages owned of a private company, use the ownership parameter (see below).


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)

I'll try to answer each of your questions with a numbered answer, so that you can inquire about each easier.
  1. 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.
  2. 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!
  3. According to what I said above, the wikilink should stay what it is.
  4. "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.
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 13:04, 30 July 2016 (UTC)


I would like (again) to raise the issue of the slogan field. Las 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 edits 21:27, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
What are the coordinates for Royal Dutch Shell? Beagel (talk) 18:49, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Proposal to add a field - CEO[edit]

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.
-- for (;;) (talk) 16:47, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
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)