Jump to content

Template talk:Infobox company/Archive 8

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10→Archive 13

Text for owner field

{{editprotected}} Suggest changing the text for the "owner" field from "Owner" to "Owner(s)", to cater for companies which have multiple owners, such as Cosworth. DH85868993 (talk) 22:30, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Good idea.  Done. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:35, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Remove market cap?

Market cap looks like a useful new addition to the infobox. Thanks – it's something I would love to see in an encyclopedia. However, market cap changes minute by minute according to the share price, so I am not sure how effective it is in a wiki.

Perhaps, instead of the applicable year, we should pick a date and time, such as market close on December 31 XXXX, and say so in a footnote. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 13:56, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I think the market cap parameter should be removed. It is far too volatile. Even if a specific day of the year was agreed upon for all companies, the market cap on that date could be vastly changed within a month.
--JKeene (talk) 18:58, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to propose that the market cap parameter be removed from the infobox. It seems incredibly misleading to state (as is universally done at the moment) that the capitalisation of a company is foo billion dollars, then simply put (2009) afterwards. For a start, stating just the year is so vague as to make the information pretty much useless. In any case, the values can become hopelessly outdated within a short space of time, especially in the current market environment where share prices are extremely volatile. Company articles are, on the whole, edited infrequently on Wikipedia - even annual figures for revenue, profit etc. are often left untouched for years. I'm not sure that having a parameter that changes every second is worthwhile, even if properly attributed to a specific date. Thoughts? Gr1st (talk) 20:28, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Makes sense, that's the same reason we don't have a Slogan field. [|Retro00064 | (talk/contribs) |] 04:29, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
I also agree that market cap should be removed; I'll go ahead and do it in a day or two unless I hear objections. --CapitalR (talk) 02:51, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
Anyone fancy making the change then? Gr1st (talk) 20:45, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
I just removed market cap from the template and doc pages. --CapitalR (talk) 22:02, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
Please note that this has caused a number of "citation errors" when a cited source is "ref named" on the "market cap" field then used in other fields. Any clean up is much appreciated. Sillyfolkboy (talk) 10:52, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Logos should not be gray-scale

Our current advisory for the logo field says: Logo or graphic by which the company is currently and most readily identified. This is preferentially a gray-scale image.

Logos should not be gray-scale unless the company that owns the logo intends it to be gray-scale. It is at least disrepectful and deceiving and at worst a violation of the trademark-holder's rights for Wikipedia to be manipulating the color scheme that the logo-bearer chose to advertise itself. --M@rēino 14:05, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

 Done. You're absolutely right. [|Retro00064|☎talk|✍contribs|] 10:38, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Item "Vision"

The Template:Infobox Company needs an item to write a company's vision. The vision explains shortly the idea about founding a company. Fanoftheworld (talk) 22:53, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Whether independently added or not, there is almost always going to be an inherent pro-company bias in stating its "vision". In any case, such a item would in my view act as a magnet for corp-speak spam from companies' PR departments. Gr1st (talk) 07:11, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
If a company's PR department adds some advertisement to the item "Vision", then we can always remove this advertisement, like we can in the whole article.
I don't see it could act as a magnet for corp-speak spam, because the companies can always write about themself on Wikipedia, for example can everybody create a section in an article. Fanoftheworld (talk) 08:28, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
A company's "vision" is a nebulous mission statement. Infobox templates are there to provide at-a-glance comparative information. The proposed attribute doesn't fit with that functionality. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:08, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
I think it would be a mistake too. It would be placing an inherently biased statement in a prominent position within the article. Jll (talk) 10:00, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Exactly, mission statements are pure PR fluff and inappropriate for an ibox. I'm not sure why we even allow them in the bodies of articles. – ukexpat (talk) 21:50, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Production output

What is "Production output" at the end of the infobox? Fanoftheworld (talk) 08:23, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

No one knows? Fanoftheworld (talk) 12:55, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
It is how many widgets the company makes per year. There is an example here. Jll (talk) 07:21, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Thank you.
There is a mistake regarding the layout. When writing the "Production output" it is placed between "Products" and "Services", which I by the way think is a correct placement. But when you have saved the page, "Production output" is at the end of the infobox. Fanoftheworld (talk) 21:25, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Where is the discussion about adding this parameter? It seems a meaningless concept to me unless the company makes just one product. How is it supposed to apply to multi-product companies like Dow, Bayer, BASF or DuPont? – ukexpat (talk) 21:48, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I see that the problem is solved today. Fanoftheworld (talk) 13:18, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Owner

The link in the template to [[Owner]] needs to be changed to [[Ownership|Owner]]. TJ Spyke 01:16, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

 Done — Huntster (t • @ • c) 01:23, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Flag icons

What is the guidance on flag icons in the infobox? I detest the things, but some company articles seem to use them. --Biker Biker (talk) 21:55, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Manual of Style (icons)#Flags is Wikipedia's guidance on Flags. Basically, if they have very strong relevance, then it might be okay, otherwise, avoid at all cost. Really though, I see no reason why they should be used in this infobox. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 22:58, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Coords

Can we add an optional field for coordinates to display directly below the location fields? Aboutmovies (talk) 06:48, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Assets

This isn't a big deal, but could the Assets links be fixed? The article is Asset but the links in the infobox are to [[Assets]]. TJ Spyke 23:21, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Looks as though that's been  Done. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 22:04, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Consolidated income statement or enterprise income statement?

Should the financial figures be taken from the consolidated income statement, or from the enterprise income statement? Marcus 10:55, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Generally the consolidated statement offers a more accurate reflection of a company or group of companies. Gr1st (talk) 18:48, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Sounds resonable. Marcus 05:17, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Fix microformat

{{editprotected}}

Please sync with the sandbox, to fix the template's microformat classes. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 22:02, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Done. — RockMFR 22:55, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
Thank you. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 17:39, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Members field

{{editprotected}} Lets add a members field to this. This will allow the {{Infobox Co-operative}} template to be merged with this one, and so get the benefit of the additional fields such as predecessor, successor and defunct. This would mean one less template to maintain. If you agree, please add the {{editprotected}} tag to this request. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 10:58, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Support - a straightforward copy of one label/ data pair, suitably renumbered, from the other template. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 17:41, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
Please place the proposed code in the sandbox and replace the request when you have agreement. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 19:42, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Revenue notes

{{editprotected}} Why does the text say to put the indicator after the number, but the example has it before? Rees11 (talk) 15:49, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Please change "to avoid confusion, place the indicator after the number" to "to avoid confusion, place the indicator before the number." (emphasis added) Thanks. Rees11 (talk) 13:58, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

The documentation is not protected. — RockMFR 22:05, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Flag Icons in Location Field

See also: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (icons) § Flag Incons in Infoboxes

It has been suggested that the discussion from WP:MOSICON regarding the use of flag icons be brought here to try to find additional perspectives and achieve consensus. Historically the use of a flagicon (Canada) in the location field has been an issue of inconsistent usage. There is a discussion of whether in the location field of the company infobox (1) Usage of flag icons should be consistently discouraged / prohibited, (3) usage of flag icons should be consistently encouraged, or (3) Usage of flag icons should be left to the discretion of the individual editor(s).

Those opposed to flag icons in the infobox contend:

  • Flag icons are merely decorative and decoration
  • By putting an icon next to the headquarters and not next to all items in the infobox, undue emphasis is placed on the company's country affiliation
  • Flag icons are redundant next to text that includes the country in text and that text is preferred to the flagicon

Those in favor of flag icons in the infobox contend:

  • Infoboxes like this one are intended to communicate important information quickly and efficiently and the use of a small flag icon communicates information about the location of the company more effectively than text alone and therefore flag icons are not merely decorative
  • There is a long history of the community using flag icons in infoboxes and flag usage in general is not discouraged by WP
  • Given the use of other icons and images in the infobox, the use of an icon to denote location is not undue emphasis
  • As long as flags are not abused or overused within the infobox they can be a valuable addition and do not distract the reader.

I have tried to lay out both sides without biasing the argument. |► ϋrбanяeneωaℓ • TALK ◄| 00:38, 8 October 2009 (UTC)


  • Oppose - I think the flag icons are awful and really detract from infoboxes. It gets even worse when some people go one stage further and start adding national flags next to key individuals within a company as one editor did recently to Land Rover (or perhaps is was Jaguar Cars) --Biker Biker (talk) 22:02, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Problem with a field

Hi, I don't know where to post this...
The page about Virtual Playground uses this infobox and the field "headquarters", which I see here requires two values, city and country. I have never heard about this company before, but the guy who entered just "England" created a inelegant result, please check it : there is a blank, then a comma, and the country. This should be easy to fix (I understand that serious info require full info, but nothing's perfect in this world...)

Anyway, thanks!

Fixed, I added the city parameter. Garion96 (talk) 16:45, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Location of Headquarters

Just an idea, but any opinions on adding geographical coordinates for the location of the headquarters, in addition to city/state/country information? Anakin-Marc "DJ AniZ" Zaeger (talk) 01:08, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I asked a few months ago and no one replied. I think part of the problem is the fairly fast archiving on this talk page. Anyway, I support the Coords field. Aboutmovies (talk) 09:27, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Joint Venture

In addition to "Divisions" and "Subsidiaries" should there be an entry for "Joint Ventures"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.109.31.70 (talk) 17:09, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Why? -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 17:12, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Resources

Suggest adding under Resources > Stock info In Canada, the Toronto Stock Exchange external link: Toronto Stock Exchange. It is a relevant world stock exchange, especially for the banking and natural resource sectors. Stoick (talk) 00:49, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Background color

To make this infobox visually more atractive, I propose to use a color backgroud for the title. It could be done by adding |headerstylestyle = background:#ccf; code to the template. Of course, if there are other color preferences, I don't have any strong feelings. Beagel (talk) 11:13, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Visually attractive is a matter of personal preference. This template currently transcludes the infobox meta template, and for the sake of standardisation probably shouldn't vary too much from it. --Paul_012 (talk) 11:24, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Genre & Industry fields

When looking up information on a company, a reader would most likely want to know what the company does. I think the industry field, which is currently buried down the middle of the template, should be moved to near the top, while Genre, which only applies to a few companies, should be moved down. --Paul_012 (talk) 11:22, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree industry should be moved up, but I think genre should be right below it, since for publishers it does directly relate. For the ones it doesn't apply to, it doesn't show so it doesn't affect the rest. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 16:53, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

{{editprotected}}

Requested edit to reflect this version of the sandbox, per the above proposal. --Paul_012 (talk) 10:52, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:25, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Minor Changes

I believe the box will look better with the company name inside the box and the box width is enlarged a bit to about 290px. (Gezzza (talk) 12:40, 25 March 2010 (UTC))

Disagree with the widening, it's big enough already in my opinion. No objection to moving the name inside. Gr1st (talk) 13:13, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
Completely disagree on widening it. The box is the standard width used by almost all infoboxes. The company name is technically "in" the box. I think its a difference in the coding. If titleclass and title were changed to aboveclass and above, respectively, that would probably get it inside the border. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 13:24, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
With the box at the current width, the box causes formating issues with the content on the article. Although changing the width won't fix the formating issues on all articles but include it with increasing the text at the top of the articles will fix the formating issues. For example see the issue here and a example of the fix I going for is here. (Gezzza (talk) 13:35, 25 March 2010 (UTC))
I don't understand what the "formatting issue" is here - can you explain? Gr1st (talk) 13:45, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
[1] the edit links are out of place and the images get pushed down and can be pushed into the wrong section. (Gezzza (talk) 13:55, 25 March 2010 (UTC))
That is not a problem with the box, but with that particular article being badly formatted. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 14:47, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
How is that article badly formatted? Gezzza (talk) 15:01, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
Two stacked images directly under the infoboxm two stacked infoboxes, and very short (and unnecessary) location section, and a very short lead that is causing the problem with the edit links in that single article. Once the article is cleaned up and expanded, it will be fine. As is, it isn't even C class, though its marked as such. There is no reason to mess up all other articles to fix a minor formatting issue in an article with far bigger issues that, once fixed would eliminate the problem here. As noted, this infobox uses the same width as all the others. Indeed, if you look at the code, you will see there is no hardcoded width.-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 15:10, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
I move the width change to Template_talk:Infobox#Minor_width_change, but the "the company name inside the box" still stands and I also want to bring up "reduce 27 variables to the essentials" since this box is too big and too full with useless information. And saying the article is badly formated because it doesn't fix the issues the box made is not a fix. Gezzza (talk) 15:28, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
The BOX has not made any issues. The issues are with that single article. If you want to "fix" it, fix the article rather than trying to mess up thousands of other articles by making the infoboxes ridiculously large (which would still not fix the issues in that article, FYI). Rather than making an incorrect claim that the infobox is messing up the article, I'd suggest you take more time to learn the basics of editing here, and look over the WP:MOS regarding images, formatting, headers, etc, and WP:LEAD for writing a proper lead.. You may also want to look at GA and FA level company articles. And if you want to make specific proposals about which variables you feel are unnecessary, then please do so. Just saying it has "useless" information isn't really helpful nor conducive to discussing removing any of them. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 15:33, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
So you are telling me I need to expand the text at the top of the article - which should brief - into a essay just so the overloaded box can fit in. Even your WP:LEAD "rule" backs me up. Also I have done my reading, Wikipedia:Ignore_all_rules. Also I believe the box should only have Type, Industry, Founded, Founder(s), Headquarters, income and Website. Everything else is either not Wikipedia:Notability or already covered in the article. Gezzza (talk) 15:53, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
No, the lead should not be THAT brief. It should be a summary of the article as a whole, and no, WP:LEAD does not back you up at all. And please do not try to misuse IAR to claim that because you don't want to properly expand the article, infoboxes across the board should be broken. I cannot agree with your idea of what should be in the infobox at all. Almost every attribute in the box is a basic component of the company and it its relevant and noteworthy (notability does not apply to specific article contents), further, infoboxes are made to summarize and highlight main points of the article. By your argument, we don't even need infoboxes because it should ALL be in the article. Unless you have previously edited under another account, your contribs indicate that you are extremely new to editing here, and inexperienced in working with company articles and editing with Wikipedia in general. Someone else already gave you a welcome with good links to read. If you want to disregard advice from those who have built quality articles on companies, that is your choice of course. It only hurts yourself and articles you work on (though the latter can always be fixed later). However, do not expect that you can expect to get any sort of consensus to change hundreds, or thousands, of articles to try to "fix" an infobox to address those deficiencies. As can be seen here, with the article properly fixed, no more issue[2] -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 16:26, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
By your argument, everything in article should be in the box. Also removing the images doesn't fix the issue because even if the lead was at the correct length (2-3 paragraphs) it still won't be enough. And I have no idea how you jumped onto my editing experience because it does not apply here at all because I have never edited QR. So your attack on me for QR is unfounded. Gezzza (talk) 01:53, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
No, because everything in the article is not worthy of overall highlighting. And yes, removing the image did fix the issue, as did fixing the rest of the article. Your editing experience is relevant when you are making suggestions that go against basic editing guidelines and continue to refuse to accept any advice or notes on the proper way to fix the problem you noted, which again was not a problem with this box. I did not "attack" you, I made suggestions for you to correct your lack of knowledge in this issue. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 02:07, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Name inside box

{{editprotected}} Change titleclass to aboveclass and and title above, to move the name of the company inside the box, per above. This being done to reinstate Gezzza's attempt to make this request, which was reverted because he also piecemeal refactored various comments above in doing so[3]. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:24, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

 Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:54, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

{{editprotected}}

Hold on a minute. 48 hours' worth of discussion which wasn't posted anywhere is hardly enough to make a change like this, especially where exactly no reasons have been given for it save for one editor's personal preference. This should be changed back; using an HTML <caption> for the title is more semantically useful, and there doesn't appear to be a reasonable argument against it. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 13:38, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I won't disagree with the roll back if anyone disagrees with having the title inside. It seemed like a sensible change, and brings the template more inline with some other ones. I just followed those for the suggestion on how to do it the way others do it, and in keeping with the core infobox code. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 14:47, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
arrow Reverted for now. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 18:08, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Centralised discussion

This is an issue which affects more than one infobox, so I've created a centralised discussion at Manual of Style#Infobox headings. Your contributions will be welcome there. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 18:32, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Headquarters linked

{{editprotected}} Headquarters (and other field titles) should be linked. —Eekerz (t) 11:27, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Link to Corporate headquarters? I disagree: I think that would be excessive linking. I can't think of a reason why the reader of a company article would want to go there, as different companies have different uses for their HQs. Instead, I think a link would be distracting. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 12:14, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 Not done, as there is disagreement about such a change. If consensus changes, re-apply for the edit. — Huntster (t @ c) 12:16, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
Why? Its a common term. Per WP:OVERLINK such terms should not be linked. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 13:25, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Adjustable size

I have zero tech skills so would like to know if this somehow does or can be modified to allow for optonial box width (| box_width = ) as is available for Infobox_Person? Thanx. Handicapper (talk) 16:59, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Is there a particular need to adjust the width above the standard? -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 18:36, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
Indeed. I don't really see why manually specifying the width should ever be necessary. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:15, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Debt Rating

What do you all think about adding a line to the template for corporate debt rating (where applicable)? Fortheloveofbacon (talk) 10:40, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Why? It seems like something that is generally unnoteworthy for our company articles, and something primarily of interest only to investors? -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 13:32, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

infobox footnotes

{{editprotected}} please replace the following: 

| below      = {{{footnotes<includeonly>|</includeonly>}}}

with this: 

| below      = {{#if:{{{footnotes|}}}|'''References:''' {{{footnotes|}}} }}

...to add a label to. thanks --emerson7 16:17, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Looks good to me. (I'm not an admin, just saying that I think this is a good edit.) Gary King (talk) 16:25, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
 Done. I left in the includeonly bits so that it displays on the template version. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:37, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Clarification on Mergers/Acquisitions/Etc.

Here is a perfect example of what I am talking about: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Steel_Group

International Steel Group (ISG) was formed following the bankruptcy of Ling-Temco-Vought (LTV) Steel. LTV Steel's assets were acquired by Weirton Steel which subsequently formed ISG. A few years later ISG was acquired by Mittal Steel which later merged with Arcelor to form ArcelorMittal. How should this be depicted in the Infobox as far as predecessor and successors are concerned? Did I depict it correctly on the current (22 June 2010) ISG page where I listed the predecessor as LTV and the successor as ArcelorMittal? Or would it be more accurate to depict the predecessor as Weirton Steel and the successor as Mittal Steel? Evan.oltmanns (talk) 14:50, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

short and alternative names' fields

I propose to split the company name field to have more flexibility. Currently, there is only one field. It is a case with several (mainly national/state-owned) companies that the company has a long official name but the common name is something shorter (e.g. Petróleo Brasileiro S.A. versus Petrobras) The template documentation only says that if the company is based in a country with a different language, the name field should read [Name of company] <br /> [Name of company in native language]. This does not seem very elegant and editor-friendly solution. Therefore, I propose to have instead of one common field two or even three fields named 'name', 'short name', and 'native language name'. Two latter should be optional, of course. Beagel (talk) 08:28, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I'd probably support adding a single field for the native language name, similar to what is done with books, films, anime, etc, but I don't think more than that is needed. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 14:06, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
A new field sounds good. Gary King (talk · scripts) 17:20, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Do editors get confused by the need for <br /> ? It is needed elsewhere, such as in the lists of products, key people and divisions. Surely an editor that has not yet seen br is as unlikely to know about additional optional fields, and just put in the extra name somewhere, and wait for a more experienced editor to come along and beautify it.

Editors in foreign language topics can usually figure it out, as we did at Nonghyup.

I am not opposed, though it seems like unnecessary extra code, documentation and maintenance.

Is the proposal helpful to the microformat folks?

--Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 14:35, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Identifier

Resolved
 – Field added, "Traded as" - ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 00:10, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

The infobox on Tesco has "(LSE: TSCO)" crammed into the "type" field. Could we have a separate "Identifier", or similar, field? Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 12:23, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't seem very "crammed" to me; that's the standard way of denoting a public company. Don't see any need to split out the stock symbols for all public companies, as they pretty much always fit on a single line and are formatted pretty cleanly IMHO. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 13:21, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
Stock ticker and company type (when publicly-traded) seem reasonably natural companions. Not convinced that a separate field is needed. Gr1st (talk) 16:52, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

The field is type. "Public (LSE: TSCO)" is not a "type" of anything. Furthermore, the type field is marked up as a category in the emitted microformat. The category, in this case, should be "Public" not "Public (LSE: TSCO)". We really do need to be more careful about such semantics. We can display separate fields as at present. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 21:53, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Can you propose code for it, and layout (preferably keeping the layout unchanged as the above responses wanted?) --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 14:06, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Something like: 

| label1     = {{#if:{{{defunct|}}}|[[Types of business entity|Former type]]|[[Types of business entity|Type]]}}{{#if:{{{id|}}}| and identifier|}}
| data1      = <span class="category">{{{type<includeonly>|{{{company_type|}}}</includeonly>}}}</span>{{#if:{{{id|}}}|, ({{{id}}})|}}

though my code needs checking. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 18:57, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Nudge. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 13:28, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Test it in a sandbox somewhere? --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 21:00, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Please see the related discussion below. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 03:38, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Government influence (political contributions and lobbying)

Target Corporation was in the news recently about its political activities, which brings up the general issue of influence by businesses on government. This is not limited to the United States, although the recent Supreme Court decision raised concerns. Perhaps we could add something to the template, using the usual watchdog groups. See: National Institute on Money in State Politics, OpenSecrets.org Flatterworld (talk) 15:04, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

That kind of info belongs in the article, but I don't think it should be in the infobox. Garion96 (talk) 15:07, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
If the company influencing the government on a issue it also be explain in the article, if it's notable. But it has no place in the infobox. If it was placed in the info it may cause confusion or may mislead the reader. d'oh! talk 15:13, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Update redirect

{{edit protected}} The link for "Ownership equity|Total equity" is now "Equity (finance)|Total equity", there's a version in the sandbox with the link fixed: [4]. Would someone update this please? Thanks, --Funandtrvl (talk) 22:11, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Done, Garion96 (talk) 22:16, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
Wow, are you fast!! Thanks, --Funandtrvl (talk) 22:18, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Parameter question

Do we only list current owners and parents? --Trogga 20:53, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

In general, yes. The infobox is just an at-a-glance summary, rather than a complete record of the company. Important previous owners can be noted but it isn't essential. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 11:36, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Question

See here. --M4gnum0n (talk) 09:41, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Other names

{{edit protected}} I'd like to request an "Other names" parameter.--GrapedApe (talk) 04:22, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Do many company articles require such an addition ? That information might be better placed in prose in the article, I think. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 08:47, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Open Corporates

This article about Open Corporates, a new website, suggests that it might be a useful sources of UIDs for companies (in the same way that, say, IMDb is for films). The first tranche covers Bermuda, Jersey and, chiefly, the United Kingdom. Disclosure: I have worked with the creator, on his previous projects. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 13:27, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

New Field: Audit Opinion

Can a new field please be added, for audit opinion. This could be populated with 'Unqualified', 'Qualified' (maybe subdivided into (1) probs with financial reporting (2) probs with underlying transactions), 'Withheld', 'Missing'. Thanks, BrekekekexKoaxKoax (talk) 01:32, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Bleat, Bleat, can someone look at this one: the sooner this kind of stuff is institutionalized the better... Wannabe bean-counter/BrekekekexKoaxKoax (talk) 03:04, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Basically for the same reason as the section below - this is not just some kind of marketing platform. If there are serious concerns over financial management/misconduct these should be made clear. BrekekekexKoaxKoax (talk) 03:06, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

This sort of thing is not really what Wikipedia is for. We don't do price to earnings ratios, or 52-week highs/lows, number of shares outstanding, details on recent insider trades, or in general a lot of stock market analysis types of information, as Wikipedia is not a guide. Sure, we do revenues and profits and losses, but that helps give the average reader a quick assessment as to size/impact of the company and with profits gives a very generalized idea as to stability and financial health. These can be misleading, but these fields that we already have are going to be better understood by a much broader audience than audit opinions would be, and for me at least, infoboxes are for the broader audience to get a quick understanding of the topic, and not give investing type advice. Instead, there are hundreds of websites out there that provide the other financial data. Aboutmovies (talk) 05:55, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps, currently, the most stringent interrogation of responsible Corporate Governance is that leading to the audit report and encapsulated in the audit opinion, though see Auditor Independence - 'an impossible dream' (biting the hand that feeds etc). I would contend this is of more notability than simply short-term investor advice, for which I agree - those with the cash will be heading elsewhere. For instance, in a ?less-corporate? (though see Top 100 US Federal Contractors) context, recent audit opinions for the United States Department of Defense have apparently led to a call for total reform from none other than the US Secretary of Defense. The Federal Contractor Misconduct Database is also perhaps germane in this respect - this does not appear to have any immediate impact on awards of contracts, or investment decisions, but is perhaps structurally indicative, which may be more encyclopedic. Pretty please? BrekekekexKoaxKoax (talk) 13:51, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Your reasoning seems to be that this information is needed, not for Wikipedia's sake, but for society's sake. So, simply put, we are an encyclopedia, and not a soapbox or agent for reform. Not that audit opinions cannot be added into the body of the article, as I myself have done before, but we do not do it as a matter of course as some sort of corporate governance watchdog. I did it because it made the news, well that and the company's PR people kept trying to use the article as some sort of investor prospectus without mentioning that their auditor said they doubted the company could continue as a going concern, and I thought I would help counter-balance the fluff. Aboutmovies (talk) 05:03, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

I fail to see how inclusion of the independent auditors' audit opinion, id est what is currently the most rigorous verification of what a company/government professes about its (financial) management and governance, is in any way akin to WP:Sock. I think there are WP articles on deep structures of society, which I imagine have nothing to do with any reform agendas. Think there's a major need for some kind of WP:Project on this kind of stuff. BrekekekexKoaxKoax (talk) 11:11, 14 January 2011 (UTC) As well as United States Department of Defense please also see United States Department of Homeland Security for elucidation. BrekekekexKoaxKoax (talk) 11:14, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

New field: motto or slogan

Many companies have a slogan or motto. That could also be useful information, even if it sound like marketing bulls*it. At least there should be a proper place for a slogan in the article, now marketing assholes write it in the article and I just have to throw it away. --Sigmundur (talk) 08:47, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

See for example Template_talk:Infobox_company/Archive_6#Slogans. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 21:05, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
How about overwriting an empty caption field by slogan? -- Polluks ★ 11:24, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Retention of information in the company infoboxes

Is there any way all the kind of stuff contained in the infoboxes can be archived somewhere rather than simply replaced when changes occur (?in a new linked article for each company?), so that there might be a sequential history of financial performance etc. Thanks, BrekekekexKoaxKoax (talk) 03:09, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Similar to me response above as to the audit field, not really what we are here for, plenty of investor sites exist for this info, and the SECs Edgar Online has it as well going back many years. Aboutmovies (talk) 06:04, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps, but investor sites and their archives are not always as open-access as Wikipedia, BrekekekexKoaxKoax (talk) 13:57, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

"Traded as" field

Resolved
 – Field added, "Traded as" - ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 00:10, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Would it be possible to integrate the functionality of {{NASDAQ}} and {{NYSE}} templates as input fields in the infobox? It could be displayed as "Traded as:" or something like that. Also fields for "Dow Jones Industrial Average Component" & "S&P 500 Component". I'm sure that there are dedicated editors who add and maintain this info, but this would make it easier for the other people. This would also help standardize their appearance (not that that part's been a huge problem). ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 22:34, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

There's currently ~40-50 stock-ticker templates - surely it's simpler just to call them directly than to duplicate the functionality here? Shimgray | talk | 23:06, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
I didn't realize there were so many! Would it at least be possible to add a "traded as" field? My main concern is that there is currently no context to this info, so readers who don't know what a NYSE is might be confused, and editors putting these articles together won't think to add these templates. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 22:50, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
The current practice seems to be to add the ticker (or the most prominent one?) immediately after "Public" at the head of the infobox; this was commented on above as a bit confusing, and I think on the whole I agree. A "Traded as" container field into which we put as many iterations of the various templates as needed seems a good compromise, but I'd prefer some more feedback before we go ahead with it... Shimgray | talk | 01:51, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
I see, there's a conversation above about a related request. It'd be nice if under type there was room to put the specific type, like "Public (Kabushiki gaisha)" or somesuch. Is this page watched enough to get feedback from interested editors? ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 03:36, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
I'll give my support to simply moving the tickers to a "traded as" field. In my opinion the "type" field should first and foremost contain the specific company type (e.g. Kabushiki gaisha) - it's something I've been introducing when I can. It seems ludicrous to state an euphemism like "public" when the specific type is known, especially since we have so many articles on different legal statuses of companies. Gr1st (talk) 19:35, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
Is there someone who knows template code who can implement this? ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 04:40, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
I believe that this would be the correct code:
| label2     = [[Ticker symbol|Traded as]]
| data2      = {{{traded_as<includeonly>|</includeonly>}}}
Could someone please confirm this, as I haven't edited this template before, thanks. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 14:29, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
Added. Thanks! Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 01:24, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
Would it be possible to move the "Traded as" field to directly below the "Type" field? The other various fields seem well-grouped together, while the "Traded as" field seems out of place between the various ownership fields and the website field. If the Type field says that the company is publicly traded, it would seem to make sense in terms of grouping that the next field say where it is traded. Helmandsare (talk) 03:21, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
I second the request to move the "traded as" field to directly below "Type". If we are going to list a company as "Public" the next logical piece of information to present to the reader is the ticker symbol. Ch Th Jo (talk) 23:08, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Market Capitalization (Market Cap) should be included as one of the fields

I think that "Market Capitalization" (Market Cap) should be included as one of the fields in this infobox. How can this be arranged?--Jax 0677 (talk) 12:44, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

As something that changes pretty much on a daily basis, I don't think that is a good idea. Annual revenues make for a good benchmark for size, and only need updating each year. Aboutmovies (talk) 04:57, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
Probably worth noting that it was previously put into the infobox then removed after discussion here (for the reason Aboutmovies gave above). Gr1st (talk) 19:29, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Wrong interwiki

Dutch page should be nl:Sjabloon:Infobox bedrijf Caudex Rax (talk) 18:39, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Done. In the future, you can do this yourself. The doc page is not protected. Thanks! Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 21:34, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

{{editprotected}} Many of the subheadings in this template are just ordinary words with no special technical meaning. Could they be unlinked please, per WP:OVERLINK? I'm thinking of:

  • Industry
  • Genre
  • Founder
  • Products
  • Services
  • Revenue
  • Owner(s)
  • Employees
  • Website

Colonies Chris (talk) 14:53, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

I unlinked all but Products/Services. If there are no objections, I suppose we can delink those as well. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 21:34, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. Can you unlink the remaining two if there have been no objections after a few days please? Colonies Chris (talk) 09:11, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
Done. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 01:25, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Ch Th Jo, 15 April 2011

Please move the field "traded_as" to appear directly below the "type" field in the template. If we are going to denote a company as "Public" in the type field, it is logical to place the stock ticker symbol directly below that entry. Prior to the the creation of the "traded_as" field, the stock ticker symbol appeared -in- the "type" field, so the edit I am requesting represents a move back toward the previously accepted norm. This edit request is supported by at least one other user as noted on the talk page and does not appear to be in dispute. Because we would be setting the template order to more closely mirror the way it has historically appeared, it would be reasonable to suggest this request is not likely to result in controversy. Thanks. Ch Th Jo (talk) 04:47, 15 April 2011 (UTC) 

| label1     = {{#if:{{{defunct|}}}|[[Types of business entity|Former type]]|[[Types of business entity|Type]]}}
| class1     = category
| data1      = {{{type<includeonly>|{{{company_type|}}}</includeonly>}}}

| label2    = [[Ticker symbol|Traded as]]
| data2     = {{{traded_as<includeonly>|</includeonly>}}}

Ch Th Jo (talk) 04:47, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Done, Woody (talk) 22:02, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, looks great! Ch Th Jo (talk) 22:39, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

I've noticed on many Wikipedia articles where there is a website link for the Infobox, that many people have chosen to display the link as "Example.com". eg. Apple.com, Disney.com, EBGames.com, GameStop.com etc. I do think this looks alot nicer than having it lowercased (example.com) and/or longer (www.example.com or even http://www.example.com/) and so I've changed various links on other Wikipedia articles to be like "Example.com".

Currently there isn't a set rule on how to diplay these links, except for the fact that you can use one if you wish and so I'm wondering if we could have a recommendation or guideline somewhere, on the Infobox Template page asking (if possible) to display links like "Example.com".

Although it might be tricky for some articles like Toys "R" Us for example, where I capitalized the "T" but could't do the same for R+U as it would then appear as "ToysRUS.com" and look too weird. However, you could simply give a short list of examples on the template page to help users do it corrently.

So, what do we think? I know it's only a minor thing but every little suggestion helps! AnimatedZebra (talk) 04:05, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

I guess it should depend if the website owner uses the capitalized form when discussing its website. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 11:59, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
Although the matter of URL's in particular may not have been specifically discussed, I believe the issue is already resolved by WP:MOSFOLLOW. MOSFOLLOW says "Many points of usage, such as the treatment of proper names, can be decided by observing the style adopted by high-quality sources when considering a stylistic question. Unless there is a clear reason to do otherwise, follow the usage of reliable English-language secondary sources."
The Wall Street Journal, Forbes, the New York Times and Business Week all publish URL's in lowercase form and omit "http://www.". All are considered to be high-quality secondary sources for articles dealing with companies. Using MOSFOLLOW as the guide, we should follow the example of the high quality secondary sources and stick to lowercase URL's and omit "http://www.", entering the data in the infobox as {{URL|example.com}} and as example.com elsewhere in the article. Ch Th Jo (talk) 16:59, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
I think I get ya but even though they're high quality articles, they're not perfect. Yes, no article on Wikipedia is truely ever perfect/finished but even the best ones can have unfinished editing. Perhaps they're lowercased cause nobody ever thought of changing them, who knows? I wouldn't mind changing them myself but I won't if peoples don't want me too...
AnimatedZebra: "Please o' WikiLords, may I uppercase those URLs?"
WikiLords: SILENCE FOOLISH MORTAL!!!.......... hehe AnimatedZebra (talk) 06:38, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
Please don't omit the www until you have checked the shortened address works. Some firms who should know better don't answer to addresses without www (or other hostname). --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 19:37, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
Jeepers, I didn't think of that Hrothulf, I might go check the ones I edited, thankyou! AnimatedZebra (talk) 07:36, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
Note that {{URL|www.example.com}} and {{URL|http://www.example.com}} and {{URL|example.com}} all have the same display text, but only the first two generate the same URL link. To be safe, just use include the www if it's needed. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 06:15, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Template documentation updated throughout to reflect inclusion of www Ch Th Jo (talk) 15:12, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Request – Royal Warrants

I have noticed that the infobox for companies does not have a field for Royal Warrants. I think that is a little strange. The infobox needs a fields named "Royal Warrant(s)". Will somebody please add this field? --Peoplefromarizona (talk) 08:16, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

ADDITIONAL: The infobox has fields such as "Number of locations". I think that a field for Royal Warrants is missing. An infobox contains pure facts and Royal Warrants are pure facts as well. --Peoplefromarizona (talk) 14:42, 21 July 2011 (UTC)


Royal warrants should be described in the article body. Binksternet (talk) 08:02, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
All the fields in the infobox (like year of foundation, founder, headquarters...) could be described in the article and is also often described in the article body. That doesn't change anything about what should be included in the infobox. --Peoplefromarizona (talk) 14:02, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
I think the parameter would be too promotional for the infobox. Binksternet (talk) 14:17, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
Why do you think that Royal Warrants would be too promotional for the infobox and not for the article body????? --Peoplefromarizona (talk) 14:36, 21 July 2011 (UTC)


As stated in the first paragraph (second sentence) of the article on Royal Warrant of Appointment, as of 07/22/2011:

The warrant enables the supplier to advertise the fact that they supply to the royal family, so lending prestige to the supplier.

That line would seem to suggest that the *only* reason for royal warrants are strictly for advertising purposes. If we are going to list in the infobox that a company provides goods and services for a royal family, perhaps we should also include in the infobox that a field for providing goods and services per government contracts. Anakin-Marc "DJ AniZ" Zaeger (talk) 06:29, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
With all due respect and an application of good faith towards the OP, of all the bizarre requests for parameters I've seen here, this has got to be the strangest. Remember folks, parameters in this infobox need to be ones critical to the operation of the company. The essentials. Items like this are little more than an advertising point. — Huntster (t @ c) 07:46, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
– To hold a royal warrant is not just about supplying to the royal family. To hold a royal warrant is a sort of a "seal/stamp of approval" – and maybe the must important and influential approval a company can get. A company needs to be very well managed and needs to prove it regularly for their royal house. For example it is extremely rare that a company holding one or more royal warrant(s) go bankrupt. A company holding a royal warrant must have a very good financial situation. Furthermore, the way the company is running has to be of high ethical standards. To get a royal warrant is not just making things of high quality and then go to a slot machine to drew a royal warrant. And of course a company will loses its royal warrant, for example if the company gets judged for breaking the law; (of course not if the illegality is of trivial matter).
– In the light of the field "Number of locations" and in the light of the many fields about the current or old financial situation of a company (revenue, operating income, net income, AUM, total assets, total equity) I think that a field about royal warrants will be appropriate because it says a lot more about a company.
– PS: I hope that you are aware of that the article royal warrant of appointment is a "stub", because it doesn't say much, or almost nothing, about how to get a royal warrant and what is means to have a royal warrant, (compare to my very short explanation above). Peoplefromarizona (talk) 08:49, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Propose new parameter: Fiscal/Reporting year

Very new to this so apologies if I haven't followed correct protocol here. After a number of searches in the archives I can't see a similar proposal.

My proposal is to introduce a parameter: "Fiscal_year" or "Reporting_year", probably to fit between "Services" and "Revenue". Often there is (2010/2011) or similar after the financials and it would be useful to know whether this relates to, e.g. Apr-Mar or Oct-Sept year. E.g. for Infineon it would read:

Fiscal year October 1 - September 30

Stigmundo (talk) 08:38, 22 July 2011 (UTC)Stigmundo

Flag icons

The documentation of this infobox says: Do not use flag icons, as this places an unnecessary emphasis on nationality; see MOS:FLAG for a detailed rationale. However, there are still a large number of company articles which still using flag icons in their infoboxes. I propose to use a bot to replace these flag icons with country names. Does anybody know how to request this? Beagel (talk) 13:03, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

I made a request for this task. Before running a bot for these edits, a clear consensus is needed. You are welcome to make your comments. Beagel (talk) 17:58, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Group Companies or Associate Companies

Can we add "Group Companies" or "Associate Companies" in this info box? Please review. Thanks AKS (talk) 08:03, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

I am not sure. For many notable companies this can be a very long list. Currently we have parent, owner, subsidiaries and divisions which covers most interesting cases, when I consider that the infobox is supposed to summarize key information for quick reference. Other kinds of affiliates, such as joint ventures and consortia, are probably best discussed in the body of the article, where they are relevant. Where affiliates are uninteresting or numerous, you can link to a company registration directory such as OpenCorporates, as Wikipedia is not a directory.
See also
Though I can't guarantee I will change my mind, perhaps you can give an example of how you would see your proposal work in practice.
--Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 11:51, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Lets add a slogan

I'm proposing a slogan section where the company slogan can be placed. Fairly OddParents Freak 01:01, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

It used to be part of the template, don't know why it was removed --Zr2d2 (talk) 16:33, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
Extensive discussion about the slogan field was held several times and you could find these discussions in the talk page archive (just use search function by typing slogan or slogan field). I personally do not see any need to re-add this field to the infobox. If necessary, you could use for the slogan the caption field. Beagel (talk) 16:52, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Obsolete templates and fields

Many pages still use obsolete templates with obsolete fields, which are replaced by new fields ('name', 'logo', 'type' has replaced 'company_name', 'company_logo' and 'company_type') or out of use ('company_slogan', 'slogan'). I propose to use a bot to replace these (in case of 'company_slogan' it should be deleted or as an alternative, replaced by 'caption'). After that, the code of this infobox could be cleaned and simplified which will decrease the amount of information which should be transcluded. Also, bot should be used for replacing redirected templates (e.g. 'Infobox Company', 'Infobox Defunct company', etc) with current 'Infobox company'. Beagel (talk) 18:30, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Edit request

As mentioned above New field: motto or slogan This field really needs to be added, maybe a RfC to get consensus or some other method to get this done. Comments ? Mlpearc powwow 20:52, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Please get consensus and place your requested (and tested) version on Template:Infobox company/sandbox before making an {{editprotected}} request. Anomie⚔ 23:07, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Appending "(s)" to "Predecessor" and "Successor"

{{edit protected}} Shouldn't the fields "Predecessor" and "Successor" show as "Predecessor(s)" and "Successor(s)" instead? A company may have more than one predecessor and/or successor company, just like it may have more than one founder. Should the fields "Industry" and "Parent" be changed similarly? Thanks. —{|Retro00064|☎talk|✍contribs|} 06:04, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Support for "Predecessor" or "Successor" fields. Beagel (talk) 13:50, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 Done  Ronhjones  (Talk) 00:45, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

How does one report quarterly or bi-annual results (eg revenue, profit etc)?

For example I'm trying to update the infobox for 8ta with information from here. Since the company is fairly new it doesn't have a full years revenue, only 6 months of R301m. What can I do? Meepdeedoo (talk) 23:46, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Typically only annual results are reported; however until these become available you can just put half-year numbers into the infobox fields. Just make it clear exactly which period of time the numbers refer to. Gr1st (talk) 10:25, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

traded_as needs revision; Proposed: Component_of

The traded_as field is being used to list not just exchanges and symbols, but also indexes in which the company is a component. For an example see: General Electric where you'll find the following (with <br /> changed to returns for readability): 

|traded_as = {{New York Stock Exchange|GE}}{{Nasdaq|GE}}
[[Dow Jones Industrial Average|Dow Jones Component]]
[[S&P 500|S&P 500 Component]]
[[Dow Jones Composite Average|Dow Jones Composite Component]]
[[The Global Dow|The Global Dow Component]]

In the event the GE article no longer contains these references here's the permlink to the current version @ the time of this writing:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=General_Electric&oldid=470172512 (how do you make internal permlinks??)

Therefore, I humbly propose the following:

The template Infobox_company should be extended to include a new field: Component_of in which should be enumerated any stock market index(es) of which the company is a component.

If I should make this proposal elsewhere, please let me know where and how I should make this proposal --TMH (talk) 20:02, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Strong support - great idea and long overdue. I have also noticed recently that OTC details are being added to this field. In my view this is non-standard and I am removing this info as OTC is not an exchange per se and opens up a whole can of worms. However an 'OTC' field may be an idea also. Rangoon11 (talk) 16:48, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Fate

The fate section should be put under defunct - it's all the way up and when we read the infobox from the top, we don't even know it's defunct yet that we see fate there. --Chacha15 (talk) 22:08, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Support. Makes a sense. Beagel (talk) 18:47, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Display bug

There is a display bug, when there is a value for |location_country= but not |location_city='; as can be seen this page, which displays ", England" with an unnecessary preceding comma. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:57, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

 Fixed — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:32, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Edit Request

Can a Misc section please be posted? I am doing some work on a defunct company that went through several name changes and would like to post them under the Misc. Swifty*talk 06:12, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Please discuss this first. If there is consensus to add this field, you may reactivate the request. Regards — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:33, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

industry

I would like to suggest that we add a little more guidance to this. The current advice is being ignored and usage is inconsistent. I would suggest that we advise the use the Industry Classification Benchmark, something similar (see Industry classification), or a project page with a list of industries that would be translated across multiple languages so that a company can be described correctly to any speaker no matter what language they speak. Scottonsocks (talk) 16:13, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

There is a need for greater consistency and standardisation here and using the Industry Classification Benchmark is a good idea. However I do feel that flexibility should be allowed as to which column of the ICB is used (i.e. Industry, Supersector, Sector or Subsector).
For example, although I would be quite happy describing BP as part of the "Oil & Gas" industry or Vodafone as part of the "Telecommunications" industry, I would not wish to describe General Motors being as in the "Consumer Goods" industry, but rather in the "Automobiles & Parts" industry. Equally I would not want to describe GlaxoSmithKline as being in the "Health Care" industry, but rather in the "Pharmaceuticals & Biotechnology" industry. For some companies it is also appropriate to list two or even three industries which they are a member of (since merely stating "Conglomerate" tells the reader nothing), and in my firm view this should be allowed.
However on the central point of using the Industry Classification Benchmark, with the caveats above, I can support this as a good idea. Rangoon11 (talk) 16:59, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
Another point which has just struck me, we should also bear in mind, and try to standardise with, the industry names used in the relevant WP articles. For example we actually have an Automotive industry article, and articles for Automotive industry in.... multiple countries, as well an many templates which use that wording. For that industry it is therefore sensible to use that wording rather than 'Autombiles and Parts'. Rangoon11 (talk) 17:14, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
I agree, let anyone use any of the columns and let them use several if they want and from any column. Company's that are more general would have columns towards the left and companies that specialise would use columns towards the right.
Microsoft would fit well with "Technology", "Software" and "Internet" however Google are very much focused on "software" and "Internet". GM and some other car makers could also include "Commercial Vehicles & Trucks" from the industrials group perhaps. I would guess though that GM like most manufacturers only make/supply/brand the parts for their own vehicles so including parts might not be necessary. I am also confident that GM don't make most of their parts in their own vehicles and therefore many of the spare parts in most GM parts boxes are made by a third party and then branded etc. so including parts is probably inaccurate anyway. I think a lot of companies though can be filed under their proper place rather than or as well as internet. For example, amazon would be Internet and Retailer because they are an online shop. Internet would come first because they don't have physical shops and for a high street retailer Internet wouldn't even be needed because the internet is not their primary activity and is only a minor income. Some businesses though might need both where the online presence is significant. Almost all banks have internet banking but I wouldn't add internet to them. However there are some banks that don't have physical branches and I would consider them both internet and financial service. Almost every business has a telephone and now they use the internet too but we don't class every business with a phoneline a telecoms company but we have all heard of telesales so we have to be careful how we apply internet to a company's industry type. So, yes let editors choose from any column and as many as they want within reason. (primary activity, well known etc) You don't want six or seven and 3 or 4 is probably the most you would want.
In the UK we have the car industry or refer to the car manufacturers. Also we have a drinks industry rather than a beverages industry. It is probably best therefore to link the ICB classifications to the relevant wikipedia article or to enclose the wikipedia name in brackets underneath with a link. If that was done for each one, it would allow users of other languages to use industry names based on their own language. On the English site though most would be the same. Bots could also be written to help compile and check indexes or automatically translate the field for other language versions of wikipedia.
It would be worth checking to see if all of the ICB classifications can be linked to wikipedia pages. There is no page for "internet industry" for example which seems odd. You would want to describe on the internet industry page hosting companies, portals, search engines, directories, publishers, retailers, service providers (ISPs) etc.
I have no idea how you would reduce all of that down to a simple bit of guidance but most of it is common sense and you seem to have the same mind as me on this stuffScottonsocks (talk) 22:00, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
All good points which I overwhelmingly agree with. GM is actually quite an interesting case because they used to have a large parts business, which even made parts for other vehicle makers, but has now been demerged (as Delphi Automotive).
I see your point about the descriptions 'car industry' and 'drinks industry' being used in British English. I think it is fair to say that "automotive industry" is now commonly used in the UK, and not a mere Americanism. For example here is a UK Parliamentary report which uses the title "automotive industry": [5]. The WP articles are now standardised on "automotive industry" too, and "car industry" can also raise questions about whether or not things like commercial vehicles are included. I therefore think that we should keep things simple for that one and stick to "automotive industry". The "drink industry"/"beverages industry" split is a little less clear cut for me though.
I agree that the lack of an "Internet industry" WP article is a strange omission. I suspect part of the reason is that this is a topic without clearly definable boundaries, as the economic aspects of the internet overlap so much with other sectors such as retail, IT, telecommunications, financial services etc - as you say above, Amazon is both a retailer and an internet company. However that does not mean that it is not a notable topic for an article, as is very clear from a Google search for "Internet industry".
I am happy to assist with preparing a draft guideline, either by reviewing a draft of yours or helping to share writing.Rangoon11 (talk) 23:19, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
First of all "Industry Classification Benchmark" cannot be used as universal rule for all companies. Secondly "industry section" is not a place to list items merely because that the company has presence in different type of businesses, neither it can be classified as conglomerate take Sony better known as electronics giant but also has vast presence in entertainment industry even financial services. Almost 90% of news sources say sony as electronics maker. Take "Cisco", we all known cisco is an "networking equipment" company, but ICB classification is little different, it states as "telecom" + "equipment". However, I think we need to create "Internet industry" and "Communications equipment" article. Bottom line, ICB cannot be used for all technology as well as general companies, most importantly keep industry section simple and clean rather using complicated terms, we must keep in mind that average readers should get a reasonable idea what type of company is that, and journalist do take help from WP company articles also. Take help here--(talk→ Kkm010 ←track) 08:39, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
Although the Forbes list which you link to is interesting and has its uses it is not in my view a suitable source for definitive industry definitions. For one thing it only includes 2,000 companies, whilst we have hundreds of thousands of company articles. I have also noticed significant errors and inconsistencies in that list which make me wary of its utility. For example Royal Dutch Shell is placed under the Netherlands category despite being registered and having its primary listing in the UK. Similar points go for BHP Billiton and Unilever (perhaps the editor of the list does not like the UK!). Similarly the list describes Aviva as being a life and pensions company, when it has major activities in general insurance as well (it is the largest provider of general insurance in the UK for example). Rangoon11 (talk) 14:37, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
I should add that, for me, the "Technology" part of the Industry Classification Benchmark is the weakest part of the classification. The very name "Technology" is rather odd, since sectors such as Aerospace, Defence and Automotive are clearly technology driven. I do take Kkm010's point above about Cisco not fitting easily within th ICB. Using the ICB it would be something like Telecommunications Equipment + Internet. That is imperfect, but we do have a real need here for greater standardisation and consistency and for the great majority of companies the ICB works pretty well.Rangoon11 (talk) 15:19, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
Final point - apologies for the bitty reply - I strongly agree on the need to create a 'Telecommunications equipment' WP article, bizarre that such an article is missing.Rangoon11 (talk) 15:25, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
You should both check out something called convergence. Once upon a time there was ATM networks for telephones and TCPIP for the internet. These two standards went to war and ATM lost. All phone networks around the world are now TCPIP based or they are being converted to TCPIP. In the UK for example the entire phone network will be tcpip based before the end of 2012. The internet has many protocols and for want of a better word is agnostic. The ATM hardware was too specialised, too expensive, too slow and voip was killing it so the phone companies have ditched it. When I was at university, my books had descriptions of about 50 to 100 network standards but within 5 to 10 years of leaving university, everything computerwise was tcpip. Now though everything is tcpip. Telecommunications equipment is the perfect description for a cisco BGP router with MPLS in a phone exchange and it is the perfect description for a home router which connects a home to a phone exchange so that the user can access a world wide web of information or voip users. Nobody has local area networks anymore (LAN). The whole world is connected to the internet: phones, computers, mobiles, the entire lot. The internet used to be a network which ran across the phone lines but now phonelines run across the internet. All phone companies around the world are planning to remove the analogue section which still exists on the "last mile" as it is called. It's too expensive to have a copper pair from the home connected in the exchange to two different pieces of equipment, one for internet and one for the voice exchange. Phase 1 = TCPIP for international exchanges, Phase 2 trunk exchanges, Phase 3 all exchanges, Phase 4 tcpip to the home.
Telecommunications equipment: a new page is needed for sure. On that page routers, switches, and voip and telephones etc would be described.
The technology section on the ICB is really small because the industry changes too rapidly. Twenty years ago the internet didn't exist outside of the army or universities but it grew and swalled up the phone industry. It now looks like the internet will swallow up the television industry for sure - it's just a matter of time and of upgrading the capacity of the internet. With technology, software and hardware has a very blurry line. Hardware becomes firmware which then becomes software. What is done in software then gets shoved on a microprocessor chip by Intel or AMD to speed it up and it's back in hardware again. You can also throw a Programmable Logic device into the mix and you have a piece of general purpose hardware which is neither hardware nor software but both at the same time. Microsoft started out as a software only company but over time it has become a general technology company. They have tried to compete against the ipod and failed and have entered the gaming market with the xbox because they were afraid that nobody would need the microsoft operating system in the future. With Google encouraging laptop brands to make netbooks based on the chrome os you can see why Microsoft are scared. Add the apple user experience where hardware and the internet merge to deliver products directly to the user and microsoft are again under attack. Their software core thanks to their operating system is also under attack from linux and their profitable office suite now competes with free software too. It's impossible under these pressures for Microsoft to compete on software alone and further expansion into hardware devices by microsoft is inevitable. It's pretty obvious to anyone that Microsoft + Google + Apple + Amazon are doing their best to control pretty much everything on the internet. There are companies like facebook, yes, but in time something better or more entertaining or more useful will come along and facebook because it doens't have a wide range of products it could end up dropping in popularity as fast as its predessors, myspace and bebo. There used to be about 20 hard drive makers, but now there are only three - the floods last year forced many of the remaining players to seek mergers and research into additional capacities makes it impossible for new companies to enter the field. Everything though wrt magnetic media though seems to be switching to solid state drives and even that field is rapidly shrinking. It's similar in semiconductors, the field has been thinning fast and there are now chip designers and chip fabricators. The ARM CPU which is one of the most popular processors because of the huge number of mobiles and apple devices that use it dates back a little over 20 years, amd is 1969 and intel just a few years before that. This is typical of technology. Something new comes along and only a few can survive because economies of scale play massively in technology, more so than in any other industry because of the ease of duplication, replication etc. It's not often that I touch a CD or a DVD - I watch both television and movies online now and have done for two years now. I no longer use my television set, nor the hi-fi, nor the video recorder, nor the satellite decoder, nor a desktop pc. I now use a laptop and plug it into my speakers and/or a large monitor - technology moves really fast. Scottonsocks (talk) 18:37, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
Have a look at this page and it describes the importance and the reasons for the four columns http://www.icbenchmark.com/Site/ICB_Structure and after you have done that, check out the download on the page which has a link http://www.icbenchmark.com/ICBDocs/Structure_Defs_English.pdf which will tell you how to categorise just about any company you want. Why reinvent the wheel? Look at how helpful the guidance is. This system is used to value stocks and shares and companies so if you can find mistakes you need to go out and trade shares because you will be able to make a fortune by beating other people in the market who use this classification for movement predictions. In the commercial downloads though they weight the categories according to revenues. If you look at the annual reports for the companies you should find their revenues broken down according to the categories as they are used by the ICB system. Scottonsocks (talk) 20:43, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
Guys rather having pretty long discussion first create "Internet industry" and "Communications equipment" WP articles. Then with the help of ICB and other credible sources create "industry classification" WP article, but remember there are article like Cisco or Amazon.com which needs to be dealt carefully and shouldn't squarely agree with ICB's view. I would again iterate that journalist/reporters do take help from WP company articles and please ensure average users/expert do get clear idea what type of company is that. About Information technology company articles deal very carefully "Rangoon11" and "Scottonsocks", before coming to conclusion. If not take experts help particularly those who are involved in this sector.Thanks--(talk→ Kkm010 ←track) 04:54, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
I am a senior engineer or CTO with two degrees in electronics. I have been trained in network engineering for the UK national networks. The Internet and the telecommunications industry, is my sector. I have worked with many parts of the UK IT industry at the highest levels but most particularly wrt the Internet and telecoms.
I will have a go at building a page for Internet Industry but it's a lot of work so for now it's in my sandbox. I have a great deal of experience so it won't take long but it will take a few days to a week to grab the text from the 20 to 100 various articles that it will need to link to and draw from. The page is needed because the Internet page doesn't contain very much about the industry at all and an industry page will help to link many of the important articles about the companies and organisations that make the internet work. The internet page is more what the internet is and how it works. The industry will be about the organisations that build it, maintain it, govern it and do things with it.
There is no such thing as the communications industry. Communications equipment would include lorries and trucks and trains and mail because they carry post which is a form of communication. You would also have to include hearing aids because they help a deaf person communicate. The short form of telecommunications is telecoms. Networking is not a device it is how things are connected together and that includes people. Networking can be a person in a room getting to know other people within the room and most importantly, who they are connected to. Telecommunications industry currently redirects to telecommunications and a page is needed to describe the industry. I might have a go at doing this in the future but for now the internet industry page is more than enough to keep me busy.Scottonsocks (talk) 17:27, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
If you can get an Internet Industry article up and running and in good shape that will be a significant addition to WP. I am always happy to defer to those with expert knowledge in a field and it looks like you have just such knowledge in the field of telecoms and IT equipment so I am happy to follow your lead as regards industry classifications in those areas..
I agree that the other article should be either "Telecommunications equipment" or "Telecoms equipment". My preference is for the former. Rangoon11 (talk) 22:33, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
I think Telecommunications equipment sounds better and fits appropriately. So two WP articles need to be created, OK, guys do it fast.--(talk→ Kkm010 ←track) 05:03, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

There seems to be a problem with the classification of power generation companies. At the moment, an editor changed in some infoboxes the industry field from 'power generation' to 'electric utility'. The roblem is that a power generation company is not necessarily an utility company as utility companies are only those companies operating in the regulated market. Also, link to power generation (electricity generation) seems more appropriate to describe this branch of the industry than electric utility. Beagel (talk) 16:51, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

It seems that maybe wider term 'Electricity' would be also suitable to be used.Beagel (talk) 16:57, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Reintroducing the slogan field

Hey everyone, I've been editing the Sony page extensively and I noticed that the slogan parameter isn't displayed on the page, even when it's filled out in the source code. Looking back over the archives, I found this discussion from 2008 that resulted in the removal of the parameter. Unfortunately, there were only three participants in the discussion and Wikipedia has changed considerably since then. I think it's time to reconsider this issue.

The reason I bring up Sony as a key example is because Sony's slogan, "make.believe," has become a core part of its identity. Whether you're a fan of the company or not, there's nothing propagandistic about describing an important component of its worldwide operations. "make.believe" happens to be its global branding strategy used across its film, music, mobile, electronics, and financial sectors; Sony does tens of billions of dollars of business every year, so clearly they did not go to lengths to implement this branding strategy for the fun of it. The slogan appears at the end of most of their commercials; they have spent tens of millions of dollars on related advertising campaigns; they even created a version of the animation in 3D. Also note that "make.believe" only qualifies as a Sony-wide slogan because of its particular penetration. Sony's previous slogan of "like.no.other," while widespread, was not nearly so universal within the company; film/music/mobile in particular went their own routes. Now all of Sony's business units are unified under one slogan, and it's something that Wikipedia has every reason to report.

Now, I think the problem with the slogan previously was that it was used very loosely. Companies with no clear identity might be described by an offhand slogan, which would have been misleading. I suggest that we reintroduce the slogan parameter on the condition that it only be used for long-standing, company-wide slogans. A possible name for the parameter would be "permanent_slogan," to emphasize the seriousness with which we treat the field.

One more example: it seems incomprehensible to me that Nike, Inc.'s infobox lacks "Just Do It." The slogan is among the most well-known in the world and it gains immediate recognition. The "Just Do It" trademark alone is surely worth tens of millions of dollars; it is one of Nike's most cherished properties. It would be misleading to ignore such a fundamental asset of the company. The infobox is just the place for factual, easily-verifiable statements such as two or three word slogans. CaseyPenk (talk) 04:20, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

This issue has been previously discussed a number of times, e.g. here, here, here, and here. I personally oppose this proposal because, as a rule it is used for corporate promotion and as a rule it is not encyclopedic. Wikipedia is encyclopedia, not a tool to promote corporate identity. If there are exceptional cases when the use of slogan is justified, the 'caption' field may be used. Beagel (talk) 04:52, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
Those discussions are either extremely short or 7 years old; I don't see any convincing consensus. Relaying one objective fact (Sony uses the slogan make.believe) is just as "promotional" as relaying another (Sony's PlayStation 3 has sold 60 million units). Neither are POV, neither are arbitrary, and both are supported by a bevy of reliable sources. By excluding an essential element of Sony's (and Nike's, and so on) branding strategies I feel we are introducing POV by judging which content is "worthy" and which is "disreputable." If it's reported frequently and consistently in a reliable source, it belongs in the infobox. Period. CaseyPenk (talk) 05:17, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
Any manner of pieces of information could be viewed as "promotional" if one wanted to adopt such an attitude, such as the company logo, sales performance, market share information, pictures of products etc. This is information that is likely to be of interest to some readers, is in many cases a significant part of a company's identity, and I can see no good reason why it should be excluded. Rangoon11 (talk) 21:05, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
@CaseyPenk - What is worthy of inclusion in the article body and what is worthy of inclusion in the infobox are separate issues. The article can be of unlimited length. The infobox, in contrast, is by design a snapshot and needs to be concise. We have every right to decide to exclude things from the infobox. If a company has an slogan that is integral with that company's identity, by all means cover it in the body of the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.212.66.226 (talk • contribs) 06:12, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
The pictures of products are definitely promotional unless they illustrate consistent style, obviously distinct from that of generic product of a kind. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 10:36, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Include slogan, but I would say to limit it to slogans that have been used for all company products continuously for at least five years. A lot of companies (Sony included) cycle thru slogans (make.believe included) like babies cycle thru diapers. A ten year rule would include famous slogans like Just Do It but exclude all of those slogans-of-the-week that are constantly used in the marketing world. If we list a company's rebranding attempt, it is borderline promotion, but a decades-old slogan is not. 69.7.41.230 (talk) 16:48, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Do Not Include a Slogan I agree that Nike is a good example of a company with a stable, integral slogan. Unfortunately, many companies change the slogan frequently (WP is not a breaking news site, etc.). Many companies do not even have a slogan. On the other hand, every company has a name, most every company has a logo or wordmark, all public companies have financial results, all companies are founded at some place on some date by some person. All companies have key people. The infobox should be kept as simple as possible and only include information that is nearly universal for all companies. Not every company has a mascot, but some do. Should we add a mascot field? We need to get away from trying to make infoboxes the be-all, end-all with jillions of facts. Since slogans are not universally used, that data point really doesn't belong in the infobox IMO. 71.212.66.226 (talk) 06:12, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

How does one determine which slogans qualify? Since only a minority of companies have long-lasting slogans, why are we including it in the Infobox? Shouldn't the infobox be for nearly universal facts that apply to most companies? How many other minority/niche data points would we add? 71.212.88.180 (talk) 23:36, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
One determines on slogan inclusion using reliable sources and one's "best judgment", as with all the other content. We actually have quite a lot of infobox fields that don't apply to many or even most of companies (eg. predecessor, successor, parent, subsidiaries, ticker symbol), so there is nothing special with slogan in this regard. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 23:45, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
If necessary, one could use the unused 'caption' field for this purpose. See no need to re-introduce the slogan field which is highly promotional and only in limited cases encyclopedic. Beagel (talk) 15:05, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
You know, it is a strange advise to use field X for purpose Y, given that we can add a field for X with no particular problem. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 17:11, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
And open the door for un-encyclopedic corporate promotion? I don't think so. Beagel (talk) 17:25, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
As you already said, unused |caption= may be readily used for un-encyclopedic corporate promotion. Slogan field is needed for encyclopedic coverage of companies' identities instead. Everything can be abused, so ability of abuse is flawed rationale. In the end, nothing stops editors from putting slogan in blinking red 72pt letters right in the body of infobox-less article. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 17:59, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
Slogan field is an open invitation to add a company slogan. In most of cases:, the slogan is just promotional and not encyclopedic. I agree that there are exception (e.g. Nike) but these are just exceptional cases. We do not need a separate field in the infobox for this. If the slogan has an encyclopedic value, it should be stated in the body text. If it does not have an encyclopedic value, it does not have a place in Wikipedia. Beagel (talk) 18:12, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

All companies' slogans are promotional and not encyclopedic. Being encyclopedic is not their purpose. At the same time, the purpose of encyclopedic coverage of company is to inform reader about the peculiarities of the company, including its long-standing branding patterns, which may include a long-lasting slogan. And in such case slogan is supposed to be reported with the most appropriate place for it being the infobox, as it allows to avoid bloating article with introductory text. Again, the existence of unencyclopedic material is a false rationale for making encyclopedic material harder to present. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 19:19, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template_talk:Infobox_company/Archive_8&oldid=1224932035"