Template talk:Infobox company/Archive 5

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

message: Is there a policy on when the key people were key to the company?  BP lists someone who died in 1917....
:See Nokia. As a general rule, key people include those who either founded the company, achieved celebrity status, or are currently employed in a top executive position. When these key people were born, died, or departed the company is irrelevant. They remain people who were important to the company. Adraeus 22:25, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Key people

message: I've said this before, but this infobox can be really confusing in some situations.  Nowhere does it say that this is information about a company.  I encountered it on the Infocom page, a page about a computer game company.  The obvious assumption to me is that 'type' the first item in the box should read 'text adventure games', or similar.  In many contexts I would imagine this could be unclear to some readers.  The word 'company' needs to be included somewhere in the box.  To me it makes most sense to rename 'type' to 'company type' or 'type of company'.  What are people's thoughts?  Last time I was 'bold' but this caused a lot of fuss, however it is still something I feel strongly about.  We should not be confusing our readers! --HappyDog 22:56, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't agree. An infobox that displays information about a company on a page in which the company is described is clearly an infobox concerning the company described on the page. Using your example, the lead to Infocom begins with, "Infocom was an American software company..." Infocom was not a "text adventure game". A "text adventure game" was a product of Infocom. I don't think there are many readers who would be confused by the infobox. Adraeus 22:21, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  If I go to Adventure game and read about the 'types of adventure game' and then click on Infocom to read more about their role in the development of adventure games, I expect 'type' to mean 'type of adventure game they produced', in this case 'text adventure'.  I don't see why people have such a problem acknowledging that without giving a context the label 'type' is confusing, and why there is such a resistance to relabelling this field as 'company type', which would give the infobox a context and remove this ambiguity! --HappyDog 23:40, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think "type" always looks stupid, because it doesn't say type of what, and "type" is a fairly ambiguous word. NickelShoe (Talk) 19:42, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Type of what?

message: This infobox is U.S. centric. The primary profit number used in the UK is profit before tax, and that is not shown here. It should be changed or a separate UK box should be created. Carina22 12:45, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You obviously haven't realised that that one would still create the problem of have two infoboxes, which collectively only apply to the US and UK. What about Canada, Ireland, Australia, New Zealand etc. and they're just the anglophones I can think of. I personally don't see the problem with the current one. I'm not positive, but isn't operating income profit before tax? - Рэдхот 22:54, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's how I understood it! Mark83 20:42, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Then you are both wrong. Operating income is not profit before tax it is profit before interest and tax. As currently used this infobox is generating egregious errors of fact on UK articles. Greg Grahame 14:56, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: U.S. centric

message: Could we add an option for charity efficacy (or whatever it's called)? 24.126.199.129 17:41, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Charity efficacy? What? Adraeus 05:20, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Charities

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

message: In KFC, the foundation is set to a location, and in Reynolds Metals, it's set to a year.  Which one is correct? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stevietheman (talk • contribs) 
: I'd say the latter. Regards, David Kernow (talk) 18:22, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yet another ambiguity in the template.  Don't clarify what it means though - that might help someone! --HappyDog 16:04, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

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

message: Was the consensus not to remove this. It's slipped back in! Mark83 10:16, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There are so many extra variables that I just don't give a damn anymore. I guess we can rationalize and say it's better to have information we disapprove of than to have a broken template. Adraeus 06:40, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't personally disapprove of the slogan filed, but to place it at the very top is ridiculous, so I'm moving it to the second bottom position, right above the website link. If someone wants to delete it entirely I won't kick up a stink though. --DeLarge 11:07, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Slogan is back

message: Does anyone think it would be helpful to have additional fields that can be named by additional parameters?  I'm primarily interested in Investment Management companies, like AIM Funds and BlackRock.  One of the most used methods of comparing these companies is by Assets Under Management.  So we could have extra parameters in this template like:
 {{Infobox Company
 ...
 extraParamName1   = Assets Under Management
 extraParamValue1  = $500 billion
 }}
Is this worth putting in this template?  I can see a lot of other uses for something like this (number of stores for a retail chain, % market share for a consumer product...things like that)  Or would it be better just to make different templates for these...  or , for example?  tiZom(2¢) 06:44, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Additional parameters 

message: I recently was asked what the Genre section was for.
This section is optional and is for the use of Publishing companies. It really has no use aside from that type of comapany, hence why it is optional.
I hope this clears up any confusion that may exist. --MJHankel 10:52, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Genre 

message: Are there any guidelines as to choosing among the logos of companies that have more then one?  As an example, I was adding this infobox to the article on Angie's List.  Angie's list has two logos.  
:Image:Angie's List Logo.gif is the one they use on their website. :Image:Angie's List Logo.jpg is the one they use on their magazine, and it's the one that some external sources use to identify them (I've seen it on news websites and such). I'd already uploaded the first one when I found the second one and uploaded it.  I think the second one has a stronger connection with the company in people's minds; but is there any guidance as to which one to use in the infobox?  Or should both be in the article someplace? ~ ONUnicorn (Talk / Contribs) 21:18, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would say include the one in the template that readers will recognize most easily.  The other logo I would put elsewhere in the page, possibly with a caption that notes where and why the company uses the alternate logo.  tiZom(2¢) 06:17, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs) 21:46, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Companies with multiple logos. 

message: What's that? Searched all archives and subpages, no luck. Is it for location of sales (e.g. Wordwide or Europe) or for area (in m²) of shops/facilities/headquarters etc? Help needed in Ferretti Group. Thanks. •NikoSilver• 20:55, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: On August 13, 2006, User:Smjg added the "Area served" parameter (diff).  He then updated BT Group (diff) and Kellogg Company (diff).  The parameter is meant to show the name of the geographic location that the company serves.  We should probably come up with explanations for all the parameters, and include them in the template page with a noinclude tag.  tiZom(2¢) 23:54, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. I guess that'd be 'worldwide' for my case then. •NikoSilver• 22:42, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Area Served 

message: Could someone introduce a new "section": "Passed names"? Thank you! ES Vic 17:52, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I could definitely do that, but I'm hesitant to do so because name changes usually come about from mergers and acquisitions, and this could give possibly inaccurate info (Imagine that Duracell and Energizer merge to form Duragizer - On Duragizer's page, it would be inappropriate to say that Duragizer's past name was Duracell, or Energizer, since that entity didn't technically exist prior to the merger.  Similarly, if McDonald's acquired Burger King, then you couldn't say on the McDonald's page that Burger King was a past name, since that incorrect because you're still talking about different entities.)  Perhaps this information is better served in the text?  Or can someone think of a better title for it, other than "past names" or "formerly known as" or the like?  tiZom(2¢) 06:08, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Passed Names? 

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

message: I propose to split the parameter location into two parameters, location_city and location_country so that the parameter country can be used to indicate it with use . So it will allow readers to see at first glance what the company origin is. 16@r 13:41, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, now both works. Old location still works and couple (location_city, location_country) automatically displays the flag of see country (see Microsoft for example). 16@r 14:15, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

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

text: In addition to being redundant, it is misleading. Many of these companies are international, they have headquarters in a certain country but their business is elsewhere. It also makes it appear as though there is a certain patriotism involved, "flying the flag" rather than simply happening to be located in a country. It is at best pointless and at worst just wrong. These flagicons were intended to be used in situations where there is not enough space to put the whole name of the country, and in the stub templates to make them more noticeable and substantial. —Centrx→talk • 22:55, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, anyone editing an article is capable of adding the flag if it is somehow necessary; that does not mean it should be used for the overwhelming majority where it is not appropriate. —Centrx→talk • 02:11, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We should organise a survey about this question. 16@r 12:22, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

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