Template talk:Infobox company/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 10

Online

I've "enabled" the new infobox. We can now start fixing articles. *sigh* Adraeus 18:34, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Any way to make the boxes blank while we update articles with the new info? Right now they show ugly template tags. I'm not a template wizard, don't know if this is possible. I don't love the word "offering" but if this is the result of a begrudging compromise, I won't push it. Rhobite 23:05, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)

1) There probably is but I'm not a CSS expert. 2) If you can find a better single word that means the same thing as "offering", propose it. Adraeus 23:26, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Okay, I've been bold. I've put a double-line 'Products and services' description. Roll it back if it's unpopular. By the way, I like the 'revenue' and 'industry' additions, but I'd like to see 'number of employees' reinstated. It's very useful to get a feel for how large a firm is, especially in relation to its revenue. However, I know that was extensively debated and I'm not feeling that bold. Crosbiesmith 23:12, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

'Products and services' is too long for the infobox as we discussed earlier in the archives. If Offering doesn't appeal, find another word. Products works if the readers are knowledgeable about business, but we're assuming people who read business organization articles have no formal business education and have not looked up the definition of "product". I don't know why but majority rules around here. Adraeus 07:02, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, I wasn't very clear about my reasoning last night. In the archives you wrote, '"Products/Services" would require increasing the width of the infobox, which is already wide enough'. My sole innovation was to introduce a break tag after the '&' character. This was to prevent the infoxbox from getting any wider. Of course, it breaks the convention of single line keys, but I don't know that it's a problem. Also, I should have used a non-breaking space.

Failing that, 'products' is way better than 'offerings'. 'Products' only sounds odd some of the time, as opposed to all of the time.Crosbiesmith 07:27, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

French company info box

I just wanted to bring to everyone's attention that I think the french company box looks really nice. I don't know if others agree. [1] --None-of-the-Above 09:31, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

...and I think it looks absolutely disgusting. Adraeus 11:00, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Private/Public

If a private company is a wholly owned subsidiary of a public company, should this be noted in the "private" field? (something like "private (subsidiary of xyz)") Shawnc 02:55, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

For now, format such data like key_people is formatted. If someone wants to change this in future, they will. Adraeus 04:05, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

What does it mean that it is formatted? Anyway I was just wondering if others would like to see a parent-subsidiary connection being noted in the box. Shawnc 03:28, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Definition: format Adraeus 06:25, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

I was not asking about the usual meaning of the word -- I assume you meant that the syntax given in this page should be used as a standard, though various articles evidently do not follow it rigorously. Actually, by the "private" field I meant the company_type field. For example, Microsoft defines its company_type as "Public" as opposed to "Corporation" as suggested by the syntax here, even though that company is a corporation. Shawnc 00:51, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

If there are no downsides, I will note this in the syntax. Shawnc 01:15, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

I also never supported the inclusion of the "parent", "subsid", and "footnotes" fields. I only recently realized these existed in the syntax. Where was there discussion and consensus regarding these fields? Adraeus 23:05, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

I for one find the 'public' keyword alone very confusing, as it implies a company in public ownership in the public sector (in e.g. EDF Energy), whereas 'public listed' or 'public limited' would unambiguously refer to a type of privately-held company which is limited by shares (UK), or otherwise floated. Would it be possible to switch to some more specific term, such as those in the Types of companies list? --Cedders^tk 22:08, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Related templates

I see that {{Company}} both redirects to {{Infobox Company}} and has no incoming links to it. Do you feel that sending {{Company}} to either TfD, RfD or both would only lead to its re-creation in short order, or would you feel that deletion of this unused/unneeded template would be overall positive? Courtland 03:13, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Delete. I don't think templates should redirect anyway. Adraeus 04:05, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

I think that there is every possibility that someone would come along and re-create it, so it is best left as it is. Noisy | Talk 18:13, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

company_type

I have changed the description for the variable company_type to represent either public or private companies, for these reasons:

1) This has been the de facto usage for articles about most of the larger companies (such as the Dow industrials).

2) Whether a company is public is important, as a public company may implicate thousands or even millions of people. If a reader has invested in diversified mutual funds, chances are the reader also owns a small part of the company in the article.

However if anyone wants to retain the old format (ie. type of corporation), another option is to devise a new variable to designate private/public companies (eg. "ownership"). Shawnc 02:25, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Infobox enhancements?

Having observed Shawnc's gracious improvements to Template:Infobox Celebrity, I think we should fire up an old discussion about which fields we want optional for Template:Infobox Company. If you look at the source of the Celebrity template, you'll see how dynamic fields work. Since Shawnc is around, we should take advantage of his presence while his charitable spirit lasts! :) Adraeus 17:21, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

This also means that knowing dynamic fields are possible, we can reinsert the Slogan and Employees fields. Adraeus 17:24, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Some fields have been made optional. However, many infoboxes currently don't have the company_slogan field defined, so if this field is defined in the template, editors will have to manually ensure that every article has it too, or else "Slogan: {{{company_slogan}}}" will show up in each page (I am not aware of a function that will bypass this issue). This will be confusing to those who are unfamiliar with templates because there would be nothing in the infobox that suggests why "Slogan: {{{company_slogan}}}" is showing up. As such, company_slogan is currently left out of the template, unless there is to be an ongoing effort to update the infobox in every article. Shawnc 08:22, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

I would question if that slogan content merits being made so prominent by being included in {{Infobox Company}}. Certainly a company's past and present slogans could be appropriate elsewhere in the text of an article though. Kurieeto 16:33, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Personally I feel that it's good enough to mention the slogans in the article's text. Shawnc 19:53, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

I propose we add a new field called "Closed" for companies that no longer exist or have ceased operations. --Kimonandreou 14:09, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Operating profit

Since it is possible to have a field that only comes up if you want it to, can we have an "Operating Profit" field, because it is closely tied to Revenue and it is a good thing to have to see the company's success among other things. TorontoStorm 21:52, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Actually, I was thinking the other day that perhaps Revenue wasn't such a good idea. A business can have high revenue yet low profit which means that the infobox currently says very little about the status of a company. Forgetting the fact that significant changes have to propagate throughout all the articles that use the template, what do you think is better: replacing revenue with Net profit, or adding Net profit to have both Revenue and Net profit? Or perhaps all three: Revenue, Operating profit, and Net profit? Adraeus 06:48, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

I think that revenue and profit are both good pieces of data and that it should be possible to include the two together in the Infobox. I feel that revenue is a more reliable indicator of the size of a corporation than profit, but profit is a more reliable indicator of the health of a corporation than revenue. In regard to operating profit vs. net profit... I'm not exactly sure which is more appropriate. Which value is most often used at our sources for financial data about companies? Kurieeto 15:08, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Annual reports contain most data for most companies, but the unincorporated entities might not produce annual reports. Adraeus 01:34, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

I think that revenue and profit should be included in the infobox for the same reason as Kurieeto's. Having operating profit and net profit in the infobox together would cause a lot of havoc and confusion. I've seen operating profit many more times than net profit on annual reports and websites, so I think operating profit should be in the infobox not net profit. TorontoStorm 14:18, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Every time I add an infobox I think, "this revenue figure is virtually meaningless without a profit figure for context." Mark83 17:19, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Mark83 TorontoStorm 18:12, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Operating profit is important for assessing the soundness of the core operations. Over the long run, however, it's not any more significant than net profit for indicating the profitability of a company. The most quoted price ratio, the P/E, uses net income as opposed operating income. It's the same reason why EBITDA is no substitute for free cash flow; debts and taxes are unavoidable, just as one can not ask the tooth fairy to pay for a new building. Shawnc 23:02, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Let's have a vote on what we should include in the infobox: Revenue, Operating Profit, and/or Net Profit. I vote for Revenue and Operating Profit. I would be willing to go around and add Operating Profit to as many articles as possible. TorontoStorm 17:01, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

The term "operating profit/income" is not provided sometimes, such as by financial companies whose operation consists of mostly interest income and expense. One could take the net interest income and deduct other expenses, but that is not the same as EBIT. On the other hand, all listed companies will provide net income/profit/earnings in their quarterly and annual reports near the bottom of the statement of operations, hence the term "bottom line" (the term "net profit" is not used nearly as often in North America so you may not usually see it, but you are likely familiar with "net income"). Divided by the weighted average number of shares outstanding, net income becomes the EPS, which is more closely related to the term "analyst estimates" than even revenue: "analyst estimates" +EPS=2.25m hits, +revenue=0.59m hits, +operating income=0.13m hits, +operating profit=953 hits. Overall hits: net income=9.53m, operating income=3.10m hits, net profit=2.94m, operating profit=1.77m, net earnings=1.65m, operating profits=0.59m, operating earnings=0.29m. However, with template tools like "hiddenStructure", I'm ok with including revenue, operating income, and net income. Shawnc 19:38, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Shawn. Just thought I'd make that a matter of record. :) Adraeus 21:15, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm fine with having Revenue, Operating Income (which is the same as Operating Profit right?), and Net Income. TorontoStorm 22:20, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Sure: "operating profit -- a measure of a company's earning power from ongoing operations, equal to earnings before deduction of interest payments and income taxes. Also called EBIT (earnings before interest and taxes) or operating income."[2]. UK and some of its ex-colonies use "profit", while US, Canada and others use "income" more, though most use "earnings/income per share". In any language, they spell something nice (as long as the word doesn't start with "L" and the number is not written in brackets!) Shawnc 04:03, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Ok everyone seems to agree. Adraeus, TorontoStorm, and Shawnc seem to all want revenue, operating income, and net income. So can someone add those into the infobox as a field that will only show up if there is data. TorontoStorm 20:31, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

"operating_income" and "net_income" have been added, though Operating income is displayed on two lines. Shawnc 06:10, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Despite what TorontoStorm claimed, I never supported the inclusion of these variables. In fact, I supported the removal of all financial data from the infobox. Adraeus 23:02, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

"Operating income" should have a lower-case I, by the way. —Bkell 08:55, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

OK, I made the changes. Let me know how they look. RN 07:52, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

The below discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the 2 month straw poll was 3 to 1 in favour of including the slogan field. Ian3055 00:06, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Slogan field?

User:Trisreed added a slogan field, but elsewhere on this talk page (and its Archives) opinions seem split. Can we take a quick straw poll to see where we stand? -- Netoholic @ 06:08, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Support (add slogan)

1. Support - Slogans are usually a significant part of the company's PR and corporate image, much like the corporate logo. I think that is it relevant. -- DBBell 18:29, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
2. Support - Important in understanding the firm's approach. A fair number of multinationals have local pages anyway, so reducing the multiple slogans argument. Ian3055 22:07, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose - slogans can be very long, and some companies have multiple slogans globally. This information is better served in a section of the article. -- Netoholic @ 06:08, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

re-formatting

I've been trying to get through a change to the template which makes it fit within certain style and usage guidelines. Specifically, the problem with the previous versions are as follows:

• Table format - Meta:Help:Table describes the proper mechanism for creating wikitables. In my version, I've replaced " | style="vertical-align:top;text-align:right;" | Founded" with simply "! Founded". The ! symbol in wikitable format identifies the cell as a header (html code <TH>). It automatically bolds the cell and make the cell and table render correctly. This is a BIG help to anyone who uses a screenreader to assist their browsing (see web accessibility). It also make the table lighter and easier to edit.
• Meta-templates - Wikipedia:Avoid using meta-templates describes a guideline whereby we should avoid using "templates within templates". My solution uses CSS to hide any fields that are undefined. There is no loss in functionality but a HUGE benefit in reduced processing cost. In addition to the "if" templates, I also eliminate the need for all those sub-templates.
• The original version included a LOT of strictly defined CSS code that was largely redundant with "class="infobox" and made very little difference in the overall appearance, except for producing a lot of white-space.
• Each cell had "style="vertical-align:top;"". I moved this to the row "|-" line since it has the same effect, yet cleans up the template source AND again reduces the overall character count.

I am willing to discuss and fix any specific problems that people may have, but it's unreasonable that my fixes are being reverted out-of-hand. I encourage anyone else who really understands how tables and templates work to restore my last version. -- Netoholic @ 15:44, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Oppose. Stop screwing around with the template's style. Look, I don't care if you fix the structure of the template per policy, but I do care if you screw around with the way the template looks (e.g., padding, whitespace.) The style of the template is concrete. You have no business changing it, and clearly, you don't have the sense of style required for such changes. Adraeus 12:08, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't see anywhere on this talk page or archives where that excess whitespace was discussed or even mentioned. Now we have two opinions on the matter, yours and mine, so let's not assume anything and wait for more comments. And nothing on this wiki is "concrete". -- Netoholic @ 14:28, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

I have more than 12 years professional experience in graphic design. You have, without doubt, no authority to dictate how the template should look. Your "opinion" is completely irrelevant and unimportant. Your changes are poor and unwarranted. The style of the template was unopposed since the time I created template, until you decided to dip your amateur and childish fingers into the waters. The only benefit you've provided to the development of this template is the restructuring of the code per policy, and that's not saying much. Please discontinue changing the style of the template; otherwise, this obnoxious revert war will simply go on until one of us (most likely you, considering your history) is banned from the Template namespace. I said please. Now stop. Adraeus 02:54, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Ok, both of you, take a breath and stop your sterile edit warring. Netoholic is trying to convert this to standard wiki-syntax and avoid using metatemplates; Adraeus is trying to preserve the look of this template. Surely there is a way to do both? Raul654 03:53, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

The issue of exactly how this template should look is of minor importance compared to the obviously un-wiki and un-cooperative attitude of Andraeus. He is showing a most extreme attitude of ownership of this template. Not much can be done until we tackle that problem. -- Netoholic @ 05:07, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

The issue of style certainly is minor; however, the more important issue at hand is your inability to negotiate — to collaborate. Moreover, simply because I've mentioned on several occasions that I created the template does not demonstrate a "most extreme attitude of ownership". Unlike many other articles I've created and extensively edited, I've committed my time and energy to the development and maintenance of this template. This voluntary dedication is not a "feeling of ownership". I'm proud of this template, the attention the template has received, and the obvious fact that many find the template useful. Unnecessary, radical, unapproved, extreme, and undesirable changes to this template must be repelled; such changes, consequently, include alterations to the design based on preference. Adraeus 07:16, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

I've eliminated the meta-templates. I have no idea how to reconcile the two different views of how this template should look, unfortunately. —Kirill Lokshin 04:16, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Adraeus - with Kirill's changes, is the template satisfactory to you? Raul654 07:28, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

The question is no longer valid with Kirill's reversion of his edition. I will continue to revert Netoholic's changes to the style of the template. This revert war shall not end until Netoholic, whose Template and Wikipedia namespace permissions are already restricted, relents and accepts that the design of the template is here to stay. I am steadfast in ensuring that the template remains clean and well-designed. Adraeus 07:20, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Broken

I had to restore a previous version, because the newer version was broken. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 00:10, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

How so? Raul654 00:20, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Really? Did you try clearing your cache? —Kirill Lokshin 02:44, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Ok, looks like the problem (at least the one exhibited by Greenpeace) is caused by a parameter value that includes line breaks. —Kirill Lokshin 04:09, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Then that is a problem that needed to be fixed on the article itself. -- Netoholic @ 14:50, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Of course, but it's still puzzling. This seems to happen only on parameters that use hiddenStructure, so there's probably an underlying bug somewhere that needs fixing. —Kirill Lokshin 15:56, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Are you saying that your change will force us to check 1000's of articles to see if users have been so stupid as to add a line break in a param? I would argue that the solution is to fix hiddenStructure parameters as suggested bt Kirill, before implementing this new version. Note that I found Greenpeace broken by chance, while in RC patrol. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 16:31, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Template parameters are quirky sometimes, because they are very sensitive to extra linebreaks and pipe ( | ) characters. I am saying don't worry about it. If even 1% of articles have a problem, our editors will fix them, and they'll work better in the very long term. Reimplementing a bug-tolerant version is not the solution. -- Netoholic @ 16:37, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. I will not worry about it. Note that the "revert" I did was in good faith. I will not be surprised if other editors will do the same as I did. A notice on the template would be useful: "A change has been made on the template that may result in display artifacts. If this is the case, please ensure that you are not using HTML <br /> tags, or additional pipe ("|") on the parameters", etc. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 16:57, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Infobox Looks Like an Ad

I've been engaged in a discussion about an Infobox on another page, and one of the participants suggested I bring up my concern here. To me, the infoboxes look like magazine ads - especially when they have the logo at the top and only contain positive information about the company. The highlighting effect of the box privileges the information, which has the effect of endorsing the company. Wikipedia then becomes a branch of corporate branding campaigns. It's good to offer handy facts, but is there any way to reduce the impression it's an ad? --Pansophia 03:00, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

It's no more of an ad than a listing on Hoovers or Yahoo Finance.. unless your complaint is that we're advertising capitalism, I don't think we are promoting anything by summarizing company information. Rhobite 03:52, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't contain a spot for downside facts - like, say, workplace safety violations. But more importantly, it just *looks* like an ad. If you pick up any newspaper or magazine, you see an article with little boxes containing ads at the side. The ad usually features the company logo. --Pansophia 05:33, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't agree at all. We are providing basic information about companies. Basic facts cannot express an opinion, they aren't negative or positive. There is no reason not to show a company's logo on that company's article - encyclopedia readers may want to know what a company's logo looks like. And the best place to show the logo is in the infobox. Rhobite 18:01, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Yup. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 06:05, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

It's untrue that facts, especially aggregations of facts, are inherently neutral. If you only list a company's booming profits, this is positive information that encourages investors to sink money into a company. If you list a different fact, SEC fines, people will regard this as negative information about the company and therefore not invest. If you list factual OSHA violation count or other warnings, then it might discourage employees from working there. There's no such thing as a neutral fact because they always trigger human interpretation. The logo field is especially egregious because it uses Wikipedia to propagate corporate brand-building efforts. Sure the logo is a "fact" - but there are plenty of other "facts" being left out. Is it more important for people to know what the logo is than the number of OSHA violations? --Pansophia 03:42, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Ps. I would appreciate input from people who aren't directly involved in the Kaiser Permanente article, since the above two have been WikiStalking me. --Pansophia 03:42, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

I've been participating on this talk page for months. And if you don't want me correcting your edits, then stop adding statements of opinion to articles. Rhobite 20:42, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Thoughts regarding if the infobox looking like an ad may also be relevant to the current debate about whether or not a company slogan field belongs in the template, as is being discussed below. Kurieeto 14:45, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Let's remove financials

It was an interesting experiment, but I think including financials in this infobox is more trouble than it's worth. I recently discovered this vandalism on Microsoft which sat around for nearly a month. The problem is nobody cares enough to verify financials using an outside source. I have also seen people using the wrong figures, for instance someone confused market cap with revenue on Sprint Nextel. Lucent and Motorola also listed the market cap as revenue for weeks, I just fixed them. Due to the potential for inaccuracy, I think we should drop financial information from the infobox. Rhobite 04:11, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

I just went through the DJIA companies as well as this guy's contributions, and found about 8 more companies which used market capitalization in place of revenue. Rhobite 04:54, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

If there are no objections, I'm going to remove revenue, operating income, and net income from the infobox in a few days. We'll call it a failed experiment. Rhobite 22:00, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

While I respect your concerns about vandalism, I am against the removal of financials. They are critical descriptors of an overview nature of a company, and are excellent comparative variables between companies. The informative benefits of their inclusion outweigh the negatives of vandalism watching. Additionally, we could add as a guideline that any financial data must come listed alongside a link out to the web with their source. Kurieeto 22:07, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Kurieeto's points, the financial data needs to stay - adding a source would be an excellent way forward. Ian3055 22:13, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Can I count on you guys to look through company articles and check revenue figures, then? I am not sure that you're aware of the number of erroneous figures that I've found in articles. I believe that many articles are showing incorrect revenue figures right now, but there's no way to tell unless you check 1000 articles against the income statements. On Thursday I found 10 or 11 companies with incorrect revenue. Almost one third of the DJIA companies were wrong. If people can't count on the reliability of this data in Wikipedia, it would be better to delete it altogether. They can't be excellent comparative variables if it turns out that you're comparing Microsoft's revenue to AT&T's market cap. Rhobite 22:22, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Right now the fields "Type", "Founded", and "Location" are all mandatory that appear whenever the Infobox is called. What about adding a mandatory field called "Source", whose text consisted of something like: "Note: Financial data should be sourced to an external website to ensure its accuracy and verifiability."? People will add links as time goes on. Just one idea. Kurieeto 23:06, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

That would be a self-reference, but if we do decide to keep the financials I agree that we should make it very clear in the instructions that sources should be provided. Rhobite 00:01, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

I support the removal of financial data from the infobox template. The Microsoft Corporation infobox is looking quite ridiculous. In fact, I would even go as far as to support the removal of the Employees entry. This data is more easily obtained in more accurate forms elsewhere. The infobox should be a source of constant information. Adraeus 03:15, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Some reputable sources of financial or number of employees data update themselves on an annual basis, such as Yahoo Finance listings. In my opinion that frequency of change is more than tolerable for information fields of an Infobox. Kurieeto 17:45, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

An entry on a major corporation that omitted the revenue and number of employees would be seriously incomplete. The infobox seems the best place to put such information. The information can be found elsewhere, but that applies to everything on Wikipedia. I say, keep the number of employees, and keep the revenue figures - Crosbiesmith 19:47, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Hypothetically, the figures would be more accurate if we could somehow use a protected sub-template for each commpany's finances, a page where only certain qualified editors can edit, and where a citation is required for each revision. However I don't think this is currently possible on Wikipedia. Shawnc 10:50, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I think that we should keep both the revenue figures and the employment numbers as they are all important and relevant data that relates directly to the article’s subject matter (in this case a company). I believe that every company article that cites financial information should also include a source. I cite both Pharmaceutical Business Review Online and Yahoo Finance for company data. This makes it easier for other editors to verify and it’s helpful for me when I go though and update the figures (usually annually). --Adam Clark^{(User_Talk) (email)} 04:21, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Slogan field

The slogan field was added back in today by a user, but I've temporarily taken it out as there's been no discussion to overturn the consensus of omitting it, as decided in Archive001. As when last discussed the decision was to leave it out, I believe for it to be included it needs to be established that consensus has changed in its favour. Kurieeto 22:51, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Update: My edit removing the slogan field has been reverted, so it's currently back in. I won't remove it again until a discussion of the matter here has been resolved. Kurieeto 14:48, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Update: As per the consensus below, the slogan field has been removed from the Infobox. Kurieeto 08:17, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

It should probably stay out. I used to support having it in the infobox, but now I oppose it as I have come to realize that it is more coherent (and interesting) to describe the evolution of a company's slogan in the article text itself. --Coolcaesar 23:27, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree that it should be out. I feel that the slogan shouldn't be in the infobox because by itself it contains little pertinent information about the company, not enough to merit being put in such a prominent location. Mention of the slogan within the company's article, including a discussion of historical slogans if they exist, would be the most appropriate place for this content. Kurieeto 14:45, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

I also agree that a slogan field makes the Infobox an ad. Please keep this out.--Pansophia 03:35, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Also, please consider removing the logo field since it provides a free prominent ad for corporations. People are now running around claiming that featuring a corporate logo is Wikipedia "policy"! --Pansophia 09:39, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

I think the logo is important because it gives a clear tool for identifying the firm, but in terms of the slogan I'm interested to see the kind of examples of company slogans being described in the article text that Coolcaesar refered to. Sounds like it ought to work well, if we do go for this I think we should look at hanging on to all the slogans out there in boxes - perhaps a bot could move it into the article text? Ian3055 14:52, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Safeway Inc.#Slogans and McDonald's#McDonald's TV campaigns and slogans may be examples of more suitable, alternative places for article content regarding slogans. An article section with a scope of 'Corporate branding' matters may also work. Kurieeto 22:44, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

How about moving the infoboxes to the bottom of the article, so it doesn't look like prominent ad placement? The quick facts will still be cordoned off in a box, but there won't be a glaring logo at the top of the page. --Pansophia 20:16, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Please don't. Nobody agrees with you that infoboxes constitute advertising. Rhobite 20:39, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't be in favour of moving the infobox to the bottom of pages, but if you wish to pursue the matter please devote a new section on this talk page to your proposal so that the slogan field discussion isn't fragmented. Kurieeto 22:44, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

I've thought about it for a while, and I don't think the slogan adds much to the infobox. As coolcaesar said, there is often a history and a story behind a slogan, and these are better addressed in the text of the article. Rhobite 02:01, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to go right about turn now. Those examples work really well - the trouble is that whilst those sections are better than having the slogan in the infobox, I think that having the slogan in the infobox is better than not having it in the article at all. Hmm. Ian3055 08:57, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Do we have an estimate on how many Infobox Company's use the slogan field? We could just go around ourselves and make a new section called perhaps "Corporate branding" on each appropriate article, and move the slogan to it. Once all slogan fields are empty, we could then remove it from the infobox. Kurieeto 12:16, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Not sure whether this I did this in a 'proper' recognised way, but this page has a list of all the pages which have data in the slogan field. I'm afraid to say its somewhere in the region of 1300 articles (out of some 1500-2000 articles which have a company infobox on them), although I did notice some talk and user pages in there (havent had chance to remove them yet). Ian3055 14:00, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

How was that list generated? I've only visited a few articles listed in it, but several do not have slogans, such as Electronic Data Systems, IKEA, and Epicor. Kurieeto 14:35, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Ah, I did it using 'what links here' on a page I briefly created as a link to the slogan text on the template. I did have a look at a fair number of them, and while they didnt all have it visable they all had it at least in the code. Hmm. Looking at it i think all I've achieved is a list of pages which have that version of the code for the box. Doh. Ian3055 14:42, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

There seems to be consensus that the topic of a company's slogan is better suited to a section of a company's article, than in this template. My next concern is that while we're discussing how to go about moving the contents of the slogan field into the various company articles, new slogans are being put into infoboxes that we will still have to move eventually. I'd therefore like to request that the company_slogan field be removed from the Infobox at this time to minimize as much as possible the workload involved in whatever resolution we decide regarding how to move the slogan content from the infobox. Removing the field now will simply save us time later. Kurieeto 21:49, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Agree. I'm going to post to the bots request page to see what they might be able to do for this issue. Ian3055 21:53, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

K, I've removed it from the Infobox. Thanks for asking re: bots, they could be quite useful. Kurieeto 08:17, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Template talk:Infobox Company/Slogans. 649 articles in the main namespace with a non-empty or trivial ("none", "()", "N/A", "--", etc.) field. —Cryptic (talk) 18:19, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

I like the slogan field. As with the other fields, it can be left blank if it is irrelevant, or if there are more than one, but for some companies it is ideal and I don't understand why we can't have the option to use this field. -- Reinyday, 19:48, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Is Infobox Policy as Per this Page?

I would like to remove or at least reduce the highlighting of the Kaiser logo on the Kaiser Permanente page. However, my edits to that effect get reversed with the argument that this Infobox page constitutes policy. When I look here, though, there seems to be some debate on the Infobox template. Is the Infobox truly policy, or are people just pretending its policy to give extra authority to their edits? --Pansophia 21:36, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't think you're going to find a page anywhere that sets down a hard policy regarding infoboxes and what they must or must not contain. Instead, it's one of those things that has sort of become de facto policy because of the way a general consensus has evolved over time regarding their use. One of those de facto policies is that company infoboxes always contain a copy of the current corporate logo unless one cannot be located. Given that, you are practically certain to find yourself on the losing side if you keep removing the logo from the Kaiser infobox (i.e. blocked from editing for a period of time by some admin). As far as I can tell, the slogan field is considered of far less importance, if only because there are plenty of companies that don't use their slogans much or don't even have one at all, and those that do tend to change them relatively often. So you might be able to generate a consensus to not have a slogan in the infobox, but that's going to be largely dependent on how much those who are pro-slogan are willing to dig in their heels. (Caveat: This is just my opinion, I'm not an admin, I've never been in a Kaiser facility in my life, void in Rhode Island, etc.) --Aaron 22:29, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Since I have repeatedly been threatened with blocking for good faith efforts to oppose using Wikipedia for corporate branding, could you recommend an accepted way for "digging in heels"? I feel a double standard has been applied to prevent me from making a legitimate protest. --Pansophia 01:10, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

By "digging in heels" I was referring to a combination of the quantity of those who disagree with you (for example, if there are five people in a given discussion on one side of an issue and just you on the other, those five are usually going to win consensus if they make any meaningful attempt to protest whatever it is you're proposing) and the willingness to go through the Wikipedia Dispute resolution process, which starts with the sorts of informal discussions you're already having on talk pages, and can progress all the way up to Requests for Arbitration, which are sort of the Wikipedia equivalent to full-blown criminal trials (and can sometimes take almost as long to complete). I've just barely skimmed the Kaiser Permanente pages, so I'm not familiar with exactly what it is you're protesting or why you think there's a double standard in play. But I will say that the quantity of opinion counts for a lot unless they're trying to prevent you from doing something in direct violation of some Wikipedia policy, so if this has anything to do with the matter of the logo, in all honesty I can't think of any way you could possibly win that debate. But you're always free to check out that Dispute resolution link and proceed to the next step beyond informal discussion is you truly think you've been wronged. In this particular case, I would suggest contacting the Mediation Cabal or the Association of Members' Advocates and requesting assistance. Read both pages and see which of those two you think would be most useful to you. (Or contact both; you're not limited to one or the other.) --Aaron 04:55, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Ps. Would it help clarify the issue if I stated that the policy that has evolved automatically makes any corporate page non-NPOV? --Pansophia 01:12, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

You could, but it would be equally nonsensical. Also, you keep using the phrase "good faith", here and elsewhere. I do not think it means what you think it means. Pretending that any of your objections have any to with anything other than your anti-Kaiser Permanente crusade, for example: not "good faith". --Calton | Talk 01:55, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

You're wrong about the source of my stance on the logo. I think the logo constitutes an ad on any corporate page. I feel using a box to highlight only positive facts does the same thing (SEC violations could also easily constitute "facts"). I contribute to the Kaiser article because I know a lot about it, but I would like to discourage using Wikipedia for corporate branding campaigns in general. --Pansophia 23:26, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it would do you any good at all to make that statement on the Kaiser talk page. But you're welcome to raise the issue on the Village Pump policy page. That page is specifically for discussion of policy questions and issues, and you're certain to get serious responses there. --Aaron 04:59, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Pansophia: Logotypes are clearly acceptable media for inclusion in Wikipedia. If you disagree, I urge you to attempt to combat policy that supports such inclusion instead of attempting to force your "feelings" onto the rest of us who know better. Moreover, your obvious lack of comprehension of marketing is grounds for immediate dismissal of any and all arguments thus resulting. Adraeus 03:12, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Company logos with slogans

I was browsing Safeway Inc. today when I noticed that their slogan, "Ingredients for life", is currently part of the image we use for their logo. While I don't currently object to including a company's logo, I do object to their slogan being part of the image we show as their logo, if it is possible for that to be removed. I'd appreciate further comments on the matter. Kurieeto 12:13, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

In my humble opinion, the corporate logo itself is branding, and the slogan just makes it worse. --Pansophia 23:23, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

I would agree that a corporate logo constitues part of a brand. If I understand your position correctly in that you desire no corporate logos in this Infobox, would you extend this logo-ban to other infoboxes for entities that are not companies, like universities or sports teams? The former being typically a public institution and the latter being a for-profit operation. Please see Template:Infobox University and Template:NFL team as examples of such university/sports team templates that currently allow logos which constitute branding. Kurieeto 23:46, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

I think that if the logo can be effectively cropped to exclude the slogan (as is the case in the safeway logo), then that is just good content management to do so. However, I don't believe we should go out of our way by redesigning logos because the slogan is part of its inherent design. --Adam Clark^{(User_Talk) (email)} 22:04, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

If you know of one, could you please provide an example of such a logo where a slogan is part of its inherent design? I'm interested in seeing such a situation. Kurieeto 22:07, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Here are a few examples I found (although I didn't spend much time on looking for great examples). Actually, I have a brand logo I may be uploading later that is a good example of this. But for now, here are some good examples:

Image:5ADay_logo.gif

Image:24sevenoffice.png

Image:4beatlogo.gif

Image:3par_logo.png

Image:4n20logo.jpg

Image:3dBuzz_Logo.jpg

Image:35AF1323A51532D724B3B5FA7FB1D77D.gif

Image:2004democraticconventionlogo.jpg

--Adam Clark^{(User_Talk) (email)} 22:52, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Adam, sorry, I wasn't aware of Category:Logos for browsing. Kurieeto 23:27, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

I've made two guideline proposals at Wikipedia talk:Logos related to this matter. Discussion there is encouraged. Kurieeto 22:46, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

A slogan is not a component of a logo. The material you observed was simply a graphic file that contained both the logo and the slogan. Adraeus 03:09, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm trying to understand the real issue with including a company's logo in that company's encyclopedia entry. Can someone please fill me in? It seems, at first glance, like many objections (here and in earlier topics) are based on the opinion that a logo's presence supports The Man and helps to keep us down. ericg ✈ 22:20, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

I've yet to discover a "real" issue regarding the inclusion of company logos; however, the topic of this section concerns graphic files that contain the logotype and associated slogan. Apparently, graphic files are confusing to some folk. (If you're interested in the claims from Pansophia, you can read more at Talk:Kaiser Permanente. I think your description of those objections is correct.) Adraeus 21:25, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Addendum: Please do not include graphics that display the logo and the slogan. The logo field is reserved for logo graphics. Adraeus 22:28, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Interwikis

[[es:Plantilla:Infobox Empresa]] Eloy 11:48, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

In the future, if you come across a template which is protected, feel free to place {{editprotected}} on the talk page (along with your requested addition). =) —Locke Cole • t • c 12:03, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Done. Thanks! Gflores^Talk 03:36, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

link fix

Resolved

Please change the "employees" link to "employment". -- Reinyday, 21:32, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't see any benefit. "Employees" has a very clear meaning, i.e. the number of employees. While "employment" is not ambiguous it isn't as clear as the current format IMHO. --Mark83 22:13, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I am asking for the link to be changed, to avoid the redirect. I mean the link itself, not the word that appears in the infobox. -- Reinyday, 19:49, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Done RN 07:41, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Operating/Profit margin

I saw Apple Computer now has operating margin and net margin - what do people think of adding it (optional, of course) to the infobox? RN 07:41, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Some companies don't report operating profit, so operating margin could be an alternative. That said, previous (archived) discussion seems to lean towards less financials, not more (i.e., in terms of maintenance, and keeping figures up-to-date). -- User:Robocoder (talk | contribs) 16:48, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Footnote parameter

I have only one problem with this parameter, it usage is not explained anywhere (that I can find) on this page or the archived pages. What it it for? And if it's not for anything why not delete it? Mark83 17:11, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

(copied from User talk:CBDunkerson) Hi. From the template's history I believe you added the footnote parameter? If so could you explain what it's for? I don't think its mentioned anywhere and I don't think its being used. Thank you, Mark83 17:14, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I just documented the existence of that parameter. It was added by Netoholic last December. Presumably it is intended as a space for 'anything else' about the company which does not fit into the labeled rows. I have seen various other templates which use such a field that way. See Template:Infobox Military Conflict for example. --CBD 18:57, 21 June 2006 (UTC)