Template talk:Infobox company/Archive 12

Archive 5

←

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

The big Wikidata discussion

Hello everyone, the TfD has concluded in merge with advice to discuss how the Wikidata functionality should be implemented. To quote the closing user:

There is a concern that data coming from another website – WikiData – may not adhere to our standards of verifiability. In Wikipedia's consensus-based decision making structure, all valid concerns (regardless of the number of contributors who raise them) must be addressed.

For reference, the sandbox currently holds a version that replicates all Wikidata functionality for the to-be-merged template. Please discuss any issues you might have below. Pinging all TfD contributors: @50.53.21.2, Benjaminkirsc, BrandonXLF, Soumya-8974, Timur9008, Prettyboy361, Newwikiprofile001, Pigsonthewing, Czar, ScottDavis, Mitchellhobbs, Steven (Editor), Britishfinance, StarryGrandma, Brainulator9, Justlettersandnumbers, Marcnut1996, Back ache, John Cummings, Mike Peel, Papuass, Dmehus, and Premeditated. Lordtobi (✉) 15:52, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

• I would also like to point out, from a procedural/TFD standpoint, this discussion and this discussion regarding discussions on the use of WikiData in templates. Primefac (talk) 18:14, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
• It appears as though no discussion will crop up here. I will be merging the templates as-is in the coming days when I find the time to write the documentation. Any issues that occur in the merged template can still be addressed in post. Lordtobi (✉) 06:55, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
• Given the limited participation in this discussion, I've gone ahead merged the majority of parameters, only excluding the "CEO" field, as it would be illogical to only cover one possible role description (this would have also left much room for vandals to insert their own names). Lordtobi (✉) 15:24, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

• Thanks for doing this work. It looks like things are working properly. One thing that is still needed is an indication to editors of how to modify a value that is imported from Wikidata. For example, at Datsun, the "Type" and "ISIN" are imported from Wikidata and displayed, but there is no pencil icon leading editors to a way to edit those values or check to see how they are referenced. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:16, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

  Good point. This is something I should have considered. We might need to use Module:WikidataIB more often (which is already used for the website parameter, it seems). I will be looking into it, but I doubt that I can finish this today. Lordtobi (✉) 17:23, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

• I have added "edit" pencils to the sandbox, and I think they are working. They look good to me when I use the sandbox version at Datsun. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:25, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

• @Jonesey95, Tholme, and Urbanoc: Thanks for raising these issues. I hadn't expected two-year-old production code to be broken in this way. I have identified some of the problematic code parts, and I will go about fixing them as soon as I have access to my PC again tomorrow. For now, I reverted the code to the latest stable version, meaning that Wikidata data is presently disabled. This also means that we have some time to identify other potential problems. Helpful contributions to the sandbox are welcome. Regards, Lordtobi (✉) 22:42, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

• I believe that I have fixed the hq_location madness in the sandbox. The basic problem is that |hq_location= and its undocumented alias, |location=, are widely used in a way that does not match the current documentation. The full city, state, and country information is often stuffed into |hq_location=. I separated the rendering of the Headquarters information so that if any location parameters exist in the infobox, it uses only local values provided on en.WP; only if no location information is provided on en.WP does the infobox fetch that information from Wikidata. You can see this in action at Datsun if you preview with Infobox company/sandbox as the template; try previewing with and without the location parameter value in the infobox. – Jonesey95 (talk) 23:52, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

  Jonesey95, thank you for your work, this appears to be the proper way to do it. I'm trying to identify potential further problems and will merge again if I (or anyone else) don't find any. I did notice that all-Wikidata place names ("City [PENCIL], Country [PENCIL]") don't read nicely, but that's the natural trade-off of having both items editable. The opt-in is a nice-to-have and will be a feature I'll look at later. Lordtobi (✉) 10:50, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Lordtobi and Jonesey95 I'm sorry to bother you both, but I think you need to add a way (eg a new parameter that can be set as "off") to prevent Wikidata from automatically filing the non-used parameters. That is the only way of making the functionality useful and not just a hussle. The problem is, Wikidata and Infobox company are just mostly incompatible from the start, one is an interproject database and the other is a way of organising information bounded by the English Wikipedia definitions, guidelines and MoS. Wikidata gathers its info from all across Wikipedia, and you have, for example, "owners" info that is just wrong from the English Wikipedia perspective, duplication of the same company as "owner" and "parent" when in the English Wikipedia you just would add "parent", WP:OVERLINK as, being a database, Wikidata links just everything, and so on. The only situation in which this functionality may be useful is for small/little known companies, where more up-to-date information would be more relevant that local Wikipedia rules. --Urbanoc (talk) 12:34, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

As with the location parameter mess, the problem with |owner=/|parent= is that the current usage of those parameters here on en.WP does not match the documentation. See Audi, for example, which uses |owner= instead of |parent=. I have modified the sandbox so that if either |owner= or |parent= is filled in locally, neither parameter will pull information from wikidata. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:42, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Yes, you're right. Your solution seems a good compromise. Well, I don't have further concerns for now. I'll report if I see any problem when you restore the merging. Regards... and good luck! --Urbanoc (talk) 21:26, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Urbanoc, template is live again and should now be stable. Minor issues and new features (such as opt-ins) can still be resolved later on. Lordtobi (✉) 21:52, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Hi Lordtobi, yes, it seems to work OK now. Even with some useful functionality added compared with the old version (it marked a lang code error introduced by me in some articles, I wrote jp instead of ja...). It now looks a solid base to build on. If I see something, I'll let you know. Regards, and thanks for tolerate my complaints! --Urbanoc (talk) 00:05, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks all, for collaborating so effectively. Definitely report any more oddness here; so far, problems haven't been too difficult to fix. The "lang" errors are caused by bad language codes (e.g. "jp" instead of "ja", as above), but the erroneous codes were accepted silently until I made a change to the template's rendering of |native_name= in order to fix Special:LintErrors in a few cases. Let me know if it causes any trouble. – Jonesey95 (talk) 00:32, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Articles needing attention as a result of this change are listed at Category:Lang and lang-xx template errors (30).

—Trappist the monk (talk) 16:13, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Trappist the monk, thanks for the heads-up. The category is now empty. Lordtobi (✉) 17:02, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

WD ISIN linkage broken

@Lordtobi, Jonesey95, Primefac, and Trappist the monk: The most recent change, 925257388, has broken ISIN linkage when it pulls from WD. It seems like this brokeness was first introduced to the sandbox with 925179179. I fixed this issue in the sandbox with 926039894. Please merge this fix. Thank you. Uzume (talk) 22:08, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

@Underlying lk: With 926044293, I also changed the interface language for toollabs:isin links from German to English (since this is English Wikipedia). It seems like that issues was introduced quite some time ago in 774142165. Thank you. Uzume (talk) 22:35, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Hi Uzume, thanks for your input. Do you have a page I could test the sandbox with? Regards, Lordtobi (✉) 07:46, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

There are many to choose from but since you ask for one, how about Google. Uzume (talk) 16:02, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

I also reverted 926044293 as apparently "language=en" makes toollabs:isin use en:User:Magnus Manske/ISIN vs. de:User:Magnus Manske/ISIN as a "template". Uzume (talk) 16:31, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Uzume, confirmed and merged. Note that I set the ISIN for Google to deprecated on Wikidata as it is now Alphabet's ISIN, so it is no longer shown, independent from the template changes. It seems as though the language issue may be fixed by creating the red-linked page mentioned with relevant links for the English-speaking world. @Magnus Manske: appears to still be somewhat active (at least on dewiki), maybe they can help out. Regards, Lordtobi (✉) 17:17, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

@Lordtobi: I see you also switched many Wikidata accesses from using {{#property}} Wikibase Client parser function calls to {{wikidata}} template (and {{#invoke:wd|main}} Scribunto parser function and Lua module). I think that is a good move. I am not sure all calls need to use |raw since that only affects some datatypes (e.g., ISIN (P946) is of "String" type and thus |raw will not change the value returned from Module:Wd but using |raw doesn't hurt anything either). Uzume (talk) 20:25, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Clobbered parameters

I have added Pages using infobox company with ignored parameters for tracking transclusions where two conflicting parameters are simultaneously specified (for example here with founded and foundation). The infobox will identify the specific problem for you in preview mode! unfortunately, the construct {{{a|{{{b|}}}}}} means that if both |a= and |b= exist, the code will ignore |b=somevalue even if |a= is blank. of course, if |b= is blank, then there is no serious problem. the tracking category has all cases of conflicting parameters, so some may be false positives, but it's still good to remove them to avoid someone accidentally filling in one and wondering why the text is not appear in the infobox. I manually generated the list, so I may have missed a pair. please let me know if you see any problems (@MB: who likes to clean up this sort of thing :)). Frietjes (talk) 21:39, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

It's also catching |a= and |b= both blank, which are probably the least important. I hope there aren't many of those. MB 22:18, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

MB, yes, you are correct. I could filter those out, but if there aren't that many I think it's still good to fix those since someone still might try to fill in the |b= at some point and wonder why it's not appearing in the infobox. there are ca. 73,000 transclusions of this infobox so it may take some time for the tracking category to fill up. once it's full we can decide if it's manageable, or if we need to filter out more. thanks for your help! Frietjes (talk) 22:45, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Add Property:P488 and Property:P169

Hi, I was surprised to see that this template does not yet support https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Property:P488 and https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Property:P169. Could someone add that?--So9q (talk) 08:33, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

• Of the many possible role descriptions there are, I don't think that we should settle on two of them. Likewise, it would make little sense from a development effort standpoint to implement dozens of possible roles for this. We should rather leave it out so that |key_people= is filled locally. Lordtobi (✉) 13:53, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Capitalizing common nouns in "services" keyword?

Why does the documentation encourage editors to capitalize common nouns such as "insurance" and "training"? I don't see a purpose, and this is definitely not Wikipedia's style. I looked for an earlier discussion on this talk page, but found nothing. The answer should probably also apply to the "products" keyword as well, though its current example uses only proper names. What if a company's products are lumber and roofing shingles? Both examples could changed to be more helpful. Chris the speller ^yack 18:30, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

It's very common (and probably correct?) to do this in vertical lists; in horizontal lists only the first item is capitalized. This should be the same as it would be in any list, inside or outside the infobox. Lordtobi (✉) 18:42, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

That makes more sense with unbulleted lists than with bulleted lists, I guess. Thanks for the answer. Chris the speller ^yack 20:55, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 18 December 2019: Change link from German to English version

In label7 there are two lines with the following code:

[{{fullurl:toollabs:isin/|language=de&isin={{

The code should be changed to this:

[{{fullurl:toollabs:isin/|language=en&isin={{

The origin of the code seems to be in the German language Wikipedia.

When you read an article about a public company, e.g. Microsoft, you can click on the ISIN in the company infobox. Example:

1. English language Wikipedia: Microsoft --> ISIN: US5949181045 --> https://tools.wmflabs.org/isin/?language=en&isin=US5949181045
2. German language Wikipedia: de:Microsoft --> ISIN: US5949181045 --> https://tools.wmflabs.org/isin/?language=de&isin=US5949181045

As you can see in example number 1, in the English language Wikipedia you want to go to the English WMF Labs-page, but you are currently redirected to the German WMF Labs-page. The change I described above would fix this. Soluvo (talk) 03:21, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

• Seems like a good catch of code debt to be resolved. Thanks for pointing this out. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 03:57, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

• I don't claim to understand what the ISIN link is supposed to do, but please read #WD_ISIN_linkage_broken above, where a similar issue was discussed. I think we decided not to use "en" at that time, but my understanding is weak. Is it possible that the functionality of the "en" target page has improved since that discussion happened? You are welcome to make your change in the template's sandbox and demonstrate it on the testcases page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:37, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

• We chose not to use EN in the link because the relevant translated page, User:Magnus Manske/ISIN, did not exist. It was created on 17 November by Uzume without notice, hence no change since the last discussion. With the EN page now in place, this change is uncontroversial. Lordtobi (✉) 13:50, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

 Done – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:17, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

I am sorry I did not mention my creation of the new English ISIN template sooner but I assumed no one was eagerly awaiting its creation/usage. Apparently I was wrong. Uzume (talk) 04:41, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

More Wikidata

Just as @Lordtobi: removed the feed of the "product" parameter from being populated by Wikidata (thanks for doing that!), I propose removing the feed of the "owner" parameter: in many cases (look at Alphabet Inc.) it includes non-strategic, mutual fund type owners contrary to this infobox's documentation, and in even more cases it is not kept up to date (doing so would be an enormous effort every quarter) If no strong objections, I will remove this feed too. UnitedStatesian (talk) 15:13, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

• No objections to this removal from my side. Lordtobi (✉) 16:35, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

image/logo problem

It looks like this template is displaying the image as both the logo and image if there is no separate logo specified. See John Musgrave & Sons as an example. Frietjes or Jonesey95, can you look into this? AN IP just reported this to me on my talk page. MB 01:34, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

The image was incorrectly marked as the logo by Jklamo on Wikidata. I fixed it with d:Special:Diff/1057087205/1092133188. — JJMC89 (T·C) 02:17, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

The IP reported Charles H. Roe, Carlyle Works, and Chenard-Walcker also. There may be more. MB 02:24, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

More of the same. I fixed those too. — JJMC89 (T·C) 02:34, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

There could be dozens more, I don't really know. Maybe we should track companies that are using logo from WD and check them? MB 03:32, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

not sure if I got the syntax right, but any pages should be eventually listed in Pages using infobox company with a logo from wikidata if I did it correctly. Frietjes (talk) 22:29, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

There are 414 article in the cat and it doesn't look like it is growing now, so this may be all the company article that have WD logos.

I looked at the 19 that start with A and found 8 are OK with the WD logo. The others all have duplicate images due to mismatches between WP and WD. In some cases the fix is to change the label in WD from logo to image as JJMC89 did above. In other cases, the opposite fix should be made in WP. A few are other oddball variants. This is more fallout from the WD integration.

• Amdocs WD logo as logo and WP logo as image (different images)
• Amegy Bank of Texas - OK
• American Line - WD logo as logo, same image in article outside infobox
• API Healthcare - OK
• Apollo Vredestein - OK
• Arbejdernes Landsbank - OK
• Ardent Studios - WD logo is image, duplicates WP image
• Arminco - OK
• Arnold Constable & Company - WD logo is image, duplicates WP image
• Asian Agri - WD logo is logo, duplicates WP image
• Athens Mass Transit System - OK
• Aust Ferry- WD logo is image, duplicates WP image
• Australian Autobus - WD logo is image, duplicates WP image
• Austrian Federal Computing Centre - OK
• Auto-Sleepers - WD logo is image, duplicates WP image
• Autolinee Regionali Luganesi - WD logo is image, duplicates WP image
• Avioane Craiova - WD logo is logo, duplicates WP image
• Aviva Group Ireland - OK
• Avondale Mills - WD logo is image, duplicates WP image

Should the logo feed be removed also? Or should this matter be left as is for manual cleanup? In 8 of 19, there is a logo in the article from WD where there was none before, so that is a benefit. But in the other 11, some editing is required. Of course I'm guessing that this ratio would be similar across all the articles. MB 20:29, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

I think have gone through all pages in Pages using infobox company with a logo from wikidata now and fixed either WD or WP. Tholme (talk) 19:24, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Predecessor parameter

When a company acquires another company, should the acquired company be listed as a predecessor? Givaudan was founded in 1895. It acquired Quest International in 2006. The infobox for Quest says it's successor is Givaudan, which makes sense. But the Givaudan infobox says Quest was a predecessor (in this case from WD), which I think implies it came before (i.e. before 1895). It's a component or acquisition, but not a predecessor. Comments? MB 04:00, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

The predecessor parameter should, as per the literal meaning of the word, include companies that preceded the other. Quest did not precede Givaudan, so it is not a predecessor and should not be listed in Givaudan's predecessors field. Proper examples of predecessors are Viacom and CBS, which were disestablished when they merged to form ViacomCBS. Thus, ViacomCBS is the successors of Viacom and CBS, and Viacom and CBS are the predecessors of ViacomCBS. IceWelder [✉] 08:21, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Right, that makes sense. But what about the case where two large companies, both with long histories, merge and continue under the name of one, as in the example above. Quest should not be listed in the infobox anywhere? Or should there be a different field? MB 15:49, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Since Quest's disestablishment did not lead to Givaudan's establishment, it should not be listed there. If the acquisition was major, it can be discussed in the lede. If it is still active as a subsidiary, it is listed under subsidiaries. Otherwise, I don't think we currently have a field that suits "acquired companies that were integrated". IceWelder [✉] 15:59, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

If two big companies merge and operate under a new name, both are listed as predecessors of the new entity. If two companies of any size combine, non-integrated operations can be listed as subsidiaries. If two big companies merge and keep the name of one, the other isn't mentioned in the infobox. There are examples like Walt Disney Studios (division) that list a multitude of subsidiaries and divisions (presumably because they are all currently operating). But Givaudan doesn't list Quest International, even though it was a major operation in a small industry before the merger. I think there should be a "Major acquisitions" parameter for cases like this. MB 15:57, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Could somebody please remove the "<ref></ref>" from the end of the template?

The last line of the template is just <ref></ref>, which is causing errors on pages using this template. Could somebody please remove it? Guy Harris (talk) 03:06, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

 Done * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 03:11, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Fix name markup

{{#ifeq:{{lc:{{{embed}}}}} | yes | '''Company''' | {{{name|{{{company_name|<includeonly>{{PAGENAMEBASE}}</includeonly>}}}}}} }}

should be changed to

{{#ifeq:{{lc:{{{embed}}}}} | yes | '''Company''' | {{#if:{{{name|}}} | {{{name}}} | {{#if:{{{company_name|}}} | {{{company_name}}}|<includeonly>{{PAGENAMEBASE}}</includeonly>}} }} }}

The name does not show when the parameter is present but blank. This will be made even worse when someone makes it a "suggested" parameter in TemplateData, causing it to be added every time regardless of whether it has contents. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SUM1 (talk • contribs) 02:44, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

To editor SUM1:  done. P.I. Ellsworth  ed. ^put'r there 04:27, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Edit request: remove 'considered for merging' from this template

I'd suggest that the current TFM templates be removed from this template, and only be added here in future if this template is proposed for merge into another template or if a similarly large scale merge is proposed?

This template is used on around 75,000 pages. Four other templates are currently being considered to be merged into it: between them, they are used on 14 pages. It seems wildly disproportionate to give a warning to every reader of 75,000 pages, about a change that will affect 14 pages.

Any objections? If not I'll place an {{Edit template-protected}}. TSP (talk) 17:28, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

 Done. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:45, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

=

"Successor" parameter

Similar question to the "predecessor" question above:

If TeenyCo is acquired by ConHugeCo, should the infobox for TeenyCo list ConHugeCo as its successor? This external article seems to argue "no"—the term applies to a company that, as they put it, "rises from the ashes" of the first company.--NapoliRoma (talk) 15:36, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

@NapoliRoma: Exactly, the inverse logic of the above should apply: A company is a successor if it was formed as a (direct) result of a former company's closure (e.g. through a merger or complete asset buy-out). IceWelder [✉] 15:40, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Indirect Predecessors

Should companies that only have an indirect connection to their successors be included as predecessors in the infobox? In the early history of aviation, there are quite a few cases where a manufacturer closed, a period of time passed with no company existing, and then the person who founded the initial company founded a new one that went on to become successful. Here are a few examples:

• Alco Hydro-Aeroplane Company/Loughead Aircraft Manufacturing Company – Founded 1912, closed 1921, new company formed 1926
• Avion Corporation/Northrop Aircraft Corporation – Founded 1928, founder left company 1931, new company formed 1931, company dissolved 1937, new company formed 1939
• J.S. McDonnell & Associates – Founded 1928, closed 1929, new company formed 1939
• Ryan Airlines/B.F. Mahoney Aircraft Corporation/Mahoney Aircraft Corporation/Mahoney-Ryan Aircraft Corporation/Ryan Aircraft Corporation – Founded 1925, closed 1929, new company formed 1934
• Stearman Aircraft Corporation – Founded 1926, closed 1927, new company formed 1927
• Davis-Douglas Company – Founded 1920, closed 1921, new company formed 1921
• Glenn L. Martin Company – Founded 1912, closed 1916, new company formed 1917

References

–Noha307 (talk) 21:25, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

The short answer is "no, we don't need that". Primefac (talk) 22:22, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Divisions in Parent Parameter

When a subsidiary of a company becomes a division and ceases to be a company, how should it be listed in the parent parameter? For example, Aero Commander was purchased by Rockwell-Standard in 1958. By 1965 it had become the Aero Commander Division of Rockwell-Standard. It was then sold to Gulfstream in 1981, who sold it again in 1989. Should it be rendered:

Rockwell-Standard
(1958–1965)

or as:

• Rockwell-Standard
  (1958–1981)
• Gulfstream Aerospace
  (1981–1989)
• etc.

According to my reading a previous talk page discussion, when a company has its operations integrated into another company it becomes defunct. This would mean, in theory, that Aero Commander was defunct in 1965 and therefor parent date should end at 1965. However, it was still bought and sold at least once more, which means it had a new parent that seems like it should be listed in the infobox. This, in turn, would create a strange – and potentially confusing – scenario where the parent dates continue past the date the company was listed as defunct in the infobox. –Noha307 (talk) 01:36, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

founded location not using wikidata property

founded currently suggest to use date and location, but that is not reflected by wikidata property fall back (should be location of formation (P740)).--Uwe a (talk) 03:29, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

The "Type" parameter: In companies domiciled outside North America, shouldn't this parameter show the legal form of the company instead of just its ownership status?

For companies domiciled outside North America, shouldn't the type parameter of the infobox show the legal type of a company (ex. SA, Aktiengesellschaft etc) and not just the ownership status of the company (i.e. Public/Private/Subsidiary/Division)?

Since the parameter is de facto used to show the legal type of the company (especially in major European companies—see Ericsson or Electrolux for example, where the type parameter shows "Publicly traded aktiebolag")

I have problems on editing the type parameter of several European video game companies cuz of this (always reverted by IceWelder) as I was meant to make the type parameter of those game companies similar to other type parameters of other European companies (ex. Embracer Group's type parameter becoming "Publicly traded aktiebolag") Gibranalnn (talk) 03:23, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

The documentation on this is pretty clear, as we discussed previously. I don't see how this should be different between North American and European companies; the guideline remains the same. Maybe we should look at obtaining consensus for a new field, ex. "legal form", that suits this. IceWelder [✉] 08:20, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't agree with you; the type parameter falls back to the Wikidata legal form item, so you might reconsider your enforcement of the docs. I'm editing the docs to reflect the fallback. Gibranalnn (talk) 08:04, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Gibranalnn, the docs are older than the Wikidata integration. If anything, this carryover from the template merge was in error. IceWelder [✉] 08:14, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

There is really no need to be disruptive like this. You are already engaged in a discussion, so why break WP:BRD? I fixed the error from the Wikidata template merge. Again, you are free to seek consensus for separate parameter for legal forms, which I am not opposed to. The existing |type= parameter only covers ownership and has done so for years. Also, as I stated before, there should be no difference for North American companies in terms of a legal form parameter; if we really went this far "Subsidiary limited liability company" would be something that exists in the real world. IceWelder [✉] 08:28, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

I think we should add a status parameter similar to the Template:Infobox organization template. Gibranalnn (talk) 09:11, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Add "status" parameter to show legal form of non-North American company

Following some edit wars involving me and IceWelder as shown above, I think I found how to resolve this problem of showing legal status of non-North American companies:

• Add a status parameter to show the legal status of such companies (Aktiengesellschaft, etc)
• The result will be embedded into the Type parameter row, so it will be rendered as: {{{type}}} ({{{status}}});
• example: Type parameter [[Public company|Public]] and Status parameter [[Aktiengesellschaft]] will result "Public (Aktiengesellschaft)" shown in the "Type" row in the rendered infobox.
• This new parameter would fall back to Wikidata property "legal status", replacing the type parameter

opinions? Gibranalnn (talk) 13:36, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

• Generally support the inclusion of such a parameter, though with a caveat:

The naming is not clear, as many editors might assume |status= is supposed to say whether the company is defunct or not. A better name would be |legal_form=.

Also, why should this parameter be exclusive to non-NA companies? Are "limited liability company" et al. not worth listing? Regards, IceWelder [✉] 13:46, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

I was focusing on non-North American companies since, remember Delaware Loophole... Gibranalnn (talk) 02:26, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

The Delaware loophole only pertains to the jurisdiction and related corporation laws. Delaware, like all other US states, still uses Inc./Corp., LLC, LP, and so on. Also, Canadian and Mexican companies cannot use this loophole. IceWelder [✉] 10:59, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Also, legal status in Infobox organization uses |status= parameter. Gibranalnn (talk) 04:27, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

{{Infobox organization}}'s |status= is not used for legal forms. The doc reads: "Organization's legal status and/or description (company, charity, foundation, etc)". I'm not sure about the terminology here, either, though. IceWelder [✉] 10:59, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 September 2020

Sanne group has a new logo (as of 4 September 2020). Can the old logo be replaced with the new logo? ReneEngelbrecht2020 (talk) 09:57, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: this is the talk page for discussing improvements to the template {{Infobox company}}. Please make your request at the talk page for the article concerned. Please note however that such a request cannot be completed unless the image has already been uploaded to Wikipedia or Wikimedia Commons. Please note that any image used on any Wikipedia article must comply with the Wikipedia image use policy, particularly where copyright is concerned. For assistance with file uploads, see also WP:FFU. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 10:26, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Map

Any way maps can be added to the template? Liverpoolpics (talk) 12:26, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

I know this probably sounds like a dumb question, but... why? Primefac (talk) 12:37, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

For companies like Cameron's Books and Magazines, where a map has been requested. Liverpoolpics (talk) 09:03, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Ah. For some reason I remember some pretty strong opposition to even adding coordinates and/or "location" to the template, and while I don't think this was the discussion in question (it might have even been on a different IB, or further back in the archives) it does raise the concern about misuse and/or "if you have more than one location which map do you put?" I'm not saying it cannot be done, but that based on past concerns it might not be something that can just be added without some form of consensus first (even if it is just SILENCE). Primefac (talk) 09:13, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

I don't think a map is necessary there, as the precise location is not required to understand the article. Then again, a change to the template is unnecessary for a single page. IceWelder [✉] 09:15, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Currency symbols/Wikidata

Google gets the revenue data from WD and none of it is displayed per the MOS. The currency sign should precede the value, it should use the "$" symbol (not USD or even in one case United States dollar) since this is a American company and it is very clear what is meant, and the currency should not be linked as only the first occurrence of "lesser-known currencies" should be linked. MB 20:44, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

MOS:CURRENCY doesn't seem to indicate that we should use symbols over words, though it does somewhat imply it by giving a lot of examples for how to use them. Is there another location that says the symbol is preferred? (genuinely curious, MOS is not one of my wheelhouses) Primefac (talk) 17:45, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Between the examples in MOS:CURRENCY, and common practice, e.g. Amazon (company), IBM, Microsoft, Kroger, BAE Systems, BAE Systems ... I think it is clear the use of currency symbols is predominate. I think another factor to consider is that infoboxes should be concise so the reader can "identify key facts at a glance", and there is guidance to avoid abbreviations except where space is limited, such as infoboxes.

These examples don't fully follow MOS:CURRENCY either as they repeat US$ beyond the first occurrence (instead of switching to $) and they link what are clearly not "lesser-known currencies". But I think using currency symbols instead of words when importing from WD should be non-controversial. The Google infobox looks clumsy and inconsistent with locally-encoded infoboxes. MB 04:08, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Driggs-Seabury and Wikidata auto-population

At Driggs-Seabury this infobox is auto-populating some fields from Wikidata, with NO related code on the EnWiki page. The Wikidata page was apparently created for Driggs Ordnance & Manufacturing Corporation on German Wikipedia, one of several incarnations of this company. I'm trying to portray the entirety of the company's incarnations, and would prefer to turn off the Wikidata linkage entirely, as I can't find a way to show multiple HQ locations etc. on Wikidata. Or is there another infobox I should use? Edit: just saw how to turn off the Wikidata usage on the Wikidata page. RobDuch (talk·contribs) 22:43, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

There has been no answer to this. I found another case today at Publicis where the infobox gets some data from WD (just the ISIN), but a second infobox in the article for a small subsidiary is getting populated with several fields from WD which may or may not apply to the subsidiary. This is a case where this infobox should not pull anything from WD, but there does not appear to be a switch to allow this. MB 03:55, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

This looks like an inadequate implementation of wikidata retrieval. The wikidata calls should either be converted to use WikidataIB with |fetchwikidata= so that they can be disabled, or they should be removed, or perhaps there is some other fix. – Jonesey95 (talk) 05:32, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Pinging IceWelder, who did some of the Wikidata implementation in November 2019. – Jonesey95 (talk) 05:35, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

@Jonesey95 and MB: I converted all instances of {{wikidata}} to the WikidataIB module, which enables the use of the "fetchwikidata" parameter (among others). Changes here, in-place test here. Please review, and we can put this live. Some known side-effects:

1. Countries are no loner linked. This conforms with WP:OVERLINK and is therefore a good change.
2. Dated properties (employee count and financial data) are also shown when the "point in time" qualifier is missing; WikidataIB does not seem to support this omission. Yet, this might be a good incentive to fix or remove the value on Wikidata.
3. References are no longer rendered for the financial data, WikidataIB doesn't seem to support that. The best I could do is only poll values that have a source defined, though that would obviously not validate that source either.

Regards, IceWelder [✉] 08:34, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick updates! I tested the sandbox in the second infobox at Publicis, and it works well with |fetchwikidata=NONE. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:56, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

New implementation

Not sure about the initial discussion where this was "decided", but I would like to discuss the recent update of this template by IceWelder; nearly every changed parameter has been given priority to WikiData, ignoring any manually-input values in articles. While I have no serious opposition to using WD for some fields, I find it problematic that manually-input values are being ignored/overruled by WD calls. Primefac (talk) 12:03, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Primefac, are you sure that's the case? All instances of Module:WikidataIB use the second unnamed parameter, which is defined as:

A locally supplied value that, if it is not empty, will be returned in preference to the value on Wikidata.

Could you given an example where the new infobox behaviour has produced the issue you are describing? The changes were previously tested and discussed above at "Driggs-Seabury and Wikidata auto-population". IceWelder [✉] 12:22, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

The added content should be sourced; currently the default is for it not to be sourced. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:47, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Nikkimaria, that should be fixed now. Regards, IceWelder [✉] 13:01, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

My apologies, I completely misread the piping on the invocation and thought it was taking WikiData then the supplied parameter if it didn't exist. Primefac (talk) 16:02, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Multiple Headquarters Locations

How should a defunct company with multiple headquarters be listed? Should it be the most prominent or notable location? Should it be the last location before the company shut down? Or is there a way to list multiple headquarters locations?

For example, the Helio Aircraft Company was apparently founded in Canton, Massachusetts, then moved to Pittsburg, Kansas, and later to Tucson, Arizona. The first location would be covered by noting it in the founded parameter, but that would still leave two other locations. –Noha307 (talk) 02:45, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Listing just the last is the most common variant, since the first location is listed alongside the founding date. If you feel like adding all headquarters, use just |hq_location= and list them and their timespans using {{Unbulleted list}}. IceWelder [✉] 11:04, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Sourcing information from Wikidata

There is a comment in a discussion above that suggests that data drawn from Wikidata must be sourced. If this is the case, could it please be clearly stated in the documentation, perhaps with some examples of what suitable sourcing looks like for each field? I thought it was suffering delays for not picking up Wikidata from a new entry, but it seems that it is this sourcing requirement, as I have now added a reference URL (P854) for parent organization (P749) on the item I am looking at. What are considered good references for the country and the official website for a company? Are there qualifiers that should be used with a reference URL in Wikidata to make them "good"? Thank you. --Scott Davis ^Talk 22:34, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Here's the relevant RFC, which says "there is a consensus on one point: if Wikipedia wants to use data from Wikidata, there needs to be clear assurances on the reliability of this data" and "There is a consensus that data drawn for Wikidata might be acceptable for use in Wikipedia if Wikipedians can be assured that the data is accurate, and preferably meets Wikipedia rules of reliability." In practice, one way to do this is to use the default settings in Module:WikidataIB, which checks for sources. – Jonesey95 (talk) 23:12, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Trade union

Trade union field could be added.

For example infobox company for Alphabet Inc. would have a labor union field that links to Alphabet Workers Union. 83.57.9.197 (talk) 01:07, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

I would support this as well, a field name like worker_representation, with possible values like yes/no and external links cited if any. Possible examples could be trade unions, but also works councils. Shushugah (talk) 17:59, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Note I started a discussion on Wikidata to add a relation to company (Q783794) item. See wikidata:Wikidata:Property proposal/workers represented by Shushugah (talk) 11:09, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Is it common to have per-company unions? I know of the Alphabet Workers Union and the Vox Media Union (for Vox Media), which are two good use cases, but I fear that the field might be overwhelmingly used for catch-all unions (like ver.di here in Germany), which we'd want to avoid. IceWelder [✉] 13:08, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

The laws differ per country, so I'm open to having explicit rules per country. I am familiar with US/Germany though. And Germany is probably one of the most highly unionized large countries (Nordic countries come to mind too). For example, in Germany I would suggest a policy that only companies with an explicit company level collective bargaining agreement (Tarifvertrag) be included, as opposed to merely being part of a sectoral agreement, or having individual members. (For example, I am an IG Metall member personally, and work in auto sector, but my employer did not sign an CBA's with a union. For the case of European Works Council there are only about 1,000 such companies in total. On other hand, something like a local company works council, there are many more (tens of thousands), but I suspect we'll need reliable citations/documentation, which are not readily available, so the scope is still limited and subject to WP:RS Shushugah (talk) 13:19, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

I support this, especially since it allows for flexibility. In countries like the UK or the US, you can add the names of the individual unions; in places like Germany, you could just put a "Works council". Maybe it would be possible to have the field show "Trade union: Trade union name" if there was an individual name and "Works council: Yes/No" if you put in "workscouncilyes" or "workscouncilno" as parameters? Zarasophos (talk) 17:29, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

The name of a union like Ver.di or Confederation of Thai Electrical Appliances, Electronic Automobile & Metalworkers sounds ideal, whereas I'd make a separate field for Works Council, whether it's a simple works council, or something more specialized like European Works Council or SE Works Council, along with referenced citations. More crucially though, a company like Volkswagon should have both IG Metall linked AND a link to Global Works Council/European Works Council. I think a more common case either way, will be multiple unions in one company, even within one country, so we'll need an array of values either way. Shushugah (talk) 20:30, 21 February 2021 (UTC) ‎

Move "fate" field down a bit?

Although possibly caused by the infobox in question not using some of the earlier fields, this seems a bit odd. Surely "Fate" out to come after "Founded" and "Founder" (not necessarily directly after). FDW777 (talk) 08:10, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

The field has been as high up since it was added in 2008, though I agree its position overall makes little sense. Would you say that just below the defunct date would be a good position? IceWelder [✉] 10:42, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

I'd say that's definitely more sensible than the current location. Looking at the infobox I mentioned "Successor" might need to be moved as well. FDW777 (talk) 12:52, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

FDW777, I forgot about this sorry. Just made the change. IceWelder [✉] 20:06, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

aum_year missing

All the other finance parameters have "xxxx_year", but not for |aum=. I noticed this after someone tried to use it at Edelweiss Group. Can we add this for consistency? Should not be controversial. MB 20:39, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Currency should match the location/language of the user, not the hq of the company

Can we please set the currencies of financial values in Infobox_Company to reflect the location of the user, rather than the location of the headquarters of the company?

For example, a user logged on with an IP address in France viewing the page of a company headquartered in the US should see that company's financials listed in Euros, while a viewer with an IP address in the US should see the financials of a company with headquarters in France listed in $USD.

If that's not possible, then a single click (or hover) currency-converter option is needed.

The current format is highly inaccessible, and of very limited value, except where the user happens to be in the same country as the headquarters of the company they're looking up, or just happens to be very familiar with that currency.

Listing all financials in the currency of the business's host country makes zero sense if the goal of this infobox is to make the most important and accurate info most accessible to the greatest number of people. It also makes it very difficult for users to compare companies across the globe.

Forcing users to copy paste individual values into a currency converter for each value and for each company they might be looking up is such a cumbersome obstacle, most users will simply ignore all of this info and seek it elsewhere. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fredwerner (talk • contribs) 19:53, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Slogan

Some companies have slogans. And sadly, they are not included in company Infoboxes. So I decided, why not add a slogan field? Maybe then, we can show people what companies represent. :)

As an example, Zain Group has a slogan saying "A Wonderful World". We can finally show and represent what the company emphasizes, and we can add more sense to the company's priority.

I think it is best to add the slogan field |slogan= to the company Infoboxes. Thank you.

Doctorine Dark (talk) 07:46, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

This is a perennial request. Consensus is against it. There are links to previous discussions at Template talk:Infobox company/Slogans. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:57, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Duplicate image display

Maybe I'm just missing something silly, but does anyone else know why the image is displaying twice in this infobox at Norms Restaurants? {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 22:32, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Sdkb d:Q7053150 has the image saved as the logo. either the image should be moved to a different label in wikidata, or removed from the infobox, or moved to the logo in the infobox. Frietjes (talk) 23:20, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Frietjes, thanks for catching that. I fixed Wikidata, which will hopefully resolve it. Setting up a tracking error category for image files used as the logo on Wikidata but |image= here or vice versa might not be a bad idea. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 23:24, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Sdkb, this came up over a year ago and Frietjes created Category:Pages using infobox company with a logo from wikidata. At the time, any problems were fixed. But unless someone looks at every article in the category periodically, new problems can creep in. MB 23:45, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

I created Category:Pages using infobox company with a duplicate image, should we get rid of the other one? Frietjes (talk) 16:10, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 June 2021

Hello, Is it possible to add Cash Dividends option similer to Net income,total assets etc.. Amerkhdababneh (talk) 11:02, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Seems like something that needs discussion first. Primefac (talk) 11:05, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Short name (abbreviations)

We'd need a new field for the company short name (abbreviations), please. fgnievinski (talk) 22:10, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Doubtful that this is something we need in the infobox as short names are usually colloquial. Do you have a striking example? IceWelder [✉] 05:28, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Adding an automatic short description

Template-protected edit request on 19 June 2021

Please add a new line with an automatic short description:

From:	To:
	<includeonly>{{Short description|Company|noreplace}}</includeonly>
{{Infobox	{{Infobox

Thank you! Tol | talk | contribs 23:37, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit template-protected}} template. — JJMC89 (T·C) 00:23, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Discussion

Should an automatic short description be added to this template as shown above? (Search: ~50,110 transcluding articles without short description.) Tol | talk | contribs 01:45, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I don't think this would be a good change. A survey of some random categories shows that a common format is something like "French financial services company". "Company" is just too simple to the point of not saying much, for cases such as Royal Bank of Scotland or Texaco, say. I think it should say a little more if possible, but I don't see an easy way to extract either national adjectives or product/service types. — Goszei (talk) 01:55, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

@Goszei: National adjectives shouldn't be too hard. Converting hq_location_country into an adjective and prefacing the short description with it would work. I don't know if there's already a template/module that does this, though. Tol | talk | contribs 03:04, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

This appears to exist at Template:Country2nationality. Tol | talk | contribs 03:28, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Indeed, there are quite a few rather complex auto-shortdesc uses in infoboxes. If a specific format is decided upon it should be possible to code up. Primefac (talk) 01:22, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

Misuse of Product Parameter

If, as the examples in the documentation suggest, the product parameter is truly intended to be used only to list specific instances of products and not the type of product, then some additional level of clarification noting this should really be considered. I very frequently see it being misused in the latter way. (e.g. [1], [2], [3] [4]). I would suggest at least a mention in the documentation and potentially even a hidden note in the copy/pasteable code. –Noha307 (talk) 06:11, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Credit rating

The note about the credit rating field says "used for banks only." Other financial companies have credit ratings though: for instance, insurance companies in the US are rated through A.M. Best. Might make sense to expand. -Apocheir (talk) 23:51, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

"Industry" parameter should be renamed to "Field", as not all fields of work are industry

Hello,

The "Industry" parameter of this template should be renamed to "Field". It is a common mistake now to call any field of work an "industry" ("film industry", "music industry", "software industry", "food industry"). Industry is a word used to describe factories – manufacturing plants. It is confusing and incorrect to apply it to every revenue-making activity. Regards, DesertPipeline (talk) 14:49, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Did you mean to link film industry, and perhaps list all of the other pages listed in Category:Industries (economics)? I don't think you will find consensus for this change. See also Industry (economics). – Jonesey95 (talk) 23:18, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

User:Jonesey95: I felt a link was unnecessary. However, the inaccurate description of fields of work which aren't industry as industry doesn't actually make them industry. The implications are certainly worse when it comes to fields of art (such as film, music, writing, video game development) – but I don't support using language incorrectly even when the implications aren't so bad. DesertPipeline (talk) 01:16, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Given that the word "industry" with the meaning found in Merriam-Webster's definition 1b is used in the name of dozens of categories and articles here at the English Wikipedia, it appears that your opinion may not have consensus. You are welcome to bring it up at a central discussion location, however, or with the editors at Merriam-Webster, to see if that consensus has changed. – Jonesey95 (talk) 01:27, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

User:Jonesey95: As dictionaries have changed from prescriptive (explaining what a word actually means) to descriptive (simply describing common usage), citing that doesn't really say anything, other than that dictionaries can be wrong. "Envy" and "jealousy" are considered synonymous now, and the change from prescriptive to descriptive is partially to blame for that as well. The real problem here, though, is that it's beneficial for companies for everything to be considered an "industry", because then they can pretend that their workers are robots with no needs who can just be worked almost constantly, so that the companies can make more profit than they could otherwise.

Beside all that, though, you should consider which option here is better. If it somehow really were the case that all fields of work are "industries", it still wouldn't make "field" an inaccurate term to use. I know that it will have a positive effect, because Wikipedia's language will be made more specific and clear, but I accept if you don't consider that to be true. However, if changing it to "field" isn't going to have a negative effect (apart from articles using the infobox getting put in the job queue – but that's worrying about performance), and could potentially have a positive effect, it seems to me that there's no real reason not to change it. Would you agree or disagree with that? DesertPipeline (talk) 13:42, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what I think is true. What matters is consensus. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:35, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

User:Jonesey95: You are the only person who has responded so far. It feels to me like you're trying to shut down the discussion before it has even begun with this "the consensus will probably be against you" talk – it's better to wait for the result rather than trying to preempt it. DesertPipeline (talk) 14:52, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Industry seems fine to me as natural usage. I associate "field" with person and "industry" with company. MB 16:03, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

User:MB: Do you see my point about it being incorrect usage? It may seem natural, but I would mostly attribute that to it being used significantly, even in the wrong contexts. DesertPipeline (talk) 16:17, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Yes, but that just your opinion that it is "incorrect". "A group of businesses that provide a particular product or service" is not restricted to things produced in factories (I don't think "services" ever come from factories). MB 16:25, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

User:MB: Services don't come from factories, which is why no service-sector business is an "industry", which is part of why this template using "industry" is a problem. It could also be replaced with "Sector" – that would also be a more reasonable word if you think that "Field" doesn't really work here. DesertPipeline (talk) 16:33, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Services do come from industries - do I need to repeat the quote from the dictonary - "A group of businesses that provide a particular product or service" which expresses common usage. Apparently you feel that is "wrong" but so far, you have provided no evidence that is anything more than your opinion. MB 16:42, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

User:MB: As I said before to Jonesey95: As dictionaries have changed from prescriptive (explaining what a word actually means) to descriptive (simply describing common usage), citing that doesn't really say anything, other than that dictionaries can be wrong. This word's misuse is so prevalent that dictionaries are also wrong about it. This situation is not a simple case of "here's a citation to prove my point", because you have to analyse the situation and understand why I'm saying this; my point is not mainstream, but that doesn't necessarily mean I'm wrong. And as I asked Jonesey95: if changing it will do no harm and could potentially do good, why would we not do it? DesertPipeline (talk) 16:47, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

There is no reason to change it because WP is written using common language. I do not understand what you mean by "what a word actually means". There is no authority that defines language (at least not in most countries). A word means what most people understand it to mean - not what YOU think it should mean. MB 16:52, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Concur with User:MB and User:Jonesey95 and disagree with User:DesertPipeline. As Walt Disney said to P.L. Travers, "Pamela, that ship has sailed." As Google Ngram Viewer shows, the phrase "financial industry" has been in common use for over forty years. The battle to limit the use of the term "industry" to traditional heavy industrial sectors was lost a long, long time ago. --Coolcaesar (talk) 17:02, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

User:Coolcaesar: Things like this shouldn't be considered 'battles' or 'fights'. We always have the opportunity to change our ways – no matter how much certain people would have us believe that's not true. That is, as long as we don't let an attitude of "it can't be fixed" become reality by acting as if it is automatically and unchangeably true. DesertPipeline (talk) 17:11, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

If you want to make people "change our ways," then you're working on the wrong project. Please refresh your memory on WP core policies, especially WP:NOT, and in particular, WP:NOTADVOCACY. WP always follows, it doesn't lead. WP can only reflect the world as we find it to be and not as we most fervently wish it to be. (Of course, I am alluding to the famous words of Justice Stanley Mosk in People v. Anderson.) --Coolcaesar (talk) 18:05, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

User:Coolcaeser: My statement was partially unrelated to this. Anyway, what 'requires' us to make the same mistakes as the wider world, even though those mistakes have not always been present? If 'sector' is a valid word, what prevents us from using that? As stated earlier, there is no harm in such a change – even if "industry" were valid, "sector" is still valid. That means the change is not harmful. So why can it not be done for that reason? DesertPipeline (talk) 15:46, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

User:Coolcaesar: Ping fix; I really need to learn to preview my responses every time. DesertPipeline (talk) 15:47, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Both words are fine but changing this feels superfluous. Consider especially the multi-thousand-long editing job for PrimeBOT to replace |industry= with |sector=. "Industry" is also consistent d:Property:P452. IceWelder [✉] 16:23, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

User:IceWelder: It would be fine to set sector as an alias to the industry parameter, and change the text displayed in the infobox to sector; that way, there wouldn't be any requirement to edit current transclusions of the template. DesertPipeline (talk) 16:32, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Fine by me. I updated the sandbox and will update if there is no opposition to this proposal. IceWelder [✉] 17:05, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

I don't see any valid reason for this change. And the statement above that "no service-sector business is an industry" is incorrect as the term "services industry" or "service industry" is commonly used. Beagel (talk) 17:37, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

User:Beagel: Commonly used does not mean correct; as Coolcaesar even pointed out themself, forty years ago the term "industry" only referred to actual industry – manufacturing and other processes which involve industrial equipment. Service-sector businesses don't use industrial equipment; therefore, they are not "industry". There are also other non-service businesses which don't use industrial equipment (such as software companies). "Sector" applies to every business in existence; "industry" does not. Using the word "sector" makes Wikipedia more correct and avoids the negative implications the word "industry" has when it comes to fields of art, such as film, music, writing, and game development. DesertPipeline (talk) 17:43, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Software industry is a valid and commonly used term as also film industry, music industry etc. Beagel (talk) 06:56, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

IceWelder: As you should be able to see from the tens of thousands of pixels I and others have wasted above, there is opposition to changing the displayed label. I do not object to the new |sector= as an alias of |industry=. – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:52, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

I did skim the discussion but it appeared to mostly be a dispute about whether or not "industry" correctly describes a business field or just a place of production. Whether or not there should be a label replacement (on whatever grounds) was barely discussed. The new request asks for changing the label and making |industry= and alias for |sector=. As I understand, the argument is that it would do no harm if both terms are equally valid. If you still oppose it, that's fine of course. However, merely creating an additional alias without any other amendment would just be more maintenance and not be useful to anyone, I think. IceWelder [✉] 21:09, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Oppose this proposed change. Industry is used much more frequently now, on Wikipedia and off. Which is why we have Category:Companies by industry, many, many other examples. UnitedStatesian (talk) 20:58, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

User:UnitedStatesian: And Wikipedia can choose to not perpetuate mistakes – which is not a violation of any policy. If the mistake of calling all business sectors "industry" were perpetual – as in, the word was being misused since its inception – then you would have a point; but it was previously not used in this way. Wikipedia does not have to perpetuate mistakes like this. Do you want it to? If not, I don't see why you would be against my proposal. DesertPipeline (talk) 11:56, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Oppose. OP keeps repeating that industry "is not correct" but will not explain why in any meaningful way. Not correct according to whom? MB 21:39, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

User:MB: Actually, I keep trying to explain that this change is not harmful, even if "industry" is valid in all contexts (which it isn't), because "sector" itself is valid. Either it makes no difference at all or it's a positive change. And we've already established that people in the past recognised "industry" as incorrect in non-industrial contexts. DesertPipeline (talk) 11:56, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

You keep side-stepping the question. It is not a mistake and not incorrect usage because common usage defines language. It is irrelevant that "[some] people in the past recognised 'industry' as incorrect". MB 14:04, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Concur with User:MB. There is no merit to the position that it makes no difference or is positive. It is a harmful change because it deviates significantly from common usage and therefore will confuse users of the template. Under WP:NOT, WP is not a place to highlight or celebrate Wikipedia:Fringe theories. In turn, the proposed change also violates several principles of user interface design. Starting with the KISS principle. --Coolcaesar (talk) 14:24, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

User:Coolcaesar: This is not a fringe "theory" (and theories by definition cannot be fringe; a theory is a tested and accepted statement about reality. This is another word being misused). "Sector" is already used in this context in other areas of Wikipedia, and it clearly does not confuse anyone in those cases, because it is correct. I see no ways in which using the correct word violates user interface design principles. You are just coming up with actually irrelevant 'reasons' the change should not be made. What is prompting you to do this? What is your underlying motivation? DesertPipeline (talk) 14:34, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

User:MB: How can something be "industry" if it is not industrial? Do you not see the problem? It is not irrelevant that this mistake was previously more broadly recognised as a mistake. It means we have no justification for claiming it is not a mistake. DesertPipeline (talk) 14:34, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose. For the reasons I and others have already stated. As I already pointed out, the use of the term "industry" to refer broadly to other things besides traditional heavy industry has been well-established for over forty years. In other words, this has been common usage during the lifetimes of more than half the English speakers now alive, since the world population and the English-speaking population have both expanded greatly during that time period. WP policy is to follow common usage. --Coolcaesar (talk) 14:16, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

  User:Coolcaesar: Is Wikipedia policy to follow common usage to the exclusion of logic and not repeating actions identifiable as mistakes? If so, should it be? What is the purpose of policy if not to assist us in making the correct decisions? If it is being used as a method of ignoring the right solution in favour of rigid adherence to 'the rules', is that good for Wikipedia? DesertPipeline (talk) 14:34, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

  Your entire position depends upon your assumption that the broader usage is a "mistake." As everyone has repeatedly pointed out to you, it's not. --Coolcaesar (talk) 14:39, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

  User:Coolcaesar: There is no assumption. If it is not industrial, it is not industry. Industrial. Industry. They are related words because they are related concepts. An industry is industrial. A non-industrial sector is not industry. DesertPipeline (talk) 14:41, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

  DesertPipeline, your argument is with Merriam-Webster (link above) and with very common usage of the word "industry". Please drop the stick, or take this discussion to a central forum. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:57, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

TemplateData for type

The type infobox parameter's type is set to wiki-page-name type which will do a search for a Wiki page while typing in the box. In Visual Editor, if I set it to [[Public company|Public]], the box is bordered in red indicating an error. Could there be a better value set for it? (MediaWiki docs) — DaxServer (talk) 17:19, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Defunct company (merged)

This is regarding Syndicate Bank which was merged into Canara Bank. (The IP edits are block evasion, ignore them.) What should be the parameters for Syndicate bank for:

1. type
2. traded_as tickers (the erstwhile tickers BSE: 532276, NSE: SYNDIBANK are defunct and the stick is converted into Canara Bank). Shouldn't they be removed instead of adding Canara Bank tickers? Is such case what will be the type again?

The same question applies to some other banks which were merged during the same time. — DaxServer (talk) 11:11, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

The type should be whatever it was just before it went defunct. If it was a merger of two public corporations, "Public" should remain the type. If it was a consolidation of a subsidiary, it should be "Subsidiary", etc. The traded_as codes should remain the same; if the target pages were deleted (because the symbol was deleted), the external links should be suppressed but the text should stay the same. For example, {{NYSE}} has {{NYSE was}}. IceWelder [✉] 12:46, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

IMO, the "whatever it was just before it went defunct" approach is a form of WP:RECENTISM. This company has a history from 1925 to 2020, and we shouldn't over-emphasize the status of the company in 2020. Statements that apply to the bulk of the company's history should stay (for example, the stock symbol, if there weren't different stock symbols over the course of the years), but others (such as the financial figures) should be removed. Toohool (talk) 16:44, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

I've updated Syndicate Bank, but only to type, traded_as. I haven't removed the financials yet. Special:Diff/1051801383 — DaxServer (talk) 18:54, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

I've removed the finances as suggested Special:Diff/1051992302 — DaxServer (talk) 19:00, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

I don't think the financial data should be removed, nor similar historic data like number of employees. How large a company was immediately before it became defunct is certainly information of value to some of our readers. UnitedStatesian (talk) 19:23, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

As long as the |..._year= parameters are used properly, of course! IceWelder [✉] 19:25, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Okay then, I'll restore them with the proper _year. — DaxServer (talk) 19:46, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

I've restored with the year. However, the reported statements are for financial year of 1 April 2018-31 March 2019. What would be the correct year parameter for this? I've put 2019 as it was on probably every other page. — DaxServer (talk) 19:02, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

@DaxServer: to be technically correct, the parameter should be "FY 2019" where FY stands for fiscal year. Thanks for all your good editing. UnitedStatesian (talk) 21:00, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Huh? I've never seen it used that way. Our documentation and examples don't use it either. IceWelder [✉] 21:04, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Should the |parent= param as well be set to the parent right before defunct, like the finances? Some companies, like the merged, have websites redirected to the successor. I've removed it from the infobox, but added an archive of the old website in External links section. What are your opinions on these two? — DaxServer (talk) 17:51, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

duplicate logo when embedded

Grand Canyon University uses this template embedded into IB University. It gets a logo imaged from WD, which was already used in the infobox and shouldn't be repeated. I don't see a way to suppress this. Frietjes? MB 01:18, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

fixed, although you could have just removed it from the University box. Frietjes (talk) 15:18, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Category in Key People Parameter

Could a category be added under the key people parameter of the company's article? For example, the category Lockheed people in the Lockheed Corporation article. Potentially something along the lines of: "See also: Lockheed people". It might be a good way of ensuring sufficient coverage of individuals without the list becoming too long. It seems particularly useful for defunct, but long established companies that have had a lot of notable executives or other leaders over the years. –Noha307 (talk) 02:27, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Categories are generally avoided outside of their designated place at the end of the article, not least because it is just a less helpful, commentless, alphabetical list of articles. I think a section with key executives -- possibly ordered chronologically, sourced, and with the persons' respective job titles -- plus a link to that section from |key_people= would serve you better in this case. Regards, IceWelder [✉] 09:07, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Publicly-traded and a division

What should be the |type= for these type of companies? Example: IDBI Bank (Public and subsidiary in this case) — DaxServer (talk) 11:11, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

I would just say Publicly traded subsidiary. I think per the documentation, since there is one "owner", it should be in |parent= instead of |owner=. MB 17:18, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for both! — DaxServer (talk) 11:27, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Legal Entity Identifier

What about Legal Entity Identifier? It is a widely used unique global identifier for legal entities. --Jklamo (talk) 01:36, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Add logo_upright parameter

Right now the only way to adjust the size of logos displayed in the infobox is to set a fixed px width, which is against WP image use policy (WP:THUMBSIZE: Except with very good reason, do not use px (e.g. |thumb|300px), which forces a fixed image width measured in pixels, disregarding the user's image size preference setting). Module:InfoboxImage has an upright parameter which allows images to be scaled by a multiplier of the user's preference for thumbnail sizes. Infobox templates like Template:Infobox information appliance already implement it as one of their logo parameters; I recommend this template do the same. DigitalIceAge (talk) 03:54, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

 Done. P.I. Ellsworth - ed. ^put'r there 23:56, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Thank you! DigitalIceAge (talk) 03:33, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Please add worker representation parametre

I'm resurrecting this discussion from a year ago to argue that a "worker_representation" field should be added. This would allow a link to the articles of trade unions active in the company, an important part of every company's governance. The corresponding field has already been added to WikiData. Zarasophos (talk) 22:52, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

(Notified at WP:Organized Labor) I personally agree that the parameter should be added, both because it is useful information in an infobox and because it is already in WikiData. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 23:34, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

(via notification at WikiProject Organized Labour) I support this change. We should be specific that this is for trade union representation and not works councils (which are present in many EU companies), since legally works councils are bodies of co-determination, not bodies to represent workers' interests. I'm not so in favour of a specific threshold (eg a union must have collective bargaining status) since there are many anti-union companies where union members exist, but are denied collective bargaining. I think in cases where there is no collective bargaining it should be about whether or not sourcing exists regarding union representation; so, for example in Starbucks where there is, as yet, no collective bargaining but there are specific, widespread sources pointing to unionisation. We also need to acknowledge that in some countries, there will be more than one union present in this parameter (eg this will frequently be the case in Spain, Italy and France). Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 23:51, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Agreed that Wikipedia:Verifiability is key here and that we should use coverage in independent reliable sources as criterion rather than specific thresholds.

There is also WP:NPOV to consider though, as another core policy - specifically WP:DUE ("Undue weight can be given in several ways, including but not limited to [...] prominence of placement"). To construct an extreme example based on yours: If employees at a single Starbucks location start an unionization attempt today and it gets mentioned in the local newspaper tomorrow, that still doesn't mean that the infobox in Starbucks should be updated to promote that effort. Per MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE, infoboxes are meant "to summarize (and not supplant) key facts that appear in the article"; including information there means visually promoting it over most of the rest of the information in the article. (That's also why "it is already in WikiData" is not an argument here - so are many other Wikidata properties that we do not include in Wikipedia infoboxes with good reason.) Regards, HaeB (talk) 09:50, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

I don't think you'd have anything but heated agreement from everyone here. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 11:49, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

• Support When the workers have an organization then that fact is as fundamental to the identity of the company as many of the other parameters in the infobox. We should note this in the infobox. I came here from Wikipedia:WikiProject Organized Labour, which discussed this issue. Bluerasberry (talk) 14:13, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

 Not done for now: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Also, there still seems to be controversial elements such as should this include works councils or not. Perhaps more than one new parameter is needed? Also, how do we make said parameter(s) global and not to just fill the needs of one or two or a few countries' companies? This is a case of "You tell me." I will be glad to add consensus-based parameters that are presented in the correct format, preferably in this template's sandbox. P.I. Ellsworth - ed. ^put'r there 22:56, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Hello @Paine Ellsworth:, thanks for the comment. The only problem, as far a I see it, is that some countries (Anglophile ones) use a model of per-company trade unions, while others (for example mainland Europe) use works councils. I therefore see basically two options:

1. Add two parametres, one "works_council" and one "trade_union". "works_council" would allow yes/no and would appear as something along the lines of "Works council: Present", while "trade_union" would allow "Example company trade union".

2. Add one parametre "worker_representation", which would appear as "Worker representation" and allow both manually putting in "Works Council" for countries utilising works councils - or not, if we don't want to do this, as Goldsztajn (talk · contribs) suggested - and "Example company trade union" for Anglophile ones. This is my favoured option. I'm not at all familiar with template coding, but I think it should look something like this: (commented out because I don't know how to put code in a comment)

What does everyone else think? Zarasophos (talk) 23:26, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Placed your test code in this template's sandbox and created a new section on its test cases page. I realize that this parameter(s) needs to evolve; it must grow to a certain level of usefulness before it can "go live". Any and all feel free to improve upon the sandbox and test cases trials. P.I. Ellsworth - ed. ^put'r there 00:59, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Comment: There's a simple legal difference; works councils practice codetermination (Mitbestimmung) or in US English act as a labor-management committee. In no jurisdiction is there any requirement that a works council have as worker representatives those from trade unions; and at the national level outside of central and northern Europe works councils generally play a fairly limited, if non-existent role. It is misleading to indicate that a body which contains representatives of management is a "worker representative" body, a works council is a workplace representative body with worker representatives. National laws across the EU regarding works councils are quite varied (notwithstanding the EU directive on European Works Councils). However, trade unions are a far more universally (globally) applicable form of worker representation. So, I would be more inclined to support two separate parameters: one for works councils and one for trade union representation. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 11:15, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

I support the first option, two different parameters, however I would use "labor union" or "union" instead of "trade union", since in the US trade union has a connotation like craft unionism of being particular to a trade while other variants such as general and industrial unions can exist. I also wonder if there's some way we can include the level of worker control from no say to full say, apart from discussing it in the company or specific union article. Part of this could be adding a worker co-operative field for either the "type" or "ownership" parameter. Also, I'm a software developer and while I don't have much experience with Wiki templates when we've got a solid plan I can take a shot at implementing it. TheTranarchist (talk) 22:00, 8 February 2022 (UTC)TheTranarchist

This all sounds very good to me, so I'll vote for a "works_council" and a "union" field as well as adding a "cooperative" to "ownership". Also, thanks for offering to take a view at the template - I'd try to do it myself, but for some reason my keyboard chose the two months a year I get really focused on editing Wikipedia to suddenly not have a working | button anymore... Zarasophos (talk) 22:37, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

To editor Zarasophos: if you have an "insert" section underneath your edit screen, and you can change it to "Wiki markup", you'll find a pipe among those symbols you can use. Hopefully, this helps a bit. P.I. Ellsworth - ed. ^put'r there 23:29, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

I don't agree with the statement about there being a trade union per company in some countries, if that is meant to mean a single union. In the US, for example, an airline can have workers represented by a pilots union, flight attendants union, one for mechanics, another for ramp/baggage workers, customer service people, and probably a few more. The union parameter would have to be "Union (s)" and there should be some guidance on how to use it - e.g. limit it to a few of the most significant unions. This IB can already be on the long side. MB 00:45, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Indeed. Also consider this current high profile case about a labor conflict in the US that was at its core about a union trying to bring some positions under their control that were already unionized - but with a different union. Regards, HaeB (talk) 09:50, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Given the complexities and misunderstandings that this discussion has revealed so far (e.g. the proposer's erroneous assumption that "some countries (Anglophile ones) use a model of per-company trade unions, while others (for example mainland Europe) use works councils"), I would suggest taking a step back and working on the following:

• This proposal (as any new parameter proposal, really) should include not just the new parameter name(s), but also a draft definition/guidance text for each, for the template documentation. (Compare e.g. the documentation of the key_people field in the current version of the template, which is likewise about an "important part of every company's governance".)
• Provide a few examples of existing company articles (from several different countries) stating what the value of the new parameter(s) there might be if the proposal becomes implemented.

I would also recommend trying to avoid approaching this with too much of an activist mindset ("yay labor rights! Let's do it!", even though these are important rights affecting most of us personally). This is a very widely used infobox template and I sense that some folks may underestimate the downsides of ill-defined parameters. E.g. over at Infobox musical artist there is now consensus that a field added many years ago has caused a great deal of confusion and unnecessary disagreement and should be removed.

Regards, HaeB (talk) 09:50, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

I don't see an erroneous assumption, I see someone trying to express what is a difference between trade unionism in continental Europe (which has mostly retained industry (ie sectoral) bargaining) versus models in the Anglo world, where company/enterprise bargaining predominates and how that (a quite correct observation) affects trade union structures. But it is reasonable (and necessary) to ensure that a parameter such as this does not become an alphabet soup. One initial guidance might be that unions listed should be those which predominate in the country of origin of the company; this can be modified in certain cases, where you have a company like Nestlé whose unionised workforce in Switzerland (represented by UNIA) is far smaller than in Germany (NGG) or the UK (GMB). It might also be useful to include the appropriate global union federation that workers in that company are covered by where a global framework agreement exists (could this be a third parameter?). I wouldn't want to put an explicit number limit, but would use a text that indicates something along the lines of "limit to predominant, most representative union(s), with more than three (four?) unions having justifiable grounds for inclusion on the basis of sourcing". As for the case of airlines, this is not that complex, what is most common are three unions: pilots, cabin crew and engineers (mechanics, machinists etc). FWIW ground crew, baggage handlers etc are rarely employees of airlines (rather outsourced, subcontracted employees of airport operators). Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 11:49, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

After reading all this, I would suggest a single parameter much as is used in science iboxes to indicate species and so forth. If there is a simple, one- or two-entry situation, then the parameter can be used to show them; however, if the list is long, convoluted or complex, then the parameter can be used to indicate "See article text". And all the details can be included in that article's content (as opposed to making the ibox ten miles long). P.I. Ellsworth - ed. ^put'r there 23:14, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Audio logo parameter

More and more brands (including Wikipedia) are using audio logos (example from Netflix). I propose that we add a parameter for these to this template that can hold a (typically fair use) sound file. It wouldn't be for every company, but for those with prominent audio logos, I think it'd be due. Thoughts on this? Where in the infobox should it go? {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 06:36, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

I see little use for this in the infobox. If a company's audio logo is notable and relevant, it should be detailed in the body with sources. Otherwise, it feels akin to an audible version of the slogan parameter we removed years ago for good reason. IceWelder [✉] 07:07, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Secondary listings

Hello, can we add secondary listings for traded_as? I would like to indicate that Nokia also lists on NYSE for example. -- 18:40, 7 July 2022 (UTC)Maxime Vernier (talk)

You can just put an {{Unbulleted list}} in that field. Regards, IceWelder [✉] 19:04, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for your answer, I have added the NYSE listing on Nokia but UnitedStatesian removed it on the ground that it is secondary and not primary and thus does not have its place in the infobox. I wish to have feedback from the community, is it something coming only from UnitedStatesian or is it something widely shared by the contributors on companies. Maxime Vernier (talk) 18:03, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

@Maxime Vernier, @IceWelder, thanks for the ping, and I'll lay out the logic that governs our current practice, which is simply this: stocks trade secondarily all over the world, and a comprehensive list in the Infobox would be make it very cluttered. And to avoid the clutter and have only a subset of the secondary listings introduces systemic bias issues: why just New York, and not all of the other secondary trading locations? Hope this helps. I do think the field could be named more clearly: what do you think of displaying it as "Primary listing" instead of "Traded as"? Best, UnitedStatesian (talk) 18:45, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

I think that "traded as" is a lot more clear than "primary listing". How does one determine which exchange is the primary listing? For example, when a company is listed on a European exchange and NYSE? Maybe "traded as (primary)" would be better, but it would be biased, don't you think? --Funandtrvl (talk) 19:24, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

@Funandtrvl Almost always, the primary listing is an exchange in the country in which the company is incorporated, its "home country": so, the UK's London Stock Exchange for Shell plc, the US's Nasdaq for Apple Inc.. Hope this helps. UnitedStatesian (talk) 17:57, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 16 July 2022

Can you change “Headquarters” to “Location” so that it can match the parameter |location=? 70.71.80.27 (talk) 19:34, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: The |location=-type parameters have been upgraded to other names, such as |hq_location=, |hq_location_city= and so on. They still work, but the use of only "location" was confusing and ambiguous, since ideally a company may have several "locations" and only one "headquarters". P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^put'r there 19:01, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

Country field

Notice in some United Kingdom company articles there has been some edit warring with an editor replacing England in the country headquarters field with England, UK. This appears to have been contentious with several editors reversing. So the question is should headquarters be listed as:

• city, country, e.g. London, England or
• city, country, crown dependency, e.g. London, England, UK.

Can't see any evidence of the issue having been discussed, either here or at WP:WikiProject Companies, but if a consensus can be reached, this can be referred back to when it flares up to try and avoid the constant edit warring. As it stands the template has two fields:

• hq_location_city =
• hq_location_country =

Given that we don’t even link countries per WP:OVERLINK, for mine, city, country is adequate with no need for crown dependency, much like we have Paris, France, not Paris, France, European Union. Homeltraix (talk) 20:54, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

As this is not specific to this infobox, this is probably not the best place to discuss this. However, take a look at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Archive_222#Removal of "UK" from location field in infoboxes, the most recent discussion, to see how contentious this is.

Also, with the example of London, WP:OVERLINK says that is sufficient by itself. There is another related discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Linking#Implementation in infoboxes that says the existence of multiple fields in infobox templates is not a justification to ignore project linking guidelines. MB 23:03, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

Map

I think this template should be able to display a map. I understand the parameter may not be helpful for a major corporation with many office and/or retail locations, but sometimes a company operates from a single location. For these articles, I think a map for the infobox would be helpful.

Thoughts? Concerns? Anyone able to implement? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 22:01, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

See Template_talk:Infobox_company/Archive_12#Map, and by extension Template_talk:Infobox_company/Archive_9#Coordinates, in which "no" continues to be the consensus. Primefac (talk) 09:38, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 16 December 2022

It seems that this template generates a links in links lint error whenever there is a reference supplied for the |ISIN= parameter. See Current version of Draft:Icecat (company), where the |ISIN= parameter is causing this lint error. But now look at this example based on the usage at Icecat, with a reference on almost every parameter except |ISIN=, and there is no lint error.

Icecat

[[File:ICECAT.svg|frameless|upright=1]]
Company type	Public company
Traded as	NPEX:ICECAT
ISIN	NL0012751226
Industry	Product Information Management
Founded	2001 (2001)
Founders	Martijn Hoogeveen
Headquarters	Amsterdam, Noord-Holland, Netherlands
Key people	Martijn Hoogeveen (CEO) Emre Tan Altinok (Managing Director) Marco Noor (CFO)
Products	Product Content Technology Product Taxonomy Management Product Content Management & Syndication
Revenue	€11 million (2021)
Operating income	€2.7 million (2021)
Net income	€27.9 million (2021)
Total equity	€43.6 million (2021)
Website	icecat.com

References

Please fix to allow |ISIN= to take a reference without generating a links in links lint error. —Anomalocaris (talk) 20:30, 16 December 2022 (UTC) Anomalocaris (talk) 20:30, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

Ostensibly, there is only one fix to this, which is not enforcing a link. Instead, I expanded the template {{ISIN}} to cover the use case we previously had here. Therefore, ISIN parameters should now be migrated from |ISIN=X to |ISIN={{ISIN|sl=n|pl=y|X}}. |ISIN2= and |ISIN3= are also now covered in |ISIN=. I will start with some migration work soon. IceWelder [✉] 00:52, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

@Anomalocaris: I have also applied the new scheme to the draft you mentioned. IceWelder [✉] 03:33, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Edit request 16 January 2023

Add param worker representation= XYZ with preference for wiki-linked values e.g. Tesla and unions, Starbucks unions or other wikilinks in Category:Labour relations by company The wikicode for this would be inserted at the bottom with

| label42 = worker representation | data42 =

Thank you for your consideration ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 15:46, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

• This was discussed before but did not really reach a consensus. Generally, consensus should come before any edit request. Do feel free to revive the discussion. IceWelder [✉] 18:12, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
• I would support this parameter's addition. The organisation of workers, whether formal or informal, is important information for large companies. I think it is suitable for an infobox parameter, given that this infobox has parameters for HQ location, key figures, and several different financial statistics. Please ping me if another discussion starts on this. — Bilorv (talk) 15:03, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

Citation in Infobox

This discussion on citation inside of infobox may be of interest to editors here. Ckfasdf (talk) 00:07, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

Addition of "child" parameter

Couldn't there be a "child" parameter so this template can be embedded inside another infobox template? For example, at the TBS Television (Japan) article, I tried to embed this template inside Template:Infobox television station, but the result looks weird because this template doesn't have a "child" parameter, so I had to do it the other way round. JSH-alive/^{talk/cont/mail} 14:36, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

JSH-alive, it does, it's just called |embed=. Primefac (talk) 13:05, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

@Primefac: Well, it's missing in the main documentation. Anyway, thanks for your tip. JSH-alive/^{talk/cont/mail} 14:43, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Always happy to help. Feel free to update the /doc. Primefac (talk) 17:16, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Founders

With this edit I intended to remove the "Founders" line from the infobox for the article. Unfortunately, The line displays from Wikidata when the field is empty. There are multiple founders in Wikidata, but the label display "Founder". That need to be fixed so it says "Founders" when there are multiple founders. Can we also add an option to suppress the line as well? Richard-of-Earth (talk) 21:38, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

The |fetchwikidata= parameter can be set to "no" to disable calling WD, which I have done on the article. For the record though it is an all-or-nothing parameter, so turning it off removes all WD calls in the infobox. Primefac (talk) 17:37, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

Thank you. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 02:56, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 4 July 2023

Add a | headqaurters = parameter. 90.255.6.219 (talk) 11:52, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: We already have |hq_location= and similar parameters. Primefac (talk) 13:27, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Introduces more issues than it solves

@IceWelder: We really should make this template have its parameters aligned, so that when editors copy it, they copy it aligned, and so it will be aligned in more articles. This makes editing and reading the code much, much easier. I haven't met any editor who disagrees. What "issues" do you claim it causes, and why are you edit-warring your preference as well, while trying to accuse me of the same? ɱ (talk) 13:56, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Please see User talk:IceWelder/Archive 9#"Block spacing"? and Template talk:Infobox character/Archive 5#TemplateData format type for reference. Regarding your latter question, see WP:STATUSQUO. IceWelder [✉] 14:00, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Sounds like you're a singular adamant person acting against the will of other editors in those conversations, and arguing your way into succeeding. How does the spacing make it harder for mobile editors? No space makes everything intensely cluttered and jumbled, for mobile and desktop editors. Yet I can tell I won't persuade you. ɱ (talk) 14:04, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Broken parameter

The doc states: If it needs to be hidden for some reason... place the word "hide" without the quotes or the template in this field to ensure that no website shows up.

In short, the hide parameter doesn't work. There are a bunch of articles that were displaying "Website hide" in the infobox because people were trying to use hide as documented, but I think I cleaned them all up. In most cases there was no value on wikidata and so nothing to hide, but sometimes it really is necessary to block the autoimport of garbage from wikidata. Even as long term tech-savvy editor with a substantial knowledge of wikidata, it took an unreasonably amount of digging for me to come up with suppressfields= as a workaround for the broken hide parameter. Alsee (talk) 01:03, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

I couldn't find anything related to "hide" in the implementation, so I removed the incorrect documentation. I believe, however, that the current implementation is sound because it requires a URL at Wikidata to be both sourced and non-deprecated. It only takes four clicks on Wikidata to deprecate a URL, which not only hides it here but also improves the data accuracy for Wikidata itself. I added a brief note regarding this in the documentation, as well as `suppressfields` as the fallback solution. IceWelder [✉] 05:38, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

Align the infobox?

Hello all, I aligned the infobox parameters on this infobox's documentation, meaning editors using this template will start with an aligned infobox, where all the parameters and their data line up. Another user in the conversation above reverted me, and has seemed to have a long-time preference against this. What should we do for Template:Infobox company/doc? -- ɱ (talk) 14:07, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

• Support alignment. This makes it easier to read the values instead of just a wall of text-code. This is also pretty standard in a lot of infoboxes so nothing new is suggested here. Gonnym (talk) 14:17, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
• This is somewhat lame. My personal preference is without all the extra spaces, but I wouldn't get upset about it! — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:31, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
• I don't have a strong preference either way. On one hand, we'd add unnecessary space if we align everything, and we should generally try to avoid creating overly long wikitexts when smaller wikitexts would work fine. On the other hand, the infobox template is marginally more readable when aligned, and the change is less than a kilobyte in length, so I'm not sure if the length drawback is or is not outweighed by the readability benefit. (Summoned by bot) — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 15:37, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

  The amount of bytes added by the spaces is negligible, only about the same data as one or two long references, and it immeasurably helps with readability and organization. ɱ (talk) 18:31, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

• Is this visible only to editors who happen to view the source code at that place? If yes, I recommend that you Wikipedia:Assume good faith, thank the other person for their attempts to contribute to the Wikipedia:Prime objective enunciated by Jimmy Wales, trying to provide freer access to the sum of all human knowledge, and focus on things that seem more important in the long term. (I keep a diary with "to do" lists. This helps me distinguish between things that upset me but don't matter much to others from things that can really help others. Let others do whatever they want as long their actions do not substantively degrade the quality of information provided to the general public.) DavidMCEddy (talk) 16:15, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

  Yes it is only visible as source code, but when it allows for new articles to align, and then editors can easily see what's missing in infoboxes, it's a subtle change that really benefits everyone. I've never encountered opposition to such a beneficial change, but I suppose someone has to somewhere. And thus the RfC. ɱ (talk) 18:29, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

• I'd like to voice a procedural oppose as this kind of discussion should be held in a forum that would affect all infobox-style templates. Furthermore, the discussion should focus more on accessibility than personal preferences on particular styles. Doing so for one template and one template only would not aim for wider improvement or even consistency, rather reinforce one style preference in one instance. Additionally, I would oppose the change (both for this case and for any large-scale discussion) as it makes infobox code difficult to read and edit on small screens, especially mobile devices, while having little no advantage in other cases apart from that some believe it to look nicer. IceWelder [✉] 17:58, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

  Every infobox can have its own formatting, this should not be a global change. And I'm sick and tired of people weaponizing "accessibility" as an issue. You aren't a medical professional, simply because you think it looks cluttered to you in one viewscreen doesn't make you an expert at helping format to advantage differently-abled people. It'd still look cluttered your way in mobile, too. ɱ (talk) 18:08, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

  And you still have the right to format articles you edit however you wish. This simply just guides more new articles towards a more orderly format. Especially as most longtime editors do most of their work on desktops/laptops. ɱ (talk) 18:10, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

  Not to WP:BLUDGEON, but this argumentation does not make sense to me. If you believe that aligning parameters in infoboxes is an objective improvement, it should be consistent (or as consistent as possible) across all of them, and you provided no argumentation specific to this template. A wider audience would also generate more opinions from a more diverse pool of editors. Furthermore, please assume good faith when people talk about accessibility. As I noted in the previous discussion, I am speaking from my personal experience; I am not "weaponizing" the topic, nor did I ever claim to be a medical professional. I also said then that "perhaps this question should be elevated to a better forum, preferably with users with experience in accessibility". IceWelder [✉] 07:38, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

  Agree to disagree. I see nothing in WP:ACCESS that supports your idea that there is an accessibility issue, and I'm still tired of people using this as a tool to get their way. Ignoring the dreamed-up hypothetical opinions of differently-abled people, the infoboxes are easier to read and edit when aligned, not harder. ɱ (talk) 17:11, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

• I prefer the wikitext aligned in documentation, personally, especially when there's hidden comments. It looks nicer that way, even if it's NBD. Plugging my personal style guide. SWinxy (talk) 22:40, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
• Just for reference Special:PermaLink/1166122651#Usage is the original /doc, with Special:PermaLink/1166119369#Usage being the proposed change, just in case anyone is wondering what "alignment" means in this context. Primefac (talk) 11:38, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
• Support alignment It is immeasurably more easy to parse and edit when the options are aligned. :3 F4U (they/it) 18:36, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
• Support alignment for ease-of-use. Makes sense, not sure exactly the reasons why anyone would oppose. HighKing⁺⁺ 14:11, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
• Support alignment much easier to read. Frietjes (talk) 15:19, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
• Definitely aligned much muuuuuuuuuuuch easier to read and parse. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 09:02, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
• Support alignment as nominator, has a much-improved look and readability. I think someone can close this RfC now. ɱ (talk) 02:25, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Acronym?

I miss a field for acronym. Or should the trade_name be used for that purpose? fgnievinski (talk) 06:32, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

I find it doubtful that this is relevant enough for the infobox. It usually appears in the first lead sentence anyway. IceWelder [✉] 06:49, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

But then folks end up squeezing the acronym at the end of the full name, separated by a hyphen or enclosed in parentheses. That name pollution would seem to go against MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE, which is to provide some form of semistructure data. fgnievinski (talk) 07:12, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Parameter for slogan

Why is it not there? I think it should be added, but would like to hear input of others. PhotographyEdits (talk) 13:45, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Slogans are principally for advertising, so I cannot see how it is encyclopedically useful. There used to be a slogan parameter but it was removed for good many years ago. Notable slogans can still be mentioned in the body. IceWelder [✉] 14:10, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

>removed for good

That's not a thing per WP:CCC. But I don't see why notable slogans cannot be used in the infobox. The company name itself is primarily used for advertising, otherwise you could assign every company simply a long unique number or something. I don't really see a difference here. PhotographyEdits (talk) 14:29, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

This is a perennial topic. Please look in the talk page archives to see the current consensus and links to a dozen previous discussions. Notable slogans can be included in the body of the article, with references to reliable sources. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:53, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Change parameter location to headquarters

Can we please change the parameter location to headquarters as most companies have many locations of where they service. 149.19.40.233 (talk) 16:18, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

|location= and |hq_location= are aliases. |location= is not mentioned in the template's documentation. It appears in the TemplateData table as an alias. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:35, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Add a new tracking category?

Can we add Category:Pages using infobox company with no logo for missing logos? - UtherSRG (talk) 19:36, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Tracking categories of this sort are usually used for errors. Is the lack of a logo an error? – Jonesey95 (talk) 03:10, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

The request is based on a Teahouse request for something similar to the tracking category for book articles with no cover image. Every book has a cover (though some may be less than informative), but every company doesn't have a logo. For companies that do have a logo, if the article doesn't have it in the infobox, then yes, that would be an error in the way a missing book cover is an error. - UtherSRG (talk) 11:48, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

If a tracking category is added then I suggest a special value like |logo = no to indicate that an editor has judged there should be no logo and the category shouldn't be added. PrimeHunter (talk) 15:31, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

Perfect! - UtherSRG (talk) 15:54, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

This infobox currently (for some bizarre reason) pulls from WD if there is no logo. That will need to be accounted for if this tracking category is implemented. For the record I don't really see this as an "error" necessarily, nor do I think we should reserve tracking categories for them (i.e. I do not see why we shouldn't do it if it's been requested). Primefac (talk) 14:25, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Add greenhouse gas emissions?

Now this is becoming more notable could a parameter be added? Or possibly 2 parameters such as

ghg_scope1and2

ghg_scope3

See Carbon accounting for background info and scope definitions.

Or if I or someone else made a carbon footprint template (I have never made a template before) could it be included in as a module? Or should I make a carbon footprint infobox as suggested at Template talk:Infobox power station?

Chidgk1 (talk) 11:08, 19 December 2023 (UTC)