Template talk:Infobox company
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Infobox company template. |
|
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12Auto-archiving period: 45 days |
Template:Infobox company is permanently protected from editing because it is a heavily used or highly visible template. Substantial changes should first be proposed and discussed here on this page. If the proposal is uncontroversial or has been discussed and is supported by consensus, editors may use {{edit template-protected}} to notify an administrator or template editor to make the requested edit. Usually, any contributor may edit the template's documentation to add usage notes or categories.
Any contributor may edit the template's sandbox. Functionality of the template can be checked using test cases. |
Infoboxes | ||||
|
Companies Template‑class | ||||||||||||||
|
This template was considered for merging with Template:Infobox U.S. national banks on 2020 March 24. The result of the discussion was "no consensus". |
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)
- Perfect! - UtherSRG (talk) 15:54, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
- If a tracking category is added then I suggest a special value like
- 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)
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)
MOS:EGG issue in company "type"
I'm proposing to update the documentation of this template to better demonstrate what company "type" means in this infobox. You can see examples of how "type" is currently used at Walmart, Target Corporation, and Cargill, and the current documentation for that parameter at Template:Infobox company#Type.
The issue is that many people reading about a company are unlikely to understand the uncontextualized use of "type" in an infobox when the only word that follows is "public" or "private". The meaning may become clear on a clickthrough to public company and private company, but that violates MOS:EGG. (This issue is extremely similar to the one described in MOS:EGG's example.)
Instead, the documentation on this template should advise using "public company" and "private company" (my emphasis). You can see how this would look in this reverted edit. Ed [talk] [OMT] 01:23, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, very sensible move, Ed. Tony (talk) 01:34, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
- Why are you doing this. WiinterU (talk) 02:35, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
- Especially now. Because everyone is used to it just being Public. WiinterU (talk) 02:35, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
- I started the discussion because I think it contradicts the manual of style? I'm not sure who "everyone" is supposed to refer to there. Ed [talk] [OMT] 05:13, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
- We are dealing in the context of an infobox about a compamy and in the entry of referring to the type of that company. In this context, I think "Private" and "Public" are not amibiguous and do not need the suffix "company". IceWelder [✉] 10:19, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
- I started the discussion because I think it contradicts the manual of style? I'm not sure who "everyone" is supposed to refer to there. Ed [talk] [OMT] 05:13, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
- Especially now. Because everyone is used to it just being Public. WiinterU (talk) 02:35, 12 January 2024 (UTC)