Template talk:Infobox Company/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
← Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 →

Contents

Dates with Info

I think it is really necessary, if you say how many employees a company has, to say that there is some date at which there were this many employees. Really, everything about a bussiness can be ephemeral. The format should allow a (date) or (year) after any bit of info in the table. RayKiddy 16:53, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Indeed. See Nokia for an example. Adraeus 19:42, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Edit link?

Jerryseinfeld, I'm not certain we want inexperienced users to know about editing this template or want to confuse inexperienced users into think editing this core template is how they edit the template on the company pages, but it's a nifty idea for promoting collaborative discussion and improve of this template. Adraeus 23:58, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I agree. And it's a convenience. - Jerryseinfeld 00:11, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Correct key_people and products formatting

I just went through the articles that use infobox_company and corrected formatting issues. The following are the correct formats:

  • Key People [[Popular Name|First Name Middle Initial (Nickname) Last Name Suffix]], [[Job Title]]/[[Job Title 2]] (See Microsoft entry.)
  • Products Product 1<br />Product 2<br />Product 3<br />

This is done for consistency, readability and page size considerations. Remember: the more text used, the larger the page. Adraeus 05:56, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Formatting

I would rather have it like "CEO: Person" than "Person, CEO". - Jerryseinfeld 22:01, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

You suggested that we change "Person, Job Title" to "Title: Person". Why should this not be done? Simply because the person is more important than the title. How names/titles are formatted in annual reports, on business cards, etc., is how names/titles should be formatted here. Since the infobox is directly related to business, we should attempt to maintain a corporate theme. You can change the formatting, of course, but you have to change all the articles' formatting too in order to maintain consistency. You can't just change one or two and expect me—since in addition to you I'm one of the few who's working on this— to change the rest. Adraeus 22:18, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
"The person is more important than the title". Oh, really? Of course he is. I would simply like to change the formatting. - Jerryseinfeld 22:24, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
It's a design issue: how content is laid out affects what's communication. If you'd like to change the formatting, you have to do it for all the current corporate articles. You'll also need to modify the syntax and the syntax description. Changing the formatting now due to preference is just too much work in my opinion. Adraeus 22:34, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
If the "syntax" example is updated it will drift in that directon. - Jerryseinfeld 22:43, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Do you have a good reason to change the formatting or is this simply a matter of preference? Currently, the formatting is a matter of standardization, design and consistency. Adraeus 22:54, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I have a good reason. It's better. Do you understand? Do you think hooters and yahoo put it like that by chance? 99% of these people are non-heard-of, so you first want to know there job, and then you want to know their name, and perhaps more. I would like to see you at Hooters arguing about this, "no I want the persone BEFORE the job, because the person is more IMPORTANT than the title. It's a matter of CONSISTENCY." - Jerryseinfeld 17:28, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
While I'd like to go to Hooters, I think you meant Hoover's. As a business owner and professional graphic designer with his company in D&B's database, I know exactly why their data tables are designed like so. Unless we're going to redesign our infobox so that it uses a table similar to Yahoo!'s or Hoover's, then your reason isn't a good reason at all since it's a matter of preference for you. Adraeus 21:13, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Why doesn't a third person weigh in on this? - Jerryseinfeld 21:07, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I would like to have it like "Chairman, CEO", rather than "Chairman/CEO". - Jerryseinfeld 22:27, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

That's not a good idea. The Monobook stylesheet justifies text and any extra spaces in a title makes the title look really bad. See Allegheny_Technologies. Moreover, the reason extraneous spaces should be avoided is due to file size concerns. Remember: the infobox adds to the size of a page. We don't want to overextend the infobox's welcome. Adraeus 22:34, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
The "/" sometimes mean "or" so it reads "Chairman or CEO". But it's not a big deal. You may note how other sites list the company profile (Yahoo!), (Business Week), (CBS MarketWatch), ([http://www.forbes.com/finance/mktguideapps/personinfo/similarResults/byTicker.jhtml?passedTicker=C&passedCompanyName=Citigroup+Inc.

&resultsStart=1&resultsHowMany=25&resultsSortProperties=%2BtitleRank%2C%2BlastName%2C%2BfirstName%2C%2BmiddleInitial&resultsSortCategoryName=title Forbes]), (Fortune), ([http://briefings.ft.com/company/showFinancials.html?view=Overview/Profile&extelID=00041959&company=Citigroup%2C+Inc.&region= &industry=&pageNum=1&selected=Citigroup+Inc&options=1&ticker=US%3AC&ftep=CITIG00000&isin=US1729671016&sedol=2297907&tab=2&subtab=-1 &q=&s1=&s2= Financial Times]), (New York Times), (Reuters), (MSNBC), (The Street). Some of them use the ",", some of them use the "&", I believe that is better than the "/".--Jerryseinfeld 23:18, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Basically, I would like it to look like it does at the Yahoo! Industry Center ([1]). - Jerryseinfeld 22:30, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

This is Wikipedia, not Yahoo! By the way, I use Hoover's. [2] Adraeus 22:34, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
They do to. - Jerryseinfeld 22:41, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Except instead of for example "CEO and Director" it could be "CEO", instead of "President, COO, and Director" it could be "President, COO". - Jerryseinfeld 22:31, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Right. Only use the most important title. Adraeus 22:34, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Key people

I suggest key_people is renamed to management. - Jerryseinfeld 22:00, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Key People is general and allows editors to insert other people, such as lead game designers, into infoboxes for smaller companies without a huge hierarchy of executives. Adraeus 22:21, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Code

For the easier code formatting that looked like:

  key_people     = Chairman: [[Person]] <br />
CEO: [[Person]] |

  products       = [[Product]]<br />
[[Product]]<br />
[[Product]] |

Is there a way to make the new lines in for example "products" not create a paragraph ("p") tag, or is there some way to remove its margin? I tried a few classes from [3] and [4]. Isn't it possible with for example "tocindent" from commonPrint.css?. - Jerryseinfeld 00:26, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I don't understand your question. Would you please elaborate? Thank you. Adraeus 11:32, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
The p tag skews the layout. - Jerryseinfeld 22:17, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Show me an example, please. Adraeus 22:55, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Infobox Company/Archive 2
Type
Founded {{{foundation}}}
Headquarters
Key people Chairman:

CEO:

CFO:

That only happens if you press return. Keep the data on one line like in the syntax example. Adraeus 02:50, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

It's easier to put each on its own line, that's why I'm wondering if it's possible to get rid of the "margin" that is placed above the p tag. - Jerryseinfeld 17:30, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

A few comments...

It's great that someone has finally created a decent infobox for companies. I am currently adding infoboxes to the links off List of Irish companies and just want to get a few things straight before things become inconsistant, I also have a few minor queries:

  • Should their not be a line for industry e.g. Aviation, Computer Software etc., I know you have a products line, but surely an industry line is needed.
  • In your Microsoft example you have the link Public, this should be Public company or Public. It would be helpful if you added that to your guidelines at the top of this page.
  • Should the terms CEO, COO, SVP etc., be linked to their respective pages.
  • If you are going to include varibles such as employee count, should you not include 2004 revenues & profits (at least in the case of public companies).

Again, thanks for the handy infobox, i'll try to keep it consistant across my entries. CGorman 15:20, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

One more thing, does it not look better to have slogans in italics? CGorman 15:26, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • The products a company provides defines the industry a company resides. An industry row would require researching the tax records for each company and inserting mostly useless information about a company. Having a business myself, industry data is only relevant to taxation and little, if not nothing, else.
  • [[Public company|Public]] is a good suggestion.
  • The professional acronyms probably should be linked to their respective pages for clarity's sake.
  • There are better places than Wikipedia to research revenues & profits. For instance, a company's annual report or Hoover's. Too many easily outdated variables requires much maintenance. Adraeus 22:03, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Add section

I suggest stock exchange listings is added between "Type" & "Slogan".--Jerryseinfeld 16:26, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The stock symbol currently works well next to the company's type.
I mean a list of stock exchange listings, which include stock exchanges outside the united states.--Jerryseinfeld 23:49, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

And instead of "Founded" and "Location" three could be "Headquarter", "Incorporated in", and "Ownership" that list one or two of the largest owners.--Jerryseinfeld 16:29, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

So you want to replace two shorter words with two longer words, and limit the type of persons listable? No thanks.
Founded is not the same as "incorporated in". And "location" is not the same as headquartered in, but it may refer to the same thing I guess. And "ownership" is not present in the box as it is now. The largest owners could certainly be listed, if they are known.--Jerryseinfeld 23:01, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

And I don't care about any "slogan", it can be removed.--Jerryseinfeld 16:30, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Slogan should not be removed. How ridiculous. Adraeus 22:07, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Okay. Just asking.--Jerryseinfeld 23:01, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I didn't read your suggestion as a question. I'm sorry if I was harsh. Adraeus 04:24, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Format updates

I've made some changes to the layout and slimmed down the wikimarkup. The principle aim was to make the presentation more compact. If you think this needs discussion first, just revert and we'll talk. Noisy | Talk 15:55, Apr 2, 2005 (UTC)

Text alignment is fine. You made it too small though. Adraeus 18:11, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Your response was obscure, so I've just removed the redundant markup. Please provide edit summaries. Noisy | Talk 16:35, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)

The vertical-align tags weren't redundant. Now the 'key people' and 'products' lettering is just floating in the middle where there are multiple products or people. This needs reverted. Crosbie 18:15, Apr 4, 2005 (BST)
Can you provide some examples please, so that I can see what you mean? Noisy | Talk 17:22, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)
Sorry, should have done so. M. M. Warburg & Co., for example. The 'key people' and products keys are now just floating in the middle, instead of at the top as they had been. Also, Carlyle Group -Crosbie 19:15, Apr 4, 2005 (BST)
I agree, let's put back the vertical alignment tags. Rhobite 18:57, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for the tips. I think it looks a lot better now. Cheers. Noisy | Talk 19:47, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)
The custom coloured lines should be avoided, not least because they make for very messy code. The cellpadding is quite sufficient to separate the lines. This aim should be skinned but simple, not pretty/cool. ed g2s • talk 22:22, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I notice you've 're-standardized' the format. I must say, I agree with ed_g2s's comment on the lines. What's the standard you're re-standardizing to? Crosbiesmith 22:51, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
That format was extremely ugly. I have no idea what Noisy thinks he's doing. The layout doesn't need to be modified in any extraordinary way. Adraeus 23:29, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Just to add my two bits on the whole fight over what this infobox should look like: I didn't like the thin horizontal lines in between each row of information (it looked painfully cluttered), but I did like putting the full company name in larger text and putting a purple or lavender background behind the cell. --Coolcaesar 02:42, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Using Template:nyse and Template:nasdaq

For lack of a better place to discuss it, I'm using this talk page to bring up the subject of linking to the proper stock exchange for each company. I feel strongly that NYSE-listed stocks should use Template:nyse like {{nyse|WMT}} and NASDAQ-listed stocks should use Template:nasdaq like {{nasdaq|YHOO}}. I think this is just common sense, since we don't want an article about Yahoo saying "NYSE: YHOO" - that would be incorrectly claiming that Yahoo trades on the NYSE, when it actually trades on the NASDAQ. Adraeus disagrees with me, he feels that the NASDAQ site is unreliable or untrustworthy, or something. He also feels that it is not misleading to say "NYSE: YHOO". I'd like some other opinions here. I may list this on Wikipedia:Requests for comment if there isn't much response here. Rhobite 00:04, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)

NASDAQ, which is not a true market, is problematic because it forecasts the value of stocks whereas NYSE is a true buy-and-sell market that reports the actual values of stocks. NYSE, AMEX, and NYBOT are the most reliable and appropriate exchanges for referencing from an encyclopedia. You really have to be a savvy investor to know what you're doing with NASDAQ. Adraeus 00:22, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I don't think that's correct - Nasdaq.com reports the last sale price, not some forecast price. I am pretty sure they'd be in legal hot water if they said "last sale" next to a price which didn't represent an actual sale price. The NASDAQ market works the same as any other market, except it's largely electronic. What does that mean, "not a true market"? If there are buyers and sellers agreeing on a price, well that's the definition of a financial market. And NASDAQ's quote site works the same way as Yahoo Finance, or Microsoft MoneyCentral, or NYSE's quote site. Do you have a reference saying that the Nasdaq.com quote site does not report the correct prices? Do you think this is a problem for the casual Wikipedia reader? Why do you think it's OK for an article to say "NYSE: YHOO"? Why not say "NASDAQ: YHOO" but link to, say, the Motley Fool's quote site? Are you aware that the template adds the article to a category? Why do you think it's OK for Microsoft to be included in Category:Companies traded on NYSE? Rhobite 00:31, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)
Read: Regarding the Establishment of a Nasdaq Closing Cross (AMEX, PDF)
NASDAQ has a history of problems with reflecting true market conditions, illogically high equity valuations, and volatility due to the heavy influence of technology companies. In addition, NASDAQ is not designed to represent a true market. It is, however, designed to forecast technology investments. (Edit: No, I wasn't aware of the categorization.) Adraeus 00:51, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure that the same quotes are used for NASDAQ-listed securities, whether you get the quotes through a site such as nasdaq.com or nyse.com. If the stock trades through a NASDAQ market maker, NASDAQ reports the price - it's not like NYSE has access to some more "accurate" sale price than NASDAQ itself. If there are fundamental problems with NASDAQ's closing price data, it certainly isn't enough to stop people from trading huge volumes on NASDAQ. I just don't see how these minor issues apply to Wikipedia's readership anyway. Serious investors will have access to Level II quotes anyway, and casual readers are not going to care about the intricacies of NASDAQ's closing cross prices. Rhobite 01:14, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)
The quotes are not the same. Note the P/E ratio, beta coefficient, yield, and shares outstanding values. Nasdaq's MSFT vs. NYSE's MSFT
If the quotes were the same, or the difference being as irrelevant as you claim, then you shouldn't have a problem with using NYSE and simply mentioning in the appropriate articles that certain companies choose to trade in Nasdaq.
No one questions that Nasdaq is a vital and lively market, but if you are an individual investor, those spreads and price manipulations will eat you alive. The odds are firmly stacked against you.
— Fun and games on Nasdaq, Forbes Magazine (1997)
Adraeus 01:53, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Actually, the P/E ratio on NYSE's site is calculated using the previous day's (March 31) closing price, whereas the P/E ratio on NASDAQ's site is calculated using the last sale price (April 1). Either method is sufficient for most investors, and neither indicates that one site is using "inaccurate" data. If I had to pick one though, I'd pick NASDAQ. Wouldn't you want your P/E ratios based on today's closing price instead of yesterday's? Remember the P/E ratio is simply price divided by EPS, but you knew that, right? The difference in beta and yield also appear to be caused by the same one-day discrepancy. I can assure you that these small differences will be understood by serious traders, who already have access to streaming quotes anyway. They are meaningless to casual readers. I am so sick of giving these lectures to people who try to edit articles in inaccurate ways. It's a waste of my time and yours. I'm done responding. Please don't change any more articles to say that NASDAQ-listed companies trade on the NYSE. Rhobite 02:08, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)
I have never changed any articles to say that NASDAQ-listed companies trade on the NYSE. Your accusations are false and based on your subjective interpretation of what an external link to NYSE might imply rather than what is (or isn't) actually written. You would do well to separate fact from fiction the next time you dare to accuse someone of wrongdoing. Adraeus 02:31, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)