Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Companies/Guidelines

Companies Project‑class

This page is within the scope of WikiProject Companies, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of companies on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CompaniesWikipedia:WikiProject CompaniesTemplate:WikiProject Companiescompany articles Project This page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. WikiProject Companies To-do: Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Article requests : Wikipedia:Requested articles/Business and economics/Companies Assess : Category:Unassessed company articles Copyedit : Category:Company articles needing attention Infobox : Category:Company articles needing infoboxes Maintain : Portal:Companies Stubs : Help expand stub articles located at Category:Company stubs Other : Tag company articles with the {{portal|Companies}} template Tag company talk pages with the {{WikiProject Companies}} project banner Answer requests for comments

To attract more attention to a discussion here, it is recommended to leave a message at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Companies.

Should defunct companies still have the category [[Category:xxxx disestablishments]]. Wouldn't [[Category:Companies disestablished in xxxx]] be better? Nurg (talk) 23:27, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

At the moment no, because the latter does not exist. If you feel it should be renamed, that would need to first go through CfD, then the guideline updated accordingly. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:12, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It looks to me that the latter does exist. See List of categories: Companies disestablished in... and this Companies Portal page Category:Companies by year of disestablishment. Nurg (talk) 03:27, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like the few there were all created by a single user without discussion nor consensus. They should probably be CfDed or a merge done. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 03:43, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Problems with current practice

Lead sentences are inconsistently conceived, sometimes contradictory, and rarely sufficient succinct or broad. Some examples:

[1] "Manitowoc Company Inc is an American global company…" from Manitowoc Company "American global" is not a useful description here.

I might propose that companies do not have a nationality, but rather have a headquarters location and a distribution of revenue, offices, employees acrosss 1 or more countries.

[2] should Million and Billion be capitalized in the infobox description of company's financial data?

[3] should the magnitude used in infobox be consistent across all field of financial information? i.e., if revenues are US$5.2 Billion, should we show net income as US$0.1 Billion, or US$101.3 Million? I'd vote for the former.

[4] Should we show the year for infobox daata as (2016), or (2016), or (2016), or ⁽²⁰¹⁶⁾? I currently favor ⁽²⁰¹⁶⁾.

Mcenedella (talk)(contribs) 12:03, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[5] Noting that the Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style for currencies and monetary values suggests:

- Linking the first occurrence only of lesser-known currencies

- Not capitalizing dollars

- The "first mention of a particular currency should use its full, unambiguous signifier (e.g. A$52), with subsequent references using just the appropriate symbol (e.g. $88)"

- Currency abbreviations that come before the numeric value are unspaced if they consist of a nonalphabetic symbol only, or end in a symbol (£123; €123); but spaced if alphabetic (R 75).

Mcenedella (talk)(contribs) 19:49, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[6] Wikipedia:Writing_better_articles provides a well thought out framework for the structure of leads in articles. It emphasizes the importance of citing notability, which changes my thinking on using Fortune 1000 as an adjective in first sentences.

Mcenedella (talk)(contribs) 11:32, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[7] For handling negative numbers, there is some discussion at the company Infobox talk page, Formatting_of_negative_amounts_of_money , and the present consensus seems to be that using parentheses for negative numbers is more confusing than not for lay readers. Using a hyphen alone is insufficient, though. Perhaps using red font would be reasonable.

[8] When citing from the web a company's report, we face two alternatives for the date field: the reporting period discussed by the report, or the date of the publication of the report. For example, in the case of Briggs & Stratton, we have a 2016 Annual Report for the Fiscal Year ended July 3, 2016, and a publication date of the Annual Report of "September 2016". For the date in the citations, do we use 2016-07-03, or 2016-09-30? Mcenedella (talk)(contribs) 02:44, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've been looking into the issue of content guidelines for company articles. One of the "problems" is that broadbased traditional encyclopedias, such as Brittanica, have quite small coverage of companies so it's difficult to judge what should be considered "encyclopedic". Take for example the EB articles on Yahoo[1] and Wal-Mart[2]. A bit of history, a bit on competitors, and maybe a (very little) bit on controversy/criticism. By contrast these articles on Wikipedia are extensive (see Yahoo!,Walmart) and even have entire separate articles on for example, history (History of Yahoo!,History of Walmart) and criticism (Criticism of Yahoo!,Criticism of Wal-Mart). So we don't really have historical "encyclopedia" guidelines to set the path here, instead the wikipedia community has to do this itself. Interestingly, if one tracks back through the history of the larger company articles, a lot of the development seems to have occurred essentially due to an "arms war" between supports and critics of the companies.

Further insight for a possible structure comes from various business intelligent reports. These typically provide some brief history, key personel, financial data, product categories, and competitors. Other sources, such as the well-regarded multi-volume International Directory of Company Histories have, not surprisingly, extensive chronological histories of the companies, and some summaries of current financial data, number of employees, subsidiaries. "Controversial" issues are rolled in to the chronologies. (eg Wal-Mart[3])

To get some perspective on what's been happening on Wikipedia, I've reviewed a range of articles, trying to look at a range of company types and home countries. Some of the WP articles reviewed include -

• amazon, microsoft, godaddy, pepsico, walmart, yahoo, cannondale, dell, chrysler,at&t, renault, bhp billiton, Pfizer, Goldman Sachs, Shell/Royal Dutch Shell, Starbucks, The Walt Disney Company, Meijer, cadbury, icici bank, adidas, lufthansa, mont blanc, sanyo, seiko, avon

The review reveals no "standard" approach to companies articles apart from the commonly used company template, however a range of themes do arise, though actually headings differ. I've summarised these below, with examples of headings used in various Wikipedia articles.

Suggested Structure

WP:STRUCTURE recommends that "controversy" should be "folded into the narrative" rather on than isolated. On this basis I suggest a common content template something like the following. Actual titles might need to be adjusted to suit the article (eg the term "Corporate" may not be applicable). Sub-headings would be used where appropriate (eg Sales Data, Board of Directors)

• Lead
• History
• Corporate Structure

ownership,subsidiares, divisions, parent companies, key people

• Products, Services & Brands

brand categories, R&D, rankings, competitors

• Business Operations

locations, corporate culture, business model, sales figures

• Sales and Marketing

advertising, sponsorships, endorsements

• Reception

Awards/Recognition, Lawsuits/Legal/Fines/Sanctions

• Corporate Social Responsibility

philanthropy, environment

• External Links

Research links (BBB, Hoovers, Stock Price History, etc.)

Thoughts/comments? --Icerat (talk) 12:51, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think a suggested "template"/guideline for company articles in this project are needed and long overdue. Your suggested headers/sub-headers are a good recommended start. Incorporation locations probably should be in the Corp Structure section. Since companies exist because of a product or service, I might also suggest moving Products/Services/Brands between corporate structure and Business Ops. Leef5 (talk) 15:04, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually that was a typo, should have just been "locations" under operations. I've corrected that and moved Products as you suggest, and with which I agree. --Icerat (talk) 15:13, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have expertise in business but this template appears to be comprehensive, and would be very useful. Thanks for notifying me.Octopet (talk) 10:51, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, good work. --JN466 18:32, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Suggested implementation @ Talk:Teva Pharmaceutical Industries#Article structure --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 17:15, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Another suggestion - Since these are all companies, if they are covered in the U.S. like the Better Business Bureau, that should be one of the recommended (and allowed) External Links. I know this is talking about Structure, and the reflink and external links are pretty common across the board on all articles. Just thought that would be the proper place for their BBB score (irregardless of whether its a "good" or "poor" score). BBB scores should only ever me mentioned in the article text if it was newsworthy enough to be covered in a 2nd party WP:RS. There may be other ratings in countries not covered by the BBB, however that is outside my realm of expertise to cover. If they are reputable and considered the standard in that country, they should be allowed as well. Leef5 (talk) 01:57, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure I agree with that. It's (a) US-centric and (b) BBB has had their own issues. Worth considering though. Also definitely worth considering some standards for "external links". I'll check that on various companies articles when I get a chance. --Icerat (talk) 02:16, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just looking around for support for a deleted section which contained "competitors" (referenced). Finally managed to find this discussion (not easy, BTW). So, yes, an upgrade is long overdue!

The BBB is vastly overrated. Tends to be anti-small business, anti-out of area businesses and sometimes anti-fraud, but the state is much more active nowdays in pursuing fraud in US, and, anyway, is US-centric. Student7 (talk) 18:54, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not suggesting we put the BBB "score" anywhere in the article - 1) it's WP:NOTNEWS and 2) Who wants to keep up with checking to see if the grade has changed :) My proposal is that we should allow/require the BBB "link" in the External Links section so a reader interested in the BBB score of that company (and they can see complaint breakdowns) would be able to get to that quickly rather than searching manually. If there are other sources that would be worth including, they should be allowed/required as well (especially in areas not covered by BBB).

On this same train of thought, it also might be worth listing links of other research-related business tools like their D&B listing etc? Leef5 (talk) 19:32, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think BBB/D&B etc in external links would be appropriate. Student7 - thanks for the input. This project has been a bit dead, hopefully we can revive it as a part of the Business & Economics project, and point more people to it for Companies issues. I'm going to be travelling for the next week, but when I return I think I'll be WP:BOLD and rewrite the guidelines incorporating the info discussed here. Please encourage others to contribute here! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Icerat (talk • contribs) 21:32, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Of note, there is some discussion going on over at Talk:USAA#Eliminating_the_competition about listing competitors. I agree this is important information and would recommend inclusion in the guidelines in the "Business Operations" section. Leef5 (talk) 13:08, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Most corporate directories, company history type publications do tend to provide this information, so it's something available in RS/V sources. I vote we include it as a subsection of the products/services/brands area. --Icerat (talk) 13:26, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To recap the discussion over at USAA so we can discuss the policy here, the argument for inclusion of a competitors section is "Except for financial figures, it has to be one of the most important things about a business. Probably more important than who the officers are, for example" and the argument against is "Wikipedia is not a business analysis site. It is an encyclopedia. Every business has competitors, yet very few Wikipedia pages about businesses have a competitors section" Guy Macon (talk) 13:39, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, in my view company articles in Wikipedia are haphazardly written and structured at present, so just because they don't have something doesn't mean they shouldn't. Clearly the information is available in RS sources, so if someone really wanted to push it's inclusion, I don't think there's any legitimate reason they couldn't. I certainly think it has a place.--Icerat (talk) 14:14, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to move on getting these guidelines "published". I think the first step would be to do a pilot and rearrange an article that none of us have ever edited before, and one that doesn't appear to have a lot of traffic and update the article in accordance with the proposed structural guidelines. I don't think we need to bother with Sandboxing, since the suggested structure isn't outside any WP policies. Then based on feedback of the new article layout, we can pursue publishing these guidelines for this project.  Leef5  ^{TALK | CONTRIBS} 18:03, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to gain experience editing/structuring business articles. Do you have a suggestion for a low-traffic article to work on?Octopet (talk) 18:23, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I just went to our project page, and clicked on "C" companies, that were rated "Low" importance. Then I clicked on Filter by Category, and I put in the category: Companies listed on the New York Stock Exchange - I did this so we could have more data on a company it being public and having access to SEC filings etc. I like what I see on Cemex - the edit history is low, and little to no discussion, yet there is a decent amount of content already written. Thoughts? Or have another suggestions?  Leef5  ^{TALK | CONTRIBS} 18:39, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Let me rethink Cemex- a lot of their RS are written in Spanish, and may be a challenge on English WP.  Leef5  ^{TALK | CONTRIBS} 18:59, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here is perhaps a better choice: Becton Dickinson - Limited discussion, looks like article was created by an insider initially. Not a lot of edit activity - may be a good candidate.  Leef5  ^{TALK | CONTRIBS} 19:06, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'll take a look at it tomorrow or next time I get back.Octopet (talk) 19:15, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Awards & recognition" isn't neutral - it appears to be set up to allow only positive views. Where do the non-positive views go? Where do the regulatory fines and consumer boycotts get entered?   Will Beback  talk  20:08, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good point - Need to find a "home" for those areas, without creating a separate criticism area.  Leef5  ^{TALK | CONTRIBS} 12:22, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In some articles "Reception" has been used as a section to hold both positive and negative views. It could have awards and fines, etc.   Will Beback  talk  01:21, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds reasonable. I think since that is an overall section, we could subsection it into Awards/Recognition, Lawsuits/Legal/Fines/Sanctions, etc?  Leef5  ^{TALK | CONTRIBS} 01:34, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that'd work.   Will Beback  talk  04:48, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Likewise: "Corporate Social Responsibility: philanthropy, environment" should also be the section to include "corporate irresponsibility", such as harm to the environment, job losses, etc.   Will Beback  talk  18:53, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Any interest on working on the Becton Dickinson article as a pilot for these changes? It's been about a month since I suggested we use that article as our guinea pig, but it may have been lost in the other discussions. Trying to keep the ball rolling forward!  Leef5  ^{TALK | CONTRIBS} 15:21, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Long-term stock history

Icerat brought up on a company talk page here a discussion about long-term stock histories. Does anyone have a good example article in which these long-term stock histories would be useful? I did a quick search on Yahoo Finance tool on Yahoo itself, to get this max history chart: YHOO stock history - would it be useful including the data somewhere in the article? Or would this be more useful as an "External Link" for those interested in stock history?  Leef5  ^{TALK | CONTRIBS} 02:12, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ideally someone could collate the data, put it in a copyright free graph and then update it regularly :). Since I doubt that's going to happen, an external link to Stock History sounds appropriate. --Icerat (talk) 11:13, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This refers to a stock price history which seems promotional more than informative. Earnings history might be of more value; also other parameters: return on equity (a measure of management aptitude) and return on inventory (where applicable, a measure of management aptitude); Value Line publishes an "earnings predictability" which I take as a measure of company hype/honesty/ability. Also "price fluctuation" which may be driven by factors outside the company but is often predictable because the company is. I think price itself is non-encyclopedic. Student7 (talk) 19:46, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Job losses

Just noticed "job losses" above. While this may be considered "social harm" it sounds pov in a business environment. Normally a company decreases jobs to ensure that the company turn a profit. It may have occurred from mismanagement, or, more likely, from the market changing. In a real world, paying GM workers $200/hour (with perks, retirement, etc.) it would normally be "good" business to transfer some/most of these jobs elsewhere where costs might be less. That is, company management that moves these jobs would normally be considered "prudent" rather than "morally defective." It is financially imprudent to overpay for goods or services. A company that does that consistently is going to become bankrupt, as indeed, GM did. Student7 (talk) 13:29, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes - a benefit of the structure proposals is that job losses and recruitment in a CSR or History section will be more balanced than a Criticism or Controversy section. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 13:50, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why not simply "Employment" or "Employment history." These are neutral terms. Student7 (talk) 21:59, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unpublished companies guidelines

After a very good discussion five years ago, the effort to standardize or promulgate a standardization for companies seems to have tailed off. Icerat and Leef5 made good suggestions, and I wonder if they still believe these suggestions would be useful? I would be interested in picking up where they left off and defining a set of good practices for company articles.

I am going to continuing editing company articles for a bit and then return here to make additional proposals. Mcenedella (talk)(contribs) 18:49, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I look forward to contributing. In the meantime I deleted the section "Format/Content Guidelines" since we are still discussing what has to be included in there, and it currently contains the following template only ({{Wikipedia:Companies, corporations and economic information}}): a mere duplicate of the project main page.

Furthermore, I could not find the following sections I retrieved from the wayback machine - here - in the article's version history. Does someone know why?

Keyner Jantes (talk) 12:28, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Given the recent scandals involving the BBB, It would seem ill-advised to make BBB link a standard feature.

http://articles.latimes.com/2010/dec/27/business/la-fi-bbb-ceo-resigns-20101228

http://www.kxxv.com/story/13508758/bbb-scandal-allegations-hit-central-texas?redirected=true

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/business-bureau-best-ratings-money-buy/story?id=12123843

Guy Macon (talk) 14:18, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent articles, and it appears the controversy is over the letter grade vs. their prior pass/fail-type method. Since we recently spoke about USAA, using them as an example this is the link for the BBB page: http://www.bbb.org/central-texas/business-reviews/insurance-companies/usaa-in-san-antonio-tx-23452 Besides the letter grade in question, I would think the customer complaint summary, in which you can get more detailed info, and the other additional information sections are useful for someone to explore given that this would be listed under "External Links". I'll emphasize again, that I don't agree that the BBB "score" needs to ever be in a WP article for the reasons I mentioned previously, and perhaps more-so with the scrutiny of the above news links.  Leef5  ^{TALK | CONTRIBS} 14:42, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(Repeated here - same as notice on the Project talk page)

I have posted a recent debate on the arguments of inclusion/exclusion of stock price movements reported in the news over on the content noticeboard. Since this a public company issue, and falls squarely within the scope of this project, I would appreciate any and all commentary over on that noticeboard.

WP:Content noticeboard#Stock price movement after a news event

Thank you.  Leef5  ^{TALK | CONTRIBS} 14:05, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have asked a question at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Automobiles#Article layout guidelines - companies which has relevance here. I asked about layout for articles relating to automobile manufacturers. These fall within the scope of this project as well as Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Automobiles. The latter has clear content/layout guidelines relating to articles about automobiles but not their manufacturers. I see on this page a proposal to establish guidelines, which makes me think that neither project has actually established guidelines. Perhaps interested parties could comment on the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Automobiles#Article layout guidelines - companies with a view to agreeing which project should take precedence in determining the layout guideliness (if they are even considered necessary). --Biker Biker (talk) 13:11, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]