Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Naming conventions (companies)/poll

< Wikipedia:Naming conventions (companies)

This poll is now closed. Thank you to those who voted. A follow-up discussion is at the Wikipedia:Naming conventions (companies).

This straw poll is intended to determine the naming conventions for businesses, corporations, companies, public limited company, limited companies, limited liability partnerships, limited liability companies, proprietary limited companies and other types of legal statuses for companies. This poll is anticipated to begin on February 10, 2006 and ended on March 5, 2006.

The goal of this poll is to achieve a naming convention consensus, or at least a sizeable majority vote, in as harmonious a manner as possible. In the case of a tie or a slight majority, there will be a run-off poll. If the run-off is also a tie or if no option receives a sufficient amount of support, the poll may need to be reworked, extended or declared void. Not voting is considered an abstension.

Poll options

edit

There are two poll options, the first addresses the legal status of the business i.e. corporation, LLP or plc. The second poll addresses is the abbreviation of the legal status i.e. Incorporated or Inc. It has two subsections or sub polls, one dealing with the article title, the other dealing with the title sentence of the article.

edit

This section deals with the usage of the word corporation, incorporated, limited, public limited company, proprietary limited company and limited liability partnership or their abbreviations (Co. and Corp., Inc, Ltd., plc, Pty. Ltd, LLP, LLC) in the titles of articles.

Suggestion Examples Pros Cons
Always include legal status. Microsoft Corporation,
French Connection Group plc 		states official legal status of the company and is the legal name of the company legal status may change, users may not know the legal status, may be unnecessarily formal
Only use legal status for disambiguation. Microsoft,
French Connection Group plc 		Uses recognized legal name for disambiguation legal status may not be well known and may not be a useful disambiguator
Never or very rarely use legal status; business interest is used to disambiguate Microsoft (software),
French Connection (clothing) 		succient, generally the "common name" for a company. businesses may not be known by a single product, major business may change over time, arguments over what is the major business (e.g. Pepsico sells more food than beverages), legal status remains important.
Never or very rarely use legal status, disambiguate with "(company)" Microsoft (company),
French Connection (company) 		succinct, generally the "common name" for a company, very clear for companies named after people, no debate about what business a company is in. some companies widely known by legal name, e.g., Ford Motor Company; could still use legal status in these cases
Legal status is not normally in title but legal status, main business interest or other disabiguator is used to disambiguate. any of the above allows for flexibility on the part of the authors. may lead to duplicate articles and/or non-functional links.
edit

This section deals with the abbreviation of corporation, incorporated and limited in article titles ((Co., Inc, and Ltd.). Public limited company, proprietary limited company and limited liability partnership would remain abbreviated. Other legal statuses such as Kommanditgesellschaft auf Aktien would be evaluated as needed. In the below example, Generic Co. Limited is the company's full legal name.

Suggestion Examples Pros Cons
Always use full legal status. La-Z-Boy Incorporated,
Daihatsu Motor Company, Limited 		more professional longer to type, may be unnecessarily formal given acceptance of abbreviations, many companies use the abbreviation as their formal chartered name
Always use abbreviation La-Z-Boy Inc,
Daihatsu Motor Co., Ltd. 		easier to type, accepted business abbreviations abbreviations can be ambiguous (JPMorgan Chase & Co.) and using abbreviations in actual article titles is perceived by some as unprofessional, unencyclopedic or jargonistic
Use company literature, but use abbreviation where ambiguous Tesco Ireland Ltd. COOK Trading Ltd. uses legal and "self-chosen" name literature may be contradictory and convention is inconsistent
Use company literature, but use full name where ambiguous Tesco Ireland Limited COOK Trading Limited uses legal and "self-chosen" name literature may be contradictory and convention is inconsistent
edit

This section deals with the abbreviation of corporation, incorporated and limited in the title sentence ((Co., Inc, and Ltd.). Public limited company, proprietary limited company and limited liability partnership would remain abbreviated. Other legal statuses such as Kommanditgesellschaft auf Aktien would be evaluated as needed. In the below example, Generic Co. Limited is the company's full legal name.

Suggestion Examples Pros Cons
Always use full legal status Generic Company Limited is the largest provider of widgets in the world more professional, in line with other naming conventions where the full name is given regardless of title. longer to type, may be unnecessarily formal given acceptance of abbreviations
Always use abbreviation Generic Co. Ltd. is largest provider of widgets in the world. easier to type, accepted business abbreviations abbreviations can be ambiguous (JPMorgan Chase & Co.) and using abbreviations is perceived by some as unprofessional, unencyclopedic or jargonistic
Use company literature, but use abbreviation where ambiguous Generic Co. Ltd. is largest provider of widgets in the world uses legal and "self-chosen" name literature may be contradictory and convention is inconsistent
Use company literature, but use full name where ambiguous Generic Co. Limited is largest provider of widgets in the world uses legal and "self-chosen" name literature may be contradictory and convention is inconsistent

Votes

edit

By signing your name to this poll while it is in progress, you agree to abide by these conditions.

Votes go below under the appropriate subheader and should be numbered, signed and dated (# ~~~~) for ease of tallying and confirmation. Each voter may cast one vote in each section. Only signed and timestamped votes by registered users made between February 10 and March 4, 2006 will be counted. Only users signed up before February 1 will be considered. If you wish to change your vote, you must do so before the poll ends or it will be counted as whatever it was when the poll ended.


edit
edit
  1. User:Noisy | Talk 21:23, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Pkchan 13:33, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
edit
  1. PedanticallySpeaking 21:26, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. No need to get into classification discussion when legal status will clarify. PhatJew 09:24, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Use business interest to disambiguate

edit
  1. If disambiguation is necessary, this is probably the most clear to readers. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 22:51, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Use "(company)" to disambiguate

edit
  1. -- Jeandré, 2006-02-11t14:10z
  2. Although the full, legal name should always be in the intro para. – Quadell (talk) (bounties) 21:21, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Use a combination of disambiguators

edit
  1. Use most sensible disambiguator, but do not normally include it --Reflex Reaction (talk)• 22:32, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Many companies have similar names, in which the product line may be a more understandable disambiguator. In other cases a diisambiguator like (company) may work better. -- DS1953 talk 23:14, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Use the most common one encountered in practice, where a disambiguator is necessary. Also, never disambiguate by what they make alone - Microsoft (software) looks like an article about software. It should be Microsoft (software company). A great example of this is Rare (video game company). Most people wouldn't have any idea what its official name, Rare Ltd, is. Deco 03:22, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Deco makes great points. --Golbez 04:07, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. I think Deco is mainly right-on, but the article on Microsoft should be named Microsoft, not Microsoft (software company), as there is no need for disambiguation. If, hypothetically, there were other Microsofts in contention for that article, then it should be disambiguated, like Deco says, as Microsoft (software company). When a company's name, minus its legal status qualifiers, is sufficient, that should be the article title. Coca-Cola and The Coca-Cola Company does it right. --TreyHarris 04:43, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Deco is spot on, except as tweaked in principle by TreyHarris. Note that Coca-Cola in the example is not suficiently disambiguous, there are multiple legal entities (with quite tangled ownership) behind Coca-Cola the product, especially among the bottling companies, which were deliberately spun off from the parent for tax and stock market reasons. ++Lar: t/c 21:11, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. TheGrappler 01:57, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
edit
edit

Always use abbreviation

edit
  1. To me, it's like saying "Jr." in a persons name, or writing out "Junior". – Quadell (talk) (bounties) 21:23, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Masonbarge 22:02, 11 February 2006 (UTC) It would be just plain silly to spell out "corporation" or "company". The abbreviation is the modern-day norm.[reply]

Use company literature, but abbreviate where ambiguous

edit
  1. Company preference and legal status should guide naming --Reflex Reaction (talk)• 22:32, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Company preference, together with custom in the financial and popular press, should take priority over the formal legal name. -- DS1953 talk 23:15, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Per DS1953. --Golbez 04:08, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. PedanticallySpeaking 21:27, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. The Coca-Cola Company and JPMorgan Chase & Co. do it right; The Coca-Cola Co. and JPMorgan Chase & Company are just plain bizarre. We'd be creating a "Wikipedianism" by using either. --TreyHarris 04:47, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. PhatJew 09:26, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. User:Noisy | Talk 21:24, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. ++Lar: t/c 21:12, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Weak support only if choice 4 is voted down. --Pkchan 15:42, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Use company literature, but use full name where ambiguous

edit
  1. Support --Pkchan 15:42, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
edit
edit
  1. Just like John McCain has the full name (John Sidney McCain III) in the intro para, we should have the full name in the intro para for companies. Just looks professional. – Quadell (talk) (bounties) 21:25, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. PedanticallySpeaking 21:27, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. I disagree that company/press usage should control here. Abbreviations can be problematic to international audiences, novices and translators. Maybe if we had links explaining the abbreviations like LLP. PhatJew 09:30, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Always use abbreviation

edit

Use company literature, but abbreviate where ambiguous

edit
  1. Company preference and legal status should guide naming --Reflex Reaction (talk)• 22:32, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Company preference, together with custom in the financial and popular press, should take priority over the formal legal name. -- DS1953 talk 23:16, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Per DS1953. --Golbez 04:09, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. I beg to differ with Quadell. "JPMorgan Chase and Company" would not be more professional than "JPMorgan Chase & Co."; to the contrary, we'd be making up a "Wikipedianism" where no such usage exists elsewhere. --TreyHarris 04:50, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. User:Noisy | Talk 21:26, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. ++Lar: t/c 21:13, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Weak support only if choice 4 is voted down. --Pkchan 15:42, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Use company literature, but use full name where ambiguous

edit
  1. Support --Pkchan 15:42, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

edit

I have recommended that any legal status longer than 13 letters be abbreviated, for the reason that "Incorporated" is the longest (12 letters) legal status that is commonly unabbreviated. It is intended as a flexible guidline. --Reflex Reaction (talk)• 22:32, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this poll is really necessary. Organic solutions have been happening already, and having them different is not a problem IMO. Just make all the redirects for all of the above cases and let it be. Redirects are cheap and effective. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 22:53, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad we're having this poll. This is one of those things where there is no "right" answer. But it is useful to decide on one way of doing things when there are so many differing possibilities. Whatever is decided on may not be "right" but it will help in consistency on Wikipedia. PedanticallySpeaking 21:29, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Consistency is very important for being user-friendly, and I think it is very important that wikipedia be user-friendly. PhatJew 09:32, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(companies)/poll&oldid=1039181239"