Template talk:Infobox company

Transparent Background for Logos

With the addition of "Dark Mode" on Wikipedia, some images looks odd with white background. Logos with transparent background still shows white background. Can someone with the right knowledge fix this. AdiDas5501 (talk) 17:46, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

Always link to an example page when reporting a problem. Also see the information at Help:Pictures#Dark mode. |logo_class=skin-invert-image might work for you. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:54, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

Is it intended that this is a free-text parameter? Seems like something people will exploit for very niche design choices. I feel like a simple |logo_skin_invert=yes/no would be more efficient. IceWelder [✉] 20:52, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

All of the image parameters are free text. If someone puts in something invalid, like |image_upright=It's my birthday!, this template won't stop them. Adding a parameter for each possible CSS logo class seems like a lot of work, but if a volunteer wants to pursue it, the sandbox is open for editing. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:28, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

I was under the assumption that there is only "skin-invert". Is this not correct? IceWelder [✉] 16:48, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Catalogue of CSS classes is a partial list of classes available for use on Wikipedia. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:53, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

How many of these are relevant to infobox images? `skin-invert` isn't even listed. IceWelder [✉] 17:39, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

I don't know. From a quick scan, it appears that noresize, thumb*, mw-no-invert, and probably more classes apply to images. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:12, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

Skin-invert changes some hues of the logo like light yellow. Example 2405:201:8013:400F:F970:E8CC:953A:CD76 (talk) 04:03, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

Details of "incorporation"

@Rich Farmbrough: |incorporated= is an interesting addition, but I believe its placement should not be as high up. Perhaps just below the location would be a better fit? Additiobally, we should probably amend the documentation to limit when this should be used. In 95% of cases, the place of incorporation is likely to just be the country the company is based in, and then it is not really important to include. The caption should probably read "Place of incorporation" or perhaps "Jurisdiction" to avoid it being mistaken for the incorporation date. IceWelder [✉] 06:24, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

I think it belongs with founders, as it is part of how the company was set up.

I'm interested in who would mistake it for incorporation date and how. There is a comment on the documentation, and it is not in the short form. Possibly we should have incorporation date and jurisdiction. We live in a complex world, companies trading in one jurisdiction may or may not have a subsidiary in that jurisdiction. In Amercia jurisdiction is particularly important, and is a political hit topic right now.

I'm reasonably relaxed with renaming it to "Jurisdiction" if you wish, be bold, however it's a bit ambiguous since jurisdiction is hierarchical, and companies are also liable under all the jurisdictions where they trade, and sometimes others.

I have no idea how companies "reincorporate" in another jurisdiction, but they do, this may have some relevance, it's a good reasons to leave it as a free text field.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough 15:18, 3 May 2025 (UTC).

Transparent Logo Problem Persists

As in this wiki Ancestry.com, when viewed in dark mode, the logo is shown against a white background which looks odd and defies the purpose of having a Transparent background logo.

However other templates doesn't contain this problem, like this FamilySearch. I am not looking for the skin-invert fix, i want the background to be shown transparent.

Can someone with the right knowledge fix this template‽ JDas123 (talk) 09:44, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

How a logo is shown is, as far as I am aware, an issue with the logo itself (and/or the InfoboxImage module) not specifically with this template. Primefac (talk) 14:36, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

I found the solution to it and added a new topic in this talk page detailing the solution. I just want a moderator to implement the change. And btw it isn't the issue of the logo, it' s the issue with the CSS styling of the template. I have researched for quiet a while now on this. Raino5501 (talk) 06:08, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

Found a solution for the white background in logos but I want a moderator to do the changes

In Template:Infobox company/styles.css the wikicode that defines the background colour of logo is set to:

background-color: #f8f9fa;

it must be replaced with:

background-color: transparent;

Why should it be done? Because the logo with the white background looks kinda really bad in dark mode of wikipedia. I would like a moderator to do the change since the page is protected. I am sure it would surely improve the visuals of the users who prefer dark mode over light mode. Also the skin-invert class kind of look bad with a opaque background. I hope the moderators would consider this change since it's a minor but impactful changes and would not likely cause any problem.

Raino5501 (talk) 06:05, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

Here's the link to the page: Template:Infobox company/styles.css Raino5501 (talk) 06:13, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

I think removing the background-color parameter all together is much better than "background-color: transparent;" or in case "background-color: transparent;" don't seem to work Raino5501 (talk) 06:38, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

There are no moderators. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 16:59, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

Alas, that's the harsh reality I guess. Can I tag someone perhaps JGrass123 (talk) 02:37, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

As you can see with the comment, this is a deliberate choice to avoid 1) the need to set skin-invert on arbitrary logos and 2) to prevent even needing such a parameter. And the in the meantime 3) you would have a lot of logos that would need such support that you wouldn't be able to see in dark mode. IznoPublic (talk) 03:03, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

I feel that logos without background is much better and there's relatively few logos that may require skin-invert. And I see this background issue only with this company template, no other infobox has this and they don't look bad in dark mode (Infobox Organisation for example). For me transparent background looks much better and sleek. Also skin invert with a background looks more bad, see Apple Inc. Raino5501 (talk) 04:09, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

No other infobox has this because they haven't been gotten to, not because they shouldn't. Logos specifically are uploaded expecting a light background. Sorry, but your request simply isn't going to be implemented. Izno (talk) 04:28, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

Hello, I have been summoned for my opinion. I agree with Izno that is is porobably not something we will tackle at the moment. I do, however, also agree that something should be done to combat infoboxes having a giant white blob in dark mode. Something akin to a |logo_invert= parameter with values for inversion (no background), no inversion (white background), and no inversion (no background, i.e. for fully colored logos). This is something the Infobox module team would have to deal with, however. IceWelder [✉] 17:36, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

Some logos are invertable; others are not. A company may have registered their logo as a trademark, specifying particular colours (perhaps as Pantone numbers). When I worked for Alcan in the 1980s, the logo had already been registered, and the specification not only included the two colours, but also such trivial things as the number of stripes in the right-hand half. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:00, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

I agree with IceWelder 2409:40E0:50:1331:8000:0:0:0 (talk) 13:38, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

I also agree with Raino 2409:40E0:50:1331:8000:0:0:0 (talk) 13:39, 26 May 2025 (UTC)