Talk:Types of business entity

Norway, people!

Norway: SA needs to be added (cooperatives) ^[1] Also the definition of BA is somewhat faulty. In a general partnership with shared liability (DA), the partners jointly are personally liable for the enterprise's total liabilities, but each partner is only liable in proportion to his or her ownership interest in the partnership. ^[2] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.202.48.157 (talk) 08:54, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well... Since this page is on EnWiki, perhaps it would be useful to give an approximate English equivalent of a type of corporate, or a translation of its name. I know that "Wikipedia is not Wiktionary (a dictionary)", but given only a Spanish name like "Sociedad de responsabilidad limitada" I have no idea what the abbriviation actually stands for. (Well, in this case I do have, but just because a similar French type is very close to it. :-)

i got a quite complete list of international types of corporations, maybe i can upload it sometime and this article could be made complete [anonymous]

Seconded. Following each unabbreviated original-language phrase, like "Aktieselskab", is needed a parenthetical ("literally ??"); these words are not found in ordinary dictionaries, or they are translated as the equivalent types, not the literal.71.191.171.250 (talk) 23:33, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mexico

The information about Mexico is not only incomplete, but wrong, S.C. does not mean "Comandita Simple" but Civil Society (a legal entity in Mexico). Please use the information here from the College of Notaries to correct it. http://www.colegiodenotarios.org.mx/?a=1324

Limited Corporation

Does anybody know if "Limited Corporation" is a legal business status in the United States. If so, what is its abbreviation, and how does it differ from a Corporation (Inc.) and Limited Liability Company (LLC)?

-Brian in Wilton, CT

World-wide type of company

Just wondering, when companies expand multi-nationally, is there a particular symbol/corporation mark that is used? If so, should this be put into the wiki? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by MonsieurAquilone (talk • contribs) 08:32, 18 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Canada

I'm surprised Canada is not on the list of countries. I'm curious how they operate there. Do the provinces control them? Are things different in Quebec? etc. Do they follow other British Commonwealth practice such as that of Australia? --Larry G 08:54, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Depending on whether you want to operate in one province or across Canada you can choose to incorporate provincially or federally. There are indeed differing methods and rules concerning corporations from province to province. Even if you don't incorporate federally, you can expand your scope of operation into other provinces using extra-provincial incorporation. I am pretty sure in BC you are required to have at minimum a secretary and a president. I agree it would be nice to see more Canadian methods of operation here. Bzzhuh 18:48, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

merge with types of companies

certainly not. Hmains 04:09, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No. They should be kept separate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.145.157.132 (talk) 10:31, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know diddly about the difference between companies/corporations/etc., but I'll take you guys' word for it. I have removed the merge tag. jwillbur 00:51, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The source of the confusion here is that in some countries (eg the US) "corporation" is a type of "company" (a more broadly defined business entity which includes partnerships), whereas in other countries (eg the UK) a "company" is a type (the main type) of "corporation" and does not (in normal usage) include a partnership. So the distinction is meaningless to some and important to others. There is no easy solution to this other than to merge the two articles and call it "Types of business entity". But you would then have to decide whether and how you classified them. E.g some corporations (e.g. an Unlimited Company) do not have limited liability, some business entities are not legal persons (e.g. partnerships in England but not in Scotland), some corporations do not have shareholders, etc. Mhockey (talk) 12:49, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that this confusion exists is surely an excellent reason to abandon the separate "Types of companies" and "Types of corporations" lists, and to make a single list or table, entitled (as you suggest) "Types of business entity". Has there been a discussion on a merge proposal somewhere else? I deduce from the above posts that there was a proposal but it was withdrawn. In any case, both articles (particularly the companies one) are in sore need of work.--Kotniski (talk) 16:57, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please Separate Articles Again !

Ladies and Gentlemen, PLEASE :

return the original SEPARATE page for "types of corporations": CHANGE ITS TITLE if you want (eg to "alphabetical list of company abbreviations" or something), and have a link between the two articles at the very beginning of each...BUT: PLEASE return the old one as it was, for two very simple reasons:

1. it makes it HUGELY simpler to compare and contrast similar company abbreviations between countries;

2. it was a useful Alphabetical list presented IN A WIKITABLE SORTABLE which could, IN ANY CASE, be re-arranged by country anyway - thus actually making THAT article much more useful than THIS one...

It's true - it was somewhat confusing to have two separate tables in that one, but this could be easily solved by making one table and simply adding an extra column in which the business entity is specified as a "company", "corporation", "sole trader" or whatever.

I've known both articles for several months now and had both in my internet favorites for easy reference to aid me with further research (i'm a translator, by the way, often translating business and politics articles), and used to find the OTHER (table-based) article MUCH more useful than this one - as, I am sure, many other people also did - as it was clear and to the point. And, as i said above, covered the same topic this one does through the fact that the table could easily be sorted by country.

(FURTHERMORE - I feel it had more direct links to articles on the various company types, which have not been completely transferred to this one).

So, again...PLEASE return the old one ALSO. (the IT system at the agency i work at does not allow us to enter registration pages on the net, hence why i am not a registered user).

At the VERY least...please make THIS article some sort of Wikitable-Sortable, for comparison purposes...

I eagerly await a decision on the matter

Thank You62.176.111.68 (talk) 08:59, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, no harm in resurrecting the old table which used to be at Types of companies, if you find it useful. You'll find it in that page's edit history. But it had much less information in it than this one, and probably won't be developed (at least, we don't want the maintaining/developing effort to be split between two pages, and this one is now in a far better state than that one was), so I wouldn't want it to be at a place which had too many links going to it. So not at types of companies, but something that doesn't exist yet, like List of business abbreviations or whatever, with just the one link from this page.--Kotniski (talk) 16:14, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

excellent suggestion about the "list of business abbreviations", i'm all for that, thanks. that would be cool - simply have one link to that page from this one and nothing else, and keep THIS page as the main page everything else links to (and obviously, have a note on the other one saying main article: types of business entity).

could you please send me - or post here - a more precise link to the ORIGINAL history page that you mention, however, since the "history" of it seems to automatically go to the history of the CURRENT page (kinda like in Back to the Future II ! :-) ). I just can't seem to find it...

Thanks, Nic

ps. could You resurrect it tho, please, or ask someone who is interested in doing so, since, as i said, i can't register on Wiki and do it myself... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.176.111.68 (talk) 19:48, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've resurrected it onto (a subpage of) your IP-numbered talk page.--Kotniski (talk) 09:17, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed treatment

To try and tidy up this and the Types of companies page, I would suggest the following (per above):

Merge the two into a new page called (something like) Types of business entity

Format the new page as a list, by country (i.e. like this page is as present, not as a table like on the "companies" page)

Tidy up the entries, removing vague or incomprehensible information, preferring simply to indicate rough equivalence to referenced entities, something like this for the first two countries:

Albania

Sh.A., Sh.a. (Shoqëri Anonime): ≈ PLC (UK)
Sh.p.K., Sh.p.k. (Shoqëri me Përgjegjësi të Kufizuar): ≈ Ltd. (UK)

Argentina

S.A. (Sociedad Anónima): ≈ PLC (UK)
S.R.L. (Sociedad de Responsabilidad Limitada): ≈ Ltd. (UK)
Sociedad en Comandita: ≈ limited partnership

Of course, those countries which have more specific information will stay looking much as they do now.

I think this is necessary, since much of this list at present is hard to understand or even misleading. And there seems to be no reason to keep corporations and companies in separate lists, since even now the distinction is not being respected (and would be meaningless anyway for most countries). The tabular form (which allows sorting by abbreviation or by country) might seem a neat idea, but in practice I can't imagine anyone wanting to browse these other than by country, and to me the list looks tidier and more flexible than the table.--Kotniski (talk) 18:19, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Turkey

Another missing country to add - this page lacks adequate detail http://www.asistanbul.net/en/business_guide_turkey - hope someone can add better source. thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.127.253.13 (talk) 19:59, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have started tidying the entries as illustrated above; down to Germany so far.--Kotniski (talk) 11:50, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Last call for any opposition to the move to Types of business entity - if no objections are forthcoming, I'm going to move it.--Kotniski (talk) 18:47, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't Netherlands have this: Comm.VA (Commanditaire Vennootschap op Aandelen)/SCA (Société en Commandite par Actions): limited partnership with shares? 62.65.236.175 (talk) 05:33, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kenya

Why is Kenya missing? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.85.72.242 (talk) 05:07, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Switzerland

Why is Switzerland missing!? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.244.197.164 (talk) 09:40, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Because someone (like yourself) has not gotten around to it. Remember, this is a volunteer effort. --77.57.164.254 (talk) 10:44, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Need to add novel Maryland Benefit Corp type

Maryland First State in Union to Pass Benefit Corporation Legislation Posted: Apr 14, 2010 – 10:57 AM EST http://www.csrwire.com/press_releases/29332-Maryland-First-State-in-Union-to-Pass-Benefit-Corporation-Legislation 71.178.221.220 (talk) 02:43, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Italy

I've found "Surl" as type of business entity in Italy: http://it.kompass.com/profile_IT0003900_it/cavalleri-surl-gi.html --BuSchu (talk) 14:04, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

it's worng, the correct version is Srl (Società a responsabilità limitata) LAUD (talk) 16:36, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is another wrong point: "S.s. (Società semplice): ≈ sole trader (UK), sole proprietorship (US)". well, the S.s. is not similar to a sole trader, is a partnership (società = partnership) but is more like a general partnership. the difference between the S.s and the S.n.c. is that the S.n.c. is focused on commercial partnerships, while the S.s. is focused on agricolture (see: http://it.wikisource.org/wiki/Codice_civile) LAUD (talk) 16:36, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Move from "types of business entity" to "business entity"

Please be aware that this move can easily be reversed by an administrator. This was one of those times where the proper name appeared to be so obvious, at least to me, that I simply changed it rather than going through the official moving process. If people disagree with the move, I can move it back if you holler on my talk page or you could get another administrator to do it. You could also go through the formal moving process at Wikipedia:Requested moves. Previously, the term "business entity" simply redirected to the business article. Since an article on business entities would discuss the different types of business entities, it seemed appropriate to simply rename the article. Now, if you want to move the article back to its old name, have a separate article on business entities, have "business entity" redirect to the "business" article again or have it redirect to the old name of this article, please let me know. Please use my talk page, as I will not be watching this page. Also, I hope that it is not a problem, but I did not fix all of the double redirects. Almost none of them have articles linked to them. Instead, the other articles linked directly to the article. I was just going to wait for the bot that is promised on the "move succeeded" page to fix them. -- Kjkolb (talk) 04:43, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with this move. The article will need a few sentences added to the lede indicating what exactly a "business entity" is. bd2412 T 11:52, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Business entity should never have redirected to business but to the same target as legal entity, which is Legal personality. I have made that change and moved this list back to Types of business entity. – Fayenatic London 14:42, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - But several of the entities listed here have no legal personality! Everybody got to be somewhere! (talk) 22:50, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pronounciation (IPA)

Someone reverted my attempt on making the IPA correct with the comment that the intent here is only to help English speakers in business contexts simply approximate the pronunciation. My question is: Why use IPA at all when not doing it right? If someone wants to learn the correct pronunciation, they can look up the IPA characters. If they don't, they can just pronounce it in English and most Germans will understand anyway. --DerPaul (talk) 08:59, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

muskan

muskan 110.224.34.78 (talk) 09:19, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

[1] ttps://www.altinn.no/en/Start-and-Run-a-Business/Before-start-up/Choosing-an-organisational-structure-/Cooperative-societies-SA/

[2] ttps://www.altinn.no/en/Start-and-Run-a-Business/Before-start-up/Choosing-an-organisational-structure-/Partnerships-ANSDA-/

[1]

[2]