Talk:List of companies by revenue/Archive 1

message: I removed the row numbering since it'll cause problems when the list is updated. - Jerryseinfeld 06:23, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Row numbers

message: Not really, this is not data from the last 365 days, it's from the last reported fiscal year. Which in most cases are January to December 2003. - Jerryseinfeld 07:05, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Current or ongoing event? 

message: There are maybe 2,000 enterprises of this sort that brings in more than one billion dollar a year, why not have them in a list? For a list of just American companies, see Fortune 500. - Jerryseinfeld 07:18, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Why this list?

message: If you know of a large ($1bn+) company where you live, anywhere in the world, please feel free to include it in the list. - Jerryseinfeld 07:18, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Contribute?

message: Just wondered.  Perhaps there should be a series of articles. 
World's largest companies by revenue (2003)
World's largest companies by numebr of employees (2003)
World's largest companies by loss (2003) (or a better title)
World's most profitable companies (2003)
etc.
Then 
World's largest companies by revenue (1996-2000)
World's least profitabe companies by loss (1996-2000)
World's most profitable companies (1996-2000)
*I agree. You have to be kidding me that Microsoft isn't here. They make 32 billion a year, after all. 24.222.142.190 02:38, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where's Microsoft? 

message: Something wrong with the following phrase:
:Do not net interest income for banks and financial institutions, but net transactions for trading companies like  the Japanese and Korean ones. 
Please fix. Mikkalai 05:36, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bad phrase 

message: Im really interested in working on this, i've already added all Irish companies with over a billion dollers of revenue a year, but before I go any furture i'd really like to know why the list is'nt numbered. You might argue that it would be inaccurate because of missing companies - but by numbering them it gives an incentive to improve the list. CGorman 11:39, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: BTW I know Jerry mentioned this above, but im wondering is there any way to use auto numbers? CGorman 15:32, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Numbering 

message: This isn't getting very far. I suggest the cut off should be raised to $10 billion to give it a more realistic chance of being complete some day. Most $1 billion companies are of little interest outside their region and/or industry, and Forbes and Fortune don't extend their lists that low. There is really no way anyone not working on this subject full time (probably with a team of assistants) can keep track of all companies over $1 billion, or tell how complete it might be at that end (well obviously no where near at the moment, but imagine if there were hundreds of companies). Every year the $1 billion level will get less impressive and the number of companies that reach it will increase a lot - perhaps by hundreds. If anyone wants to rank companies at the $1 billion level, it would be better done at a local level. There really isn't any point in ranking a minor German car parts maker (unknown outside the industry and the towns where it has factories) against a small supermarket chain in Alabama. And anyway, it's pretty unlikely anyone will do it. If the completion of this article is made more feasible, it is far more likely to happen. Merchbow 23:33, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've implemented the change now. Merchbow 14:43, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Cut off at $10 billion

message: Does the USPS belong here? It's a publicly owned corporation according to its wikipedia article. It is part of the U.S. government.
I don't think it does belong as its part of the US Goverment, not publically or privately held. Atechi 15:43, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  US Postal Service 

message: The list is so old, i think we need to update this, so we can find many companies going in and out of this. We can also see many companies from China and India coming into this list. It would be nice if we includ the industry which these companies belongs. (Nubin_wiki 05:18, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Needed Updation 

message: Unitedstasian and I have been discussing whether to keep the information about where the companies are traded in and their stock symbols:
:Hey IF, I noticed you reverted my revert of your deletion of the stock symbols: as I said in my edit notes, I was hoping we could take the matter to a talk page to get more input. Are you against a broader discussion of this issue? Unitedstasian
:Sorry for having reverted your revert of that edition of mine where I had deleted the stock symbols. While I do not think that keeping them is really useful (since most of the largest companies of the world are traded worldwide), the main reason why I changed the article back to my edition is that there was some new information provided by myself (headquarters) which was going to be lost. Anyway, I am copying what you and I have discussed so far into a talk page, as requested ;) Ignis Fatuus
Ignis Fatuus 15:23, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I am readding the stock listing column, (and hopefully not removing any of the headquarters info in the process), but I am making it the primary listing so it stays shorter (and more useful, and will add the links to the exchanges other than NYSE Euronext.  If there is huge opposition, we can undo.  It will be a work in progress like the HQ info. for a while. UnitedStatesian 13:38, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stock symbols 

message: By comparing with List of corporations by market capitalization revenue column these +20bil may missing:
*Abbott Laboratories
*ABN AMRO
*Arcelor Mittal
*(Banco Bilbao Vizcaya Argentaria)
*Bank of America
*BNP Paribas
*Canon
*Cisco Systems
*Comcast
*Électricité de France
*Gazprom
*Grupo Santander
*HBOS
*China Mobile
*(Industrial and Commercial Bank of China)
*(Intesa Sanpaolo)
*Johnson & Johnson
*LUKoil
*News Corporation
*Novartis
*NTT DoCoMo
*Pfizer
*Procter & Gamble
*Rio Tinto
*Rosneft
*SABIC
*Société Générale
*Time Warner
*UBS AG
*UniCredit
*Unilever
*United Parcel Service
*UnitedHealth Group
*Vodafone
*Wachovia
*Wells Fargo
--Jklamo 05:43, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comparsion with List of corporations by market capitalization 

message: What happened to Indian Oil Corporation, Reliance Industries, Aditya Birla Group and Tata Group? Their revenues easily crosses 20 billion. --Jai Dixit (talk) 05:07, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Add them, source figures. List is very far from to be complete. Tens of missing companies are just on that talk page. --Jklamo (talk) 12:04, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  No Indian company in the list?! 

message: With the sortable table feature, should there be 1 article with revenue, capitalization, base country, employees, profits merged? The initial ranking (no numbers tho) can be per revenue or capitalization. Historical info can then be moved off to things like List of companies by employees (2006). -- Jeandré, 2007-12-22t05:39z
: That may be good idea, BUT big problem is that initial ranking. For example, if you choose market capitalization as criterion, for example Ford will not be in; if you choose revenue as criterion, Google will not be in. --Jklamo (talk) 16:57, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think there is also a size problem.  We had to cut from USD10B to USD20B for size reasons, and the more fields we add to sort on, the more we will have to cut. UnitedStatesian (talk) 22:01, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Sorting market cap works ok for first and fourth click. --Jklamo (talk) 12:37, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Sortable "List of largest companies"?

message: I propose new cut off at US$30 billions, because of article length, size and incompleteness of 20-30 part. I think it will be better to focus to the completeness more than length. --Jklamo (talk) 20:38, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  new cut off 

message: Why are some company names listed in bold face, and some not?  Does this indicate some characteristic of the company or its ranking, or is it just inconsistency among editors? --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 16:52, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Bolded companies (with some few error expections) are shown with full name, including types of business entity. So yes, it is more likely for editors than for viewers. I am not insist on it, so you can change it. --Jklamo (talk) 17:05, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bold face?