Talk:List of public corporations by market capitalization

Big Fix

I just made big update. My suggestions for that list for future: Keep adding quaterly lists, due rising article size 2007 first quarter list can be cutted off (full size will be still on List of corporations by market capitalization on 30th March 2007, maybe it will be expanded more), adding more than top10 companies can be considered, some graphs may be added. --Jklamo (talk) 16:46, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Financial Times source is wrong

Google's Market Cap is 171 Billion. It should be below toyota. (Bjorn Tipling (talk) 20:41, 22 June 2008 (UTC))

As written in lead of article, list is up to date as of March 31, 2008. Check source [1] - google makret cap was 104 bil in that time. --Jklamo (talk) 22:55, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

According to your source, Cnooc Ltd. 3.66T BCH Banco de Chile 2.08T and EC ECOPETROL SA have really big market caps. How come they are not in your list?

B of A is showing $1.2T for the most recent published quarter. As close as I can tell this list is almost nothing but errors and omissions with a possible goal of lauding Apple.73.185.194.135 (talk) 15:56, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Billions in stead of millions

Should the Market Value be in Billions instead of Millions?

• Agree I think it should be too Iady391 | Talk to me here 19:04, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

The Fleming Organization, Inc.?

I understand that as a marketing firm, the Fleming Organization has many employees talented in a wide and varied field of skills, but obviously reading and comprehension is not among them. As the title of this article says, this is a page that contains a list of the worlds largest companies, based off the Financial Times data. Downloading their latest report (Sep 08), I discovered that not only was the Fleming Organization not the largest company by market cap, but it failed to feature on the list at all. Further investigation revealed that had merely replaced Exxon Mobil with themselves. If you must vandalize pages with advertising for your company, at least try to be original. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Veloxsilentium (talk • contribs) 08:12, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Legend

This page should have a legend for the table, not everyone immediately knows what the symbols mean, especially the blue line. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.144.44.83 (talk) 00:29, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I completely agree with that. I keep on seeing these green and red arrows on this page, and on the page of the company's but I still don't have any idea what they mean. A legend would be very helpful. (Maxynator123 (talk) 19:17, 1 May 2009 (UTC))

What about Grupo Televisa SA? Allegedly worth 1.2Trillion?

Heres a link off Google finance

Grupo Televisa SA (TV) ADRs

http://www.google.com/finance?q=NYSE%3ATV

market cap 1.20 Trillion! should be the world's biggest, if that is correct. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.26.70.94 (talk) 19:43, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Vodafone is showing on Google finance as a 9 Billion dollar market cap company, but it should be high above 100 Billion. I've seen more bugs on Google finance that were eventually solved. Grupo Televisa SA and Vodafone will eventually get fixed.

I've got another source for market caps, which is http://corporateinformation.com/Top-100.aspx?topcase=b . It also bugs sometimes, but it get's fixed on the next update. Also, they only update the table once a week.

What about Berkshire Hathaway?

Berkshire shares BRK.A have a market cap above GE (http://www.forbes.com/sites/dividendchannel/2012/11/21/berkshire-hathaway-moves-up-in-market-cap-rank-passing-general-electric/). Why aren't they on the list? Edmund Blackadder (talk) 19:23, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

This is not live daily-updated list, but quaterly updated list. BRK was 11th as of 31 December 2012, so it is not listed in 2012 table. BRK was in top 10 for some quaters in 2010 and for those it is already listed in article (see 1Q, 2Q and 3Q 2010). --Jklamo (talk) 00:43, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

PetroChina sources

I don't know where you're getting the information about PetroChina's market cap. None of my usual sources show it above 200 Billion right now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by KTachyon (talk • contribs) 21:13, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Obviously I'm getting it from the quoted FT Global 500 list, as it has always been in this article. The last one (March 2010) doesn't work well, but if you save it as a PDF file, you'll be able to read it as the other ones. We'll see what happens in June. :) --MaeseLeon (talk) 01:16, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Apple tops PetroChina in market capitalization

Apparently, Apple overtook PetroChina in market capitalization today. Can someone change this? I don't want to break anything. Here's the source: http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20100923/bs_afp/uschinaitcompanystockstechnologyapplepetrochina --98.111.132.42 (talk) 23:21, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

This list is not made on daily capitalizations, but on the quarter totals provided by Financial Times. Otherwise it would be impossible to maintain at a reasonable pace. --MaeseLeon (talk) 03:03, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

PetroChina first public trillion dollar company

To put current market capitalizations into perspective, one should mention that PetroChina was the first public company to reach a trillion dollar market cap.

Quiname (talk) 20:08, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Saudi Aramco between 2.2 trillion and 7 trillion?

According to the Financial Times Non-Public 150, Saudi Aramco was estimated at 0.781 trillion US$ in December 2006. This seems like a rather conservative estimate. Saudi Aramco is the only company besides Petrochina whose estimated value exceeded US$ 1.0 trillion at some point. While I was not able to find official data for dates before or after 2006, there is speculation that Saudi Aramco's true value is actually in the range US$2.2 trillion to US$7 trillion. Why? It is producing 4 billion barrels per year, equivalent to US$300 billion. A large profit margin yields US$110 - US$180 billion in annual profits, which would translate into a reasonable market cap of US$2.2 trillion - US$3.6 trillion, according to Sheridan Titman who refers to a Financial Times estimate of US$7 trillion: http://blogs.mccombs.utexas.edu/titman/2010/03/01/more-thoughts-on-the-value-of-saudi-aramco/ . Obviously Saudi Aramco has dwarfed all Western companies for decades; it just did not show up in the Forbes rankings limited to public companies. Since all of this is relevant for the historic parts of the article I'd greatly appreciate if someone could provide unambiguous data. Quiname (talk) 20:47, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Missing redirect

searching "Largest Companies" redirects to this page, but searching "Largest Corporations" doesn't even list this page in the first page of results. I don't know how to fix this, but it seems like both should redirect here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.92.11.73 (talk) 15:46, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Royal Dutch Shell, Hong Kong

The issue with RDS hq (and other "mulithq" companies, like BHP Billiton or Rio Tinto) is disputable and it is out of the scope of this list. Thus best option is to keep up with source FT data. Same for Hong Kong vs China issue. --Jklamo (talk) 06:41, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

But RDS is foremost a Dutch company (headquartered in The Hague) with a second registered office in London. Why is it 'disputable' and 'out of scope'? It seems illogical to repeatedly remove the Dutch flagicon in favor of a Great British one. Please provide sources as to why these icons shouldn't be displayed both, and why only the British (and not the Dutch flag) - what is the reasoning behind that. 62.21.180.82 (talk) 08:36, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

As explained below, RDS is marked with hq in UK in source Financial Times table. It is out of scope of the article as this list of corporations by market capitalization, not list of corporations by its hq. --Jklamo (talk) 19:49, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Ah, so Wikipedia is now merely a place for information to be shown verbatim, whether or not such information is correct. Got it. --46.208.231.30 (talk) 00:18, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Nope, as said before, these cases are disputable, so there is not one correct and one incorrect option, but sipmly two (or three) disputable options. --Jklamo (talk) 22:18, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Shell crearly states its headquarters are located in the Netherlands. http://www.shell.com/home/content/footer/about_this_site/contact_us/ . Therefore, Shell should be marked as a Dutch company. --Pereant antiburchius (talk) 15:30, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Bus Shell same crealy states that "The parent company of the Shell group is Royal Dutch Shell plc, which is incorporated in England and Wales." [2] and the shares traded on stock exchanges are issued by RDS plc. So it is not clear and it is disputable. As this discussion is out of the scope of this list (this is list of corporations by market cap, not the list of corporations by hq or the list of countries by its companies market cap), it is simply better to not discuss here and stick to FT source. --Jklamo (talk) 10:01, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

What's the problem with leaving both flags up there - as the company has been represented as such in the previous years. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.211.94.45 (talk) 13:35, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Ycharts

I removed Ycharts for 2012 and updated again using FT. FT is better because the figures are archived (there is no archive at Ycharts, that is just snapshot) and principally FT has much better coverage of stock excahnges (including Russia, Brazil, Japan, South Korea..). I do not see any advantage if using Ycharts against FT, as this is not day-to-day updated list and its aim is more to show historic trends than to show most recent numbers. Jklamo (talk) 09:49, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

The YCharts had been added again replacing the FT list. I restored the FT list, keeping the Ycharts version as well. The FT list should stay on this page as the source is archived. If somebody cares enough to keep the Ychart list up to date, I won't stop them. But as it is a snapshot, the source is not verifiable, so it probably should be removed 209.91.107.153 (talk) 19:01, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

I removed Ycharts again per reasons above. --Jklamo (talk) 21:39, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Graph

Could someone make a better graph? The colors are confusing since there are too many lines, giving similar colors to different companies, the axes are hard to read, and it's clearly done in Excel with clearly very little effort into making it look pretty.

Furthermore, I'm honestly not convinced the style is even the best way to portray it. What's it trying to show, the volatility of the top corporations? I'm unsure why that would be the lead image, then. And if it's not trying to show that, is it just trying to show who is currently the top company? Because I think there would be better ways to do that too. Stever Augustus (talk) 11:04, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Feel free to make a better graph and replace the current one. --Jklamo (talk) 21:10, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree, it's a horrible graph which is transparently done in Microsoft Excel using the default font settings and almost no thought.

Google is missing

Google is currently at a market cap of over $290B, and should be added to several items. 25 September 2013 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.98.81.40 (talk) 23:09, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

The list is not (and there is no intentnion to be) daily updated. Date of information is clearly stated. --Jklamo (talk) 14:22, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

That seems like a lame excuse to not update this list since Google's market share isn't going to change that often give it's basically the third largest company in the world. What other reasoning do you have to offer as to why Google isn't on this list? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pchov (talk • contribs) 19:37, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Discrepancies between FT data and other sources?

It seems like the FT data has some pretty different numbers from other sites I'm looking at. For example, they list the market capitalization for GOOG at $237B on September 30th, 2013. Other sites like Wolfram Alpha give a figure closer to $292B on the date: http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=GOOG+market+cap+on+september+30th+2013. Does anybody know why there's such a substantial difference between these sources? Working backward from (the number of outstanding shares * the share price on that date) gives the same figure as Wolfram Alpha. --50.79.35.242 (talk) 07:12, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

What are these sources? Wolfram Alpha is not valid source, as it is only secondary source not quoting primary sources. I guess it does not taking into account both classes of Google shares.

Page has incorrect names

A "list of public corporations by market capitalization" needn't include EVERY corporation. The S&P 500 might be a logical subset.

But to use this for a page restricted to a tiny number of only the LARGEST corporations is absurd -- though, unfortunately, increasingly typical of Wikipedia.

Kindly change the name to "List of largest public corporations by market capitalization "

Jamesdowallen — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.42.87.233 (talk) 17:07, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

State own companies out of date

It seems out of date. Iady391 | Talk to me here 19:04, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Personally I think that section should be deleted as it is not relevant to the article "list of public corporations by market capitalisation" - by definition those companies are not public, and do not have a market capitalisation. Market cap ≠ enterprise value. In addition, data from 2006 is completely outdated. 94.119.64.0 (talk) 16:04, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

I deleted the section - happy to discuss with anyone with an opposing opinion 94.119.64.0 (talk) 16:14, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

I think that state-owned section should be kept for comparsion. Name of article is not relevant, as it was changed multiple times. --Jklamo (talk) 23:20, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

I disagree as state-owned companies are not public, have no market capitalisation, the data is nearly 10 years out of date (look at how much the value of Apple has changed over 10 years), and therefore cannot serve as a reliable comparison. While I would still object to the top 10 private companies, state-owned is even worse as it excludes privately owned non-state companies. I really do think it should be deleted 131.111.5.161 (talk) 11:21, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

The non-public list does not exclude private owned non-state companies, just in top 10 there are only state-owned. Good point, i will correct the description. The list is old, if you have any newer, feel free to update it.--Jklamo (talk) 18:02, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

I still argue this section is irrelevant and out-of-date (with no compelling updated information to replace it). Saudi's potential IPO for Saudi Aramco would value the company at $2tn for example (and IPO shares tend to trade at a discount...). I think the very fact that the FT hasn't attempted a chart like this for the last 10 years is telling 131.111.184.8 (talk) 22:08, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Wolfram Alpha

As I mentioned in edit summary, I disagree with using Wolfram Alpha as source for these reasons:

• exact source is missing - in conflict with Wikipedia:Verifiability
• WA is listing just US listed corporations, corporations from China or Europe are missing, thus data are incomplete and incomparable.

--Jklamo (talk) 03:00, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Jklamo unless you know where to go and get the FT source from it simply isn't on the website. If you click the link it gives you the entry for Q2. As far as i'm aware there are no other websites (not even Forbes) that can give a top-10 summary by quarter. Please, if you know of somewhere where you can find this information please go and get it. If not WA forms the next best source. Agreed, that it may only chart US companies, but we're in a fortuitous situation where there are no non-US companies in the top-10 at the moment, ergo, the WA information is valid and accurate as we can best get hold of. WA can be checked alongside resources such as Google Finance for accuracy too. If you have any alternatives please air them... XyZAn (talk) 11:12, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Jklamo is completely correct and those figures are completely inaccurate. Up-to-date source is here: http://markets.ft.com/Research/Markets/DataArchiveFetchReport?Category=&Type=GMKT&Date=03/31/2016 131.111.184.8 (talk) 23:02, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

I have edited the article - market caps should now be correct as of 31st March 2016. Wolfram Alpha and Google Finance are not reliable sources of market cap data. 131.111.184.8 (talk) 23:02, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

I've just noticed that the same issue applies to Q3 and Q4 2015, I will add in that data too when I have the time 131.111.184.8 (talk) 23:11, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

"Click to reveal information for 2000–2010 " not clickable

The "Click to reveal information for 2000–2010 " does not appear to be clickable. At least for me nothing happens when I click it in chrome or edge. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.210.162.30 (talk) 15:52, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

I updated the collapsing areas for 1996-9 and 2000-4 based on format of the content. Javascript has to be enabled to support this.

Corporate suffixes

This is pedantic but is there any consensus on how or whether to include the corporate suffix, i.e. Inc. or Corporation? I notice this is only really applied to Apple, Facebook, and Amazon. However, it would equally apply to other companies so maybe we should drop them and keep things consistent? Also, Amazon is Amazon.com, Inc. not Amazon Inc. Qzd (talk) 03:12, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Qzd, WP:NCCORP would suggest that the legal suffix is not usually included an article title, I don't therefore see why you'd need to include it in the link.XyZAn (talk) 12:56, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks @XyZAn: I've changed Facebook and Amazon to reflect their respective article titles, sans suffix. Apple is still titled Apple Inc. so that can remain as-is. Qzd (talk) 18:45, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

In my opinion it is useful to have corporate suffix in a cases, where wiki article cover two concepts (company and brand or site), to indicate that market capitalization is connected with clearly company. But no strong opinion, current state after Qdz edit is acceptable for me.--Jklamo (talk) 15:18, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Historical Record Market Capitalizations

Should companies be added that have had amazingly high market caps in the past?

Date	Company	Record value	Inflation Adjusted value (USD)	Notes
1637	Dutch East India Company	78 Million Dutch Guilders	7.4 Trillion
1720	Mississippi Company	200 million British Pounds	4 Trillion
1720	South Sea Company	300 million British pounds	6 Trillion

I don't think so. It is just random selection and long term inflation calculations are bit dubious. But maybe a "non-table" mention in Record market capitalization is possible.--Jklamo (talk) 15:42, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Besides which, I don't think those values can be right. For example, dividing 7.4 trillion by 78 million dutch guilders would mean that a single 1637 guilder would have had equivalent worth to modern 94872 dollars. I doubt the guilder was so powerful a coin that you could have bought a domicile for it, so those values fail a basic sanity check. The International Institute of Social History website has an inflation calculator that says 1 guilder in 1637 would be the equivalent of 11.51 euro in 2016. That would mean that the Dutch East India Company's 78 million guilder valuation was the equivalent of about 898 million euro -- big, but hardly trillions. Samy Merchi (Talk) 06:25, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

References

FT 500 mis-reports Alphabet, Facebook, Berkshire Hathaway by only counting class-A shares

Here is the latest FT 500 report: http://markets.ft.com/Research/Markets/DataArchiveFetchReport?Category=&Type=GMKT In this report the Alphabet (GOOG) market cap is quoted as 234634.31M which corresponds to 296,087,212 outstanding Class A shares per Q4 2016 SEC filing https://www.sec.gov/cgi-bin/viewer?action=view&cik=1652044&accession_number=0001652044-16-000038&xbrl_type=v multiplied by a December 2016 closing price of 792.45. Why is FT 500 only counting Class A shares? Every other source cites the sum of Class A, Class B, and Class C putting Alphabet market cap at >530B? Even Morningstar, the source FT cites, uses the sum of Class A, Class B, and Class C. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.109.86.218 (talk) 21:32, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Good point, I already noticed it. I agree that we need to identify companies with multiple classes, that are listed, and try to found better source for them (and make corrections). But that is a bit challenging, as other sources are mostly only current snapshots without possibility of historic view.

So we can try to identify affected large market cap companies (feel free to update the list):

• Alphabet
• Bank of China
• Berkshire Hathaway
• BHP Billiton - only one class is listed
• China Construction Bank
• Facebook - only one class is listed
• Industrial and Commercial Bank of China
• Petrochina
• Roche
• Royal Dutch Shell
• Samsung Electronics
• Sinopec
• Toyota - only one class is listed

--Jklamo (talk) 15:35, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Alphabet+Berkshire Hathaway fixed using ycharts.Jklamo (talk) 19:08, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Alibaba missing

Alibaba had a market cap of ~$360B on the last quarterly update, but is not listed, while smaller companies are listed. It may be missing for other quarters as well (haven't checked). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:540:C402:16E0:21CE:EEE4:BF7C:C5F (talk) 06:35, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for noticing, strange that it is not included in FT report (despite is single class stock). I added it to last quarter and checked previous.--Jklamo (talk) 09:13, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Inflation adjustment

According to https://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/cpicalc.pl?cost1=618.90&year1=199912&year2=201801 The Microsoft value inflation adjusted should be 911, instead of 868. Anyone know why it's not updating? Pablogelo (talk) 01:25, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Pablogelo it appears the markup is using the inflation parameter 'US-GDP', if you change to jut 'US' it calculates Microsoft to $909 billion, so I guess its a question of which is the correct one to use in this instance. XyZAn (talk) 08:21, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

GOOG vs GOOGL

GOOG is class C stock, and GOOGL is class A. Currently GOOG is used in this article, which gives a market cap of 717.40, but using GOOGL would give a different market cap of 721.12. Which of the two should be used? --Mauricio360 (talk) 18:25, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

What sources do you use?--Jklamo (talk) 08:08, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

I used ycharts, the same as the article, on the date of March 31st. --Mauricio360 (talk) 08:11, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

1996-2010 links in index fail when...

1996-2010 links in index fail when they are hidden, that is when "Click on [show] right to reveal information for..." has NOT been clicked. Hidden seems to be the default. A workaround is to click on "2.8 2011" and scroll down and click on show, then back. A note to this effect on the index would be kind of tacky but would help. Alternately make "shown" the default but then what's the point. A little system gotcha. Fholson 14:29, 11 February 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fholson (talk • contribs)

2005 Data?

The data for 2005 is missing. Anyone with an FT subscription who has access to the data? The old eclippings are now behind a paywall. (Should probably archive all of them somewhere for future reference.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.97.59.176 (talk) 14:25, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Visa (V)

Visa should be in the top 10 for Q1, Q2, Q3 of 2019. See link: https://ycharts.com/companies/V/market_cap — Preceding unsigned comment added by Farful (talk • contribs) 15:05, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

You are right, thanks for note. I have updated the list.Jklamo (talk) 21:06, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

This is NOT a "List of public corporations by market capitalization"

Either the title of the page should be changed, or the contents should be amended to match the title.

The title should be "Short list of largest public corporations by market capitalization."

There are 500 companies on the S&P 500 alone! No, I don't think the list need include all the several thousands of publicly traded corporations in the world; some smaller number -- several hundred -- would be fine. Compromise and make the list just have 150 names or thereabouts if you wish. Ten instead of 150? ::whack:: No, that ain't it.Septimus.stevens (talk) 06:14, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Aramco Free Float

The beginning of the article states that only companies with a free float of at least 15% are included. However, Aramco tops the 2019 Q4 list despite having a free float of only 1.5%. I might just be misunderstanding something here but I believe Aramco shouldn't be included. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:A000:D081:A600:2098:6886:CA09:F850 (talk) 00:02, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

I have to agree with him, Aramco still doesn't have free floating of 15%, this may happen in 2020, but until there remove Aramco from the list or include other companies with less than 15% free float and remove such a role or lower the bar to 1% --Pablogelo (talk) 21:07, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Amazon

Without wanting to rekindle old edit wars, is there any reason why Amazon is not included in the list of trillion dollar companies? 93.117.220.196 (talk) 15:09, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Should the old company names on the lists be renamed to their current name?

I was looking through the tables on the page and saw that there were old names of companies being displayed (e.g "BHP Billiton" is now only called "BHP" ; "Wal-Mart" is now "Walmart") should I change the names to the updated names or leave it as is for reference?
ScratchyGamer314 (talk) 01:19, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

I would that though as they were, as its a historical record? You wouldn't go and delete companies that merged or were acquired into larger groups? XyZAn (talk) 10:18, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

No need to "update", it is better to keep the names as they were.Jklamo (talk) 12:17, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

The lists do not match the title

The title promises a list of public corporations, ordered by market value. That seems simple enough.

However the article contains loads of lists, none of which really fits the title. First there is some record keeping about which companies first reached certain thresholds. Second, we have very short historical top 10 lists from the last 25 years; none of which is really up to date. Lastly, there is a list of non-public companies.

I propose:

• That a new list be started, listing public companies by current market capitalization. This is obviously changeable, but can be kept as up-to-date as any of us editors want it to be. The length is debatable; I would propose to start with a length of 100. Here is an up to date source: https://companiesmarketcap.com/
• That the many lists of historical market values be moved, to a name that reflects the content, like "List(s) of historically highest valued public companies" "Historical lists of public companies by market value" or "Lists of public companies by historical market values".
• That the list of non-public companies be moved to "List of non-public corporations by by estimated value" or removed (it's really not up to date!).

St.nerol (talk) 19:47, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi, there is a consensus that we do not need an on-line list, as the data change every day, see also Wikipedia:Recentism. Update quarterly is more than adequate. A regular snapshot is better than a random update. I do not agree with the creation current list.

Similar to historical data, these are as valuable as current ones. I do not agree with moving them out of the list.

List of non-public companies is very outdated, feel free to move it somewhere else or remove it, but at least keep some information as prose.

First threshold table has grown over time, originally it was a record market capitalizations list (see here). I think we can reduce this to a similar shoter table (or a prose form). Jklamo (talk) 16:04, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Agree on the state-owned company information from 2006 (would be good if there was an up to date data set? rather than a simple removal), disagree on other points; quarterly updates are perfectly reasonable and trillion dollar thresholds make sense given the scope and notability these businesses have and the current scrutiny being placed on them. XyZAn (talk) 16:45, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

These are reasonable points. However, the mismatch remains between the contents of the page and the promise of the title. Even the first sentence explains "The following is a list of publicly traded companies having the greatest market capitalization." Well, is it? St.nerol (talk) 23:45, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

I don't really see the issue here, I don't think any reader is going to be confused as to why there is additional information included in the article so especially when its either related directly to public corp market caps or even the equivalents for non-listed/state owned businesses (but again it would ne nice if we had a 2020 dataset to update with). The vast vast majority of the article covers the top-listed companies by calendar quarter. The additional information (not explicitly within the scope of the title) is in the appropriate place to help inform the reader with additional information. Feels like an issue is being made up when there really isn't one, to be honest. XyZAn (talk) 14:51, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Gazprom

What happened to Gazprom? After 2008 it simply disappeared from the list. What happened to it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.0.62.126 (talk) 07:54, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Aramco

since the 1.5% IPO means it's publicly traded. 81.181.130.106 (talk) 08:28, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Please check out criteria in lead (15 % free float). Jklamo (talk) 12:11, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Facebook App

Facebook App facebook App 176.29.211.235 (talk) 23:07, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

App 176.29.211.235 (talk) 23:08, 20 September 2023 (UTC)