Talk:Fortune 500/Archive 1
 | This is an archive of past discussions about Fortune 500. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 |
Revenue
- 69.194.110.47 incorrectly changed billion to millions. - Jerryseinfeld 22:34, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- The change to million is based on the assumption that the figures (e.g., $258.681) refer to thousands (e.g., two hundred and fifty eight thousand six hundred and eighty one). If this is not the case, it is my misunderstanding. - n, 20:47 ET, 17 Dec 2004
- What? - Jerryseinfeld 02:15, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Americans and Europeans use . and , in numbers with opposite meanings. That is, and American writes 258,681 to mean 258681, whereas a European interprets that number as "258 + 681/1000". Similarly, 258.681 means 258681 to a European. It's an excessivly annoying difference. Dbenbenn 20:22, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- I've never seen a calculator with a comma (",") as decimal separator, anywhere in the world. - Jerryseinfeld 02:58, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Although I do not think that comma is a decimal separator for all or most of Europe, it certainly is in Sweden (of which I happen to be a national). E.g. pi=3,14... (My personal favorite for separating groups of digits btw is using apostrophes.)Erik J 23:24, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
- I've never seen a calculator with a comma (",") as decimal separator, anywhere in the world. - Jerryseinfeld 02:58, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Americans and Europeans use . and , in numbers with opposite meanings. That is, and American writes 258,681 to mean 258681, whereas a European interprets that number as "258 + 681/1000". Similarly, 258.681 means 258681 to a European. It's an excessivly annoying difference. Dbenbenn 20:22, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- What? - Jerryseinfeld 02:15, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- The change to million is based on the assumption that the figures (e.g., $258.681) refer to thousands (e.g., two hundred and fifty eight thousand six hundred and eighty one). If this is not the case, it is my misunderstanding. - n, 20:47 ET, 17 Dec 2004
- Why should that be incorrect? The , in the numbers is obviously only a thousands separator (as wikipedia is in English and exactly three digits follow), so Wal-Marts revenue is listed as $258681 billion. Wal-Mart says that in 2004, Wal-Mart had $256.3 billion in sales and a net income of $8.9 billion. Therefore I think that billion should be changed to million and revenue should be replaced by transaction volume. Unless anyone gives more arguments within one month, I am going to do that change. Yogi de 12:24, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- "Transaction volume"? What do you mean? This is US GAAP income statement revenue. $258.681 billion is $258 681 000 000 (or $258.681.000.000) in european.--Jerryseinfeld 15:36, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Entries #108 and #202 suggest that the first "." in the numbers is not starting the decimal fraction, but just separating groups of three digits (i.e. such that $258.681 would mean $258,681 which would be $258 681). Maybe we should just remove the second "." in entry #202. It is an unfortunate coincidence, though, that most of the numbers have exactly three digits for their decimal fraction - that way many people might misread $258.681 billion as $258,681 billion = $258 681 000 000 000. Yogi de 18:38, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Regarding the transaction volume: Isn't revenue what the company *earns*? The $258.681 is the total value of the goods they sold, i.e. the volume of the whole transaction, but the most part of that just covers costs (like buying the goods in the first place). My dictionary suggests transaction volume for that number, while revenue would be the company's earnings, after all costs are subtracted. If you are a native speaker, you are probably right though. Yogi de 18:44, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- He is. Revenue or sales is the "top line", the volume of goods sold. Income, profit or earnings is the "bottom line" - what remains when the costs of a business are subtracted.
Revenue as a measure of size across different industries is misleading, as retail companies like Walmart have very small return on sales margins, while margins are much bigger with software companies like Microsoft, for instance. - Marcika 23:15, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- He is. Revenue or sales is the "top line", the volume of goods sold. Income, profit or earnings is the "bottom line" - what remains when the costs of a business are subtracted.
2005 list
If anyone wants to update this article with the 2005 list: http://www.fortune.com/fortune/fortune500 login/password:22270220490/54702 Kaldari 22:33, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
- Done. Please wikify the company names some more to whoever has energy.DXL t,c 18:46, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
--Why were the locations dropped from the updated list? --Jleon 13:53, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
- Fortune magazine did not disclose them with the 2005 list, and it would be a quiet hard job to add those to it systematically. --DXL t,c 21:45, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
I just wanted to draw attention and comment to on a draft poll to determine naming convention for companies and businesses. I have looked around a number of places and have only seen comments to the effect of "we should have a convention" or "do we have a convention" on how to name a XXX company. This has either the effect of drawing a few uninterested comments or a stirring up a heated debate. In either case the net result is generally zero. Your comments to help clarify this poll and later corresponding vote would be greatly appreciated. --Reflex Reaction (talk)• 17:58, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
2006 list
Any chance of a) getting the 2006 list on here, and b) finding one spot to put it? There are at least two copies of the 2005 list linked from this article. Ambi 13:22, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
Clean up
Hmm, perhaps this article could use some further references to demonstrate its importance? And are the external links appropriate? they might not be vandalism, but they might not meet the external link policy. FrozenPurpleCube 18:03, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
Fair use rationale for Image:Fortune g500 cover06.jpg
Image:Fortune g500 cover06.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 21:38, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
- Fixed by Gamaliel.
Thank you,
--JKeene (talk) 23:26, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Diversity at the Fortune 500
This section is well referenced, including a gallery published at the Fortune 500 website on CNNMoney.com. If the publishers of the Fortune 500 consider it relevant, it is certainly relevant enough for the Wikipedia article.
--JKeene (talk) 18:14, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
It was not removed for lack of reference. It was removed because it had little relevance to what a Fortune 500 listing is. It would be more relevant on a Wikipedia article about Fortune Magazine, or workplace diversity. In this context, it appears to be trivia, at best. 69.251.168.108 (talk) 05:23, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Where else would you put it, then? --Samirluther (talk) 22:53, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Recent addition
I recently add new info to the article in am attempt to expand the article, but I was reverted by User:Jkeene claiming that I added original research to the article based on a spam. First, I can understand that the link I use is not perfectly reliable. But it is hardly a spam since it doesn't link to a commercial website. Second, I didn't introduce original research. WP:OR defines OR as "unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas" or "any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position." What I put is neither unpublished facts nor synthesis. Therefore, I readd some of them. The first part sounds opinionated and thus removed, but the second part is clearly not. —Chris! ct 01:40, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
- I apologize, I may have been hasty. The link doesn't seem legitimate at first glance, but after some more browsing, it doesn't seem to have any advertising or anything else that would indicate it is a commercial site. However, the original research I was referring to was this sentence in specific:
"The Fortune 500 has enormous power that it could potentially reshape or influence government policies."
I don't believe that our source can support the contention that the Fortune 500 list has such power. While individual companies may, this list of companies does not.
--JKeene (talk) 03:23, 22 April 2008 (UTC)- Thanks for responding my post. I fix the sentence to make it more accurate and hopefully the change fixes the OR issue. Happy editing. —Chris! ct 05:17, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Merge with Fortune Magazine
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
- The result was no consensus.
The current article can and should replace the embedded list found in the Fortune (magazine)#Fortune lists article. Both articles will also receive more publicity. TechOutsider (talk) 22:45, 22 March 2009 (UTC)TechOutsider
- Disagree, i didnt know what forune 500 was and i looked it up on wikipedia and if the article was just named fortune i wouldnt know that was what i was looking for —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.167.142.18 (talk) 12:43, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
- Agree Griffinofwales (talk) 04:48, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
- Disagree, the Fortune 500 article should remain a separate article from Fortune (magazine). The other two currently bluelinked lists should also remain separate articles. I see no reason to merge them. --Pixelface (talk) 23:52, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
- Agree Have you read the article? The content is completely worthless. Here's a great sentence: "Although the Fortune 500 list is the most familiar one, similar gross revenue lists of the top firms range from the highest ranking Fortune 100 including the top one hundred to the broader ranking Fortune 1000 that includes the top thousand firms." No one is maintaining it or has taken time to improve it, so merge it into a quality entry. Moreover, there is no reason whatsoever to have separate entries on the Fortune 500 and the Fortune 1000 (and no article at all on Fortune 100?). It's a complete mess. 71.198.190.211 (talk) 16:34, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
- Agree The "Fortune 500" is a list of 1000 companies ranked by revenue, compiled by Fortune Magazine. They describe it only as "Our annual ranking of America's largest corporations". 100, 500, and 1000 are arbitrary stopping points along this list of 1000 companies. The "500" in the name does not mean anything any more; it is kept as a nod to the original list which only included 500 companies. Fortune does name their list "Fortune 1000" in some places. They never name it "Fortune 100" anywhere. Crimson117 (talk) 18:59, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
- Disagree Fortune 500 is pretty much the most notable bar in determing the top American companies. Would pass WP:N easily, "Fortune 500" recives 12,000,000 results on Google, and 226,000 on Google News, I came here searching for "Fortune 500 ", not the magazine. - Epson291 (talk) 08:20, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
- Merge This article can be redirected to appropriate place in Fortune (magazine). --JohnnyB256 (talk) 14:52, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
- Strongly Disagree What does "both articles will also receive more publicity?" mean? If any article is worthy of standing alone, this one is. UnitedStatesian (talk) 21:57, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
- Strongly Disagree The Fortune lists have become basic business vocabulary; the magazine is just a magazine. Rvcx (talk) 00:57, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
- Strongly Agree I think it goes along with the Fortune article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.57.99.41 (talk) 00:31, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
- Strongly Disagree, in many countries, like Sweden were I come from Fortune is not a well known magazine, the expression Fortune 500 is. So from my point of view Fortune is the less noteworthy of the two. Both, of course, is noteworthy and they definetily deserves their own articles.Erikhansson1 (talk) 10:32, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
- Disagree, Subject is easily notable enough to warrant it's own article. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 19:38, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
Add link?
Since this is about the top 500 corporations, Would it be ok to add a link to When Corporations Rule the World? Stars4change (talk) 05:30, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
- No, your POV links can be placed somewhere else. Soxwon (talk) 05:24, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
Updated
Does this article need updating as the {{update|date=March 2010}} tag says? The article contains no time related information other than history and current no. 1 holder, and the article contains up to date information on that (Wal-mart is the 2010 no. 1 and the article states this) I believe the tag should be removed. Patrick G 17:26, 16 April 2010 (UTC) Typically the updated Fortune 500 list is released in April, which may be why this was tagged for update. For some reason Fortune magainze has yet to release the 2011 list (which covers financial results from the previous year). The 2010 list here is for financial results from 2009, so it's quite old. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.180.210.158 (talk) 19:36, 4 May 2011 (UTC)