Jump to content

Talk:List of companies by revenue/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

Where is Ahold?

According to Wikipedia, Ahold has a revenue of $44.872 billion. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahold. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.248.90.219 (talk) 19:18, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

State owned oil companies

Is there any reason why generally exclude state owned oil companies from the list? There may be problem with finding proper sources (and conversion from nonconvertible currencies), but i do not think that is reason to exclude them generally. I will try to compile 40+b list and i will include them to article, if no objections. --Jklamo (talk) 20:32, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Tata Group?!

Tata Group had revenues of US$62.5 billion in 2008. [2] It definitely deserves a mention here. --Enigma Blues (talk) 11:35, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Japanese keiritsus

I believe keiretsus are roughly the same structure as a conglomorate if that is agreed upon then there will be atleast 4-5 entries in the top 10.Mitsubishi group has revenues of over USD 400billion for instance.toshiba,hitachi,kawasaki and sumitomo are similarly very large entities. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.8.198.65 (talk) 10:51, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Do them have separate legal entity and accounting? If yes, they can be included. Some of them (or its companies) are now in the list, like mitsubishi corp., mitsubishi ufj fin, toshiba or hitachi. --Jklamo (talk) 23:58, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
They are not comparable to conglomerates. The old lists produced by Forbes (or was it Fortune) used to include their gross revenues, but all professionally produced ranking sources now agree that this was a mistake, as gross revenues vastly overestimate their true scale - they only employ a few tens of thousands each. Luwilt (talk) 16:46, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

ExxonMobile Employees

This list says ExxonMobile has 80,800 employess when the article for ExxonMobile says 106,100. Which is correct? Cpyder 17:57, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

The one sourced. Employess numbers are not main scope of this list, so they can be outdated a bit. Feel free to correct them those. --Jklamo (talk) 23:58, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

commented companies

I accidentally deleted those bottom 25 companies, but now started to think about all commented comanies. Article is now long and also its size (69K) is becaming to be problem. WP:SIZE give advice "Probably should be divided" for this size (and i have problems editing this page while working on notebook). But from other side, these data even incomplete and bad sourced can be helpful, for example for 2009 updates (mostly those near 40 bil). What do to with them? Leave them there, delete or move somewhere (this talk page, thist talk page subpage or somewhere else)? --Jklamo (talk) 23:58, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Wesfarmers???

with $225 USD revenue at the current exchange rate, which is low, and climbing, Wesfarmers is right up there, please add it to the list. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmw2508 (talk • contribs) 14:13, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

WILL SOME ONE ADD IT!!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmw2508 (talk • contribs) 15:47, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Revenue number on Wesfarmers was incorrect, i fixed it. Real number is 33.5 AUD, thus not qualify into list. --Jklamo (talk) 13:40, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Why the $40 bn cutoff?

It seems that this list would be much more useful it the cutoff was lowered considerably. Why choose 40? It seems pretty arbitrary.--ragesoss (talk) 02:50, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

The reason is size. Even with the $40B limit, the list is already 70KB, larger than recommended in WP:SIZE. UnitedStatesian (talk) 03:16, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
But this is a list, not an article. The limit is primarily an editorial suggestion, and for lists it doesn't make that much sense. If pageload time is the main issue, it could be broken up into several pages, but I don't see why we shouldn't collect a much large number of companies here. Some lists maintained by others (e.g., Forbes) go to 2000.--ragesoss (talk) 22:14, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
It started out at 1 billion, and came nowhere close to being complete. The limit was raised to 10 billion, and the same problem still applied. Forbes has people working full time on its list, that isn't going to happen here. Luwilt (talk) 16:43, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

HSBC

States on their Wiki page that they are the worlds largest company according to Forbes Magazine - their assets, revenue and employees in the table would indicate a higher ranking that they appear (67th). Can someone correct? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.144.234.98 (talk) 13:51, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

HBoS

HBoS, no. 45 on the list, no longer exists as an independent company, it has been taken over by Lloyds Bank. Maproom (talk) 09:47, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Allianz

It is an SE as far as i know and not an AG. --87.78.20.19 (talk) 19:29, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Headquarters

WOuldnt it be more logical to set contry and then city, so we can easily get a list of largest companies by country instead of a list of largest companies BY CITY whenever we order by headquarters?. --Salvadorrodriguez (talk) 16:31, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Compensation

And why is CEO compensation listed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.49.145.136 (talk) 15:26, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Update of companies by revenue list

According to this site, money.cnn.com the current companies by revenue list is outdated. --Cander1336 (talk) 15:17, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Need to add Industrial and Commercial Bank of China

--Ksyrie(Talkie talkie) 13:30, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Bold

Why are some companies bold and some aren't? What is the bold supposed to mean? It is not explained in the intro. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 11:41, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

pornhub? james blunt?

please delete and correct —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.160.51.15 (talk) 16:50, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Deletion

As far as I can see with only the smallest amount of research this page is wildly inaccurate. So inaccurate in fact that it would surely be better to remove the page rather than continue to feed an almost randomized list of companies in no particular order to visitors? Perhaps just keep the top 10 which seem to be approx correct. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.30.43.138 (talk) 01:21, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

  1. ^ a b c d e [3]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_companies_by_revenue/Archive_2&oldid=1064434075"