Talk:Fortune Global 500/Archives/2013

Edit Request/Original Research
Chicago is conspicuously absent from this list. The immediate Chicago area has eight Global 500 companies and is tied at # 7 with Osaka. The following companies are within the five county metro area: Walgreen, Boeing, Kraft, Sears, Abbott Laboratories, United Continental Holdings, Allstate, and McDonald's.

Also, I notice that some entries in this table are regions, rather than metro areas (e.g. "Greater Golden Horseshoe"). Central Illinois is a region too, and I would like to see the following companies listed (at # 16) for "Central Illinois": Archer Daniels Midland, State Farm Insurance, Caterpillar and Deere.

I put the original research tag there for obvious reasons. -- A ntigrandios ËTalk|undefined 14:51, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Removed
I removed this list due to the fact that it is neither accurate or consistent. Please address both of these concerns if you plan on putting it back. -- A ntigrandios ËTalk|undefined 20:48, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Fortune 2011 list- Breakdown by city and metropolitan area
This is a breakdown by cities and metropolitan areas as determined by Fortune in the 2011 list. Metropolitan areas with at least three Global 500 companies are listed. The 2011 list does not include a list of cities sorted by Fortune 500 companies. The list is instead counted from the country listings.

Merger proposal
I suggest merging Fortune Global 500 and List of largest companies by revenue into a single article. They both cover essentially the same listing, namely a listing of largest companies measured by revenue. --  Toshio   Yamaguchi  11:35, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
 * oppose not a same list (just theme); Fortune Global 500 is using slightly different methodology (and it is copyrighted). --Jklamo (talk) 12:53, 6 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose. This article is about a specific list and includes commentary and criticisms about Fortunes methodology for generating the list. It's also a copyrighted listing; that's why we only include minimal portions of the list and not the full 500. By contrast, the list of largest companies is a list. Other than a comment about data sources, the content of that article is the list, pure and simple. Finally, it's reasonable to assume there are other lists of largest companies than Fortunes, so I don't think the general term should redirect to a specific list. (That said, if it turns out there are multiple notable lists like the Global 500, we'd need a List of lists of largest companies by revenue. :) ) —C.Fred (talk) 18:20, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Thatotherperson talk contribs  10:53, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose: The Fortune 500 list is a commercial product that meets the notability criteria to have an article about it, and therefore must stay; the only possible merger would be to take away the larger and more comprehensive list and essentially tell people to go get their information from Fortune instead of Wikipedia.