Talk:List of S&P 500 companies

Selected Changes Table: Added-Removed should be sep tables?
Because: The "reason" column notes are different for the Add(s) and the Removed(s). Entries / events on each line are (almost) NEVER related to each other.

I don't understand how it can be a single joined table! 68.111.65.18 (talk) 19:47, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Naming convention for Companies and Businesses
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)&bull; 17:58, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Naming conventions (companies)/poll
Voting has begun and will continue until March 5. Please resolve this lagging issue. --Reflex Reaction (talk)&bull; 22:42, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Please do not edit the S&P 500 Component Stocks table headers
Can you please not edit the S&P 500 Component Stocks table headers! There are lots of scripts that read the headers as they are. Why would be change from "Ticker symbol" to "Symbol"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C6:1F80:7B00:BDE1:8C5E:477D:EC20 (talk) 19:43, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Please do not edit text of listing.
Please do not edit the text of the listing. This is the list as it comes from S&P. Please make redirects for companies better known by other names instead of editing their listing. This enables easier updates from the S&P list. Thanks. --ChrisRuvolo 00:49, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The listing includes "Phelps Dodge" which is not a component of the S&P per the newest list. Looking on the list and it was one of the additions and subtractions to the list. Just eyeballing the list, it looks like there have been 20 or so deletions and additions since the list was last updated (see http://www2.standardandpoors.com/portal/site/sp/en/us/page.topic/indices_500/2,3,2,2,0,2,4,2007,0,3,1,0,1,50,0,0.html.

Would simply linking to the S&P's resource be better? It seems like the list of companies in the S&P changes each month, so someone would need to update the list on a monthly basis if we want it to be accurate.

Trompelamort (talk) 13:32, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I am reviewing all entries in the list, and found out that the ticker for Albertsons Companies, Inc. is ACI, not ABS. I would like to correct it, but this would be my first Wikipedia edition, plus there is this warning to avoid edit text of listing. I am unsure how to proceed. Jmgonet (talk) 17:11, 24 May 2021 (UTC)jmgonet


 * The ticker symbol of Albertsons was ABS in 2006 when it was removed from the S&P 500 index. So an edit is not warranted. An edit in the "Selected changes to the list of S&P 500 components" section should never be made unless supported by a legitimate reference source. Ksu6500 (talk) 02:41, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Updating category
There is also a category (Category:S&P 500). Is there any desire to keep that synced with this list? -- Bovineone 06:35, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Current list of missing articles for S&P 500 companies
Updated 6 March 2007:

--A. B. (talk) 15:34, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Someone has deleted the entry for Robert Half International - how do we revive the article? 164.67.237.253 (talk) 23:45, 4 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I requested that restore the article. UnitedStatesian (talk) 15:57, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

5 March 2007 changes + issues to consider
Yesterday, I replaced the existing list with the 1 March 2007 list of S&P 500 constituents from the Standard and Poor's website. While I was at it, I also added ticker symbols, each company's industry (as listed by S&P) and links to each company's filings at www.sec.gov. I created new redirects for companies whose article names did not match the names S&P used. I also made sure each company was listed in Category:S&P 500.

The convention observed previously with this article has been to use exactly the S&P nomenclature, which I have done, however I think we may want to rethink a few:
 * Companies with "(New)" in their listing such as Fluor Corp. (New)
 * Companies with a specific class of stock in their listing such as Dynegy Inc. (New) Class A and Scripps (E. W.) 'A'
 * S&P's list is more precisely a list of equity securities, while this list is of companies

Perhaps these types of situations might be best handled with footnotes, for example:
 * Fluor Corp.[1]
 * 1 Fluor Corporation was listed on the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE:FLR) in 1957 and later acquired. In 2000, Fluor was spun out of Massey Energy and the "new" Fluor Corporation was relisted on the NYSE.
 * Scripps (E. W.)[2]
 * 2 Scripps has two classes of common stock, "Voting shares" and "Class A". Class A shares are used in S&P 500 index calculations

What do others think? (And does anyone have any problems with the expanded information I added yesterday?) --A. B. (talk) 16:16, 6 March 2007 (UTC)


 * In the past, I had truncated the "(New)" where it was listed. I also removed the "class A" where I was able to find it.  The footnotes would be fine with me, but may be hard to maintain as the S&P list gets updated in the future.  I don't see anything wrong with the expanded info, the update looks good to me.  Thanks for your work. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 17:14, 6 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Footnotes don't add much beyond trivia better included in the company's article -- I like the truncation approach better. I'll do that for now -- if anybody disagrees, they should feel free to revert me. --A. B. (talk) 17:59, 6 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Every month there are major corporate actions (e.g. Mergers and Acquisitions) that change the composition of the S&P. While admirable, I think the footnotes would be A. Hard to maintain and B. crowd out the list after a year.  Trompelamort (talk) 13:35, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

it would be helpful to have
a summary count of components by sector (i.e. financials, vs industrials etc)

How about we add another column for GICS codes? This is basic encyclopedic information useful for anyone in business. 164.67.237.253 (talk) 23:44, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

message to UnitedStatesian
UnitedStatesian, I'd like to revert your most recent edits that change the symbol templates. They introduce "NYSE:" and "NASDAQ:" before the symbol, which makes the column unsortable, more important here than explicitly mentioning the exchange, I think. In fact, the two templates I had added were ones that I had just made for this purpose: they can be easily changed to exclude the categories, if you think that's a problem. Comments? Whiskeydog (talk) 20:09, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
 * That's fine to revert; if you could exclude the cats from the templates, that would be great.
 * And just be aware that CA, Inc., CME Group and The DirecTV Group trade on the Nasdaq, despite their 2- and 3-letter symbols. UnitedStatesian (talk) 02:23, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Done. And I corrected the three above--you learn something new... Whiskeydog (talk) 03:23, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Cool, thanks. And could I talk you into doing your same ticker symbol magic in the S&P 400 and S&P 600 articles? UnitedStatesian (talk) 19:30, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Sure (if you send me a stock tip), but let me know if there are any more NASDAQ (or Amex) symbol exceptions since I'm basing this replacement on symbol length. Whiskeydog (talk) 23:14, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I've got no tips in this bad market :(. I think those 3 are the only exceptions, so the symbol length should work in the other 2 lists. UnitedStatesian (talk) 23:54, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I think they're very outdated. Think it's worth updating them (400 and 600)? Whiskeydog (talk) 23:55, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Definitely, if you know the way to do so automatically. That's beyond my skills, and a manual update would be a real pain. UnitedStatesian (talk) 00:20, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
 * No it's not automatic... I would just compare the two lists in Excel... Whiskeydog (talk) 00:33, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) You may want to contact User:A. B.; I think they made an automated update to this list a while back, and may have a tips or two. UnitedStatesian (talk) 01:06, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, I just gave this a go using files downloaded from the S&P web site. With a little bit of Excel manipulation I can put the whole list into wiki markup format fairly quickly, and replace the whole table with new text. I just did the 400 and 600, take a look. Do you want to help redirect the company redlinks so that S&P's description will not have to be corrected to our own article titles each time the table is updated from scratch? Whiskeydog (talk) 01:44, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Awesome. I think it absolutely makes sense to set up redirects; I did that for most of the 500, and so I will help out on the 400 and 600. UnitedStatesian (talk) 01:49, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Two broken links and one incorrect symbol
I found that two of the links from stock symbols to NYSE's web site do not work:

BRK.B (Berkshire Hathaway) links to "http://www.nyse.com/about/listed/brk.b.html" but should link to "http://www.nyse.com/about/listed/brkb.html".

BF.B (Brown-Forman Corp.) links to "http://www.nyse.com/about/listed/bf.b.html" but should link to "http://www.nyse.com/about/listed/bfb.html".

These links can be verified by clicking on them.

The link for VIA.B (Viacom) works but the symbol is incorrect. The symbol is currently "VIAb" but should be "VIA.B". This can be verified by clicking on http://www.nyse.com/about/listed/viab.html.

Davidlevner (talk) 06:22, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Suggestions on how to update the list
I've been looking at back history, and see a lot of cases where an individual stock was added or removed by itself (instead of as a AAA-replaces-BBB), or cases where an addition and a removal were put in, but where those two were totally unrelated. Also, I've noticed that given many unrelated edits (fixing links,grammar, etc), it's not easy to determine whether a given change to the index has been recorded here in the table or not.

Aiming to make those better, I've put in a table of recent changes, and filled it with the last 2 years of component changes. I also added some comments to the body of the file, above both tables, requesting of editors that if they're going to change the tables, that they make sure that they record both the addition and the deletion, and also put an entry in the changes table.

My thinking is, this will help us to make sure we record changes accurately, and it will also help in terms of keeping the table up to date since we'll be keeping a good record of whether a given change to the index has been reflected here or not.

Not trying to be authoritarian, just putting in my suggestion of one way we might be able to reduce the management overhead of keeping the table up to date, by keeping a record of what's already been done.

Suggestions or comments welcome. Cheers, Twredfish (talk) 21:05, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Dates of changes for newly added S&P 500 components
Regarding dates in the "Date first added" (rightmost) column of the main table as well as those in the "Date" (leftmost) column of the "Recent changes ..." table, I have been following the convention of using the first trading date on which the new company was part of the S&P 500 Index calculation. The rationale is that this would be the most useful date for anyone trying to track when a company's stock price first impacted the index.

An alternative convention would be to use the date quoted in S&P press releases as to when the switch occurs following the close of trading, i.e., the prior trading date. This is the date currently listed in the two most recent entries in the "Recent changes ..." table.

To our most respected fellow maintainer UnitedStatesian, if you concur that the convention I have been following is the most useful, then (with your permission) I would like to modify the ABBV date to be 1/2/2013 and the DLPH date to be 12/24/2012 in order to maintain consistency with the other index updates in 2012.

Otherwise, if the alternative convention (or some other one) is preferable, then I would be happy to adopt that practice for all my future revisions.

Probably most people don't care, but I admit to having an obsession with consistency. :-)

Cheers. - ErniePetrides (talk) 08:42, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Since there has been no discussion about this in the past three weeks, I've gone ahead and tweaked the two dates (as I had proposed above) in my WPI/ACT update to the main article today.

Cheers. - ErniePetrides (talk) 00:35, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

The URL for the Standard & Poors "S&P-500 Constituent List" is:

http://www.standardandpoors.com/prot/spf/docs/indices/SPUSA-500-USDUF--P-US-L--Constituents.xls

One must be logged into a (free) "registered user" account to access the list.

Cheers. - ErniePetrides (talk) 05:23, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the data at the link posted above is no longer being updated. The last update was on 19-Jun-2013 (two weeks ago), whereas it used to be updated at the end of every business day (at least the imbedded date would be changed even when the constituent list remained the same). It appears that the folks at Standard & Poors have no interest in providing us with the current constituent list (on a daily basis) via any Web-accessible means.

Cheers. - ErniePetrides (talk) 05:06, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

The list is 501 instead of 500
That is about it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Imougy (talk • contribs) 00:09, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Although there are 501 "rows" in the table counting the initial one for the column headers, there are exactly 500 company entries in the list. ErniePetrides (talk) 06:17, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

June 28, 2013 entry under "Recent Changes..." section incorrect?
The entry currently lists FOXA as being added to replace APOL whereas it was NWSAV (now NWSA) as per the S&P document linked in the citation.

Cheers, TS — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheSeatonian (talk • contribs) 12:34, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

502 entries in the grid?
By my count there are 502 entries in the grid; something is wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.173.98.196 (talk) 14:40, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Actually, no: The index does have 502 constituents, issued by 500 companies.  See page 6 of the index factsheet UnitedStatesian (talk) 15:29, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

AGN to go, 501 remain?
As per the announcement linked, Allergan (AGN) was de-listed and replaced by AAL. However, AGN is still present in the main list. Removing it will reduce the total number to 501, I think. Cheers,  TheSeatonian (talk) 08:54, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

GANNETT (GCI) is missing
It's a S&P 500 company according this Wiki page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gannett_Company

This list is currently at 504 instead of 505. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.171.157.164 (talk) 22:11, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
 * It's there as Tegna, per this [].Timtempleton (talk) 23:29, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on List of S&P 500 companies. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121026050853/http://www.businessweek.com/ap/financialnews/D9M964IO0.htm to http://www.businessweek.com/ap/financialnews/D9M964IO0.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 18:25, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Hyphens or Periods to Indicate Share Classes in Symbols?
Different news agencies use different ways to categorize symbols that have multiple listed share classes.

Taking Berkshire Hathaway B shares as an example, Yahoo lists these as BRK-B and Google lists them as BRK.B. Which method should this table use?

I think a good policy is to follow the example of the exchange the symbol is listed on. Berkshire Hathaway is listed on the NYSE.

Here is the NYSE page for Berkshire Hathaway B shares: https://www.nyse.com/quote/XNYS:BRK.B

Therefore this list should use BRK.B

Ditto Brown Foreman B shares. See https://www.nyse.com/quote/XNYS:BF.B

Therefore I will try to undo the recent changes to these symbols by 110.174.83.231. I hope this is OK.

--TheoA (talk) 00:22, 6 April 2017 (UTC)


 * TheoA (talk), you are preaching to the choir here. I have had to make these same reversions on 2/13/17, 2/23/17, 3/21/17 and 4/2/17. I don't know if they are vandalism, people that don't know what they are doing or good faith edits. But it is getting beyond annoying. I wish there was some way to protect these tickers from being changed.


 * And yes, the correct tickers are BRK.B and BF.B Ksu6500 (talk) 02:00, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Missing an official source for component stocks list
Missing an  official  source for S&P 500 component stocks list. The official page http://us.spindices.com/indices/equity/sp-500 only shows "Top 10 By Index Weight" (link "Constituents" in the center-right frame).

13:07, 13 November 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.159.196.228 (talk)
 * S&P stopped publishing constituents some years ago. There is a downloadable list at S&P 500 IndexAndydoc1 (talk) 12:24, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on List of S&P 500 companies. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150923193847/http://www.bostonscientific.com/en-US/about-us/new-marlborough-headquarters.html to http://www.bostonscientific.com/en-US/about-us/new-marlborough-headquarters.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120226074319/http://www.hpinc.com/hpcntu.htm to http://www.hpinc.com/hpcntu.htm
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.standardandpoors.com/ratings/articles/en/us/?assetID=1245294094854
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.standardandpoors.com/ratings/articles/en/us/?assetID=1245294703766
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.standardandpoors.com/indices/articles/en/us/?assetID=1245210962207

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 08:41, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on List of S&P 500 companies. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120425080500/https://www.sp-indexdata.com/idpfiles/indexalert/prc/active/pressreleases/connectfivehundredceph.pdf to https://www.sp-indexdata.com/idpfiles/indexalert/prc/active/pressreleases/connectfivehundredceph.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130601200844/https://www.sp-indexdata.com/idpfiles/indexalert/prc/active/pressreleases/semimosaicNB5.pdf to https://www.sp-indexdata.com/idpfiles/indexalert/prc/active/pressreleases/semimosaicNB5.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 21:29, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

What's the issue with external links?
I assume the maintenance tag indicates someone has issue with the links in the main table to 1) each company's stock exchange page and 2) each company's SEC filings. Since these 1) have been here for a long time, 2) the exchange links are consistent with every other index list in WP, and 3) make the list much more useful to readers, I do not see any issue. Could anyone who does have an issue please elaborate further (rather than blindly citing WP:EL)? UnitedStatesian (talk) 14:31, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
 * This article is mentioned in the ongoing discussion at Wikipedia talk:External links. UnitedStatesian (talk) 13:31, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Column order
I think there are good arguments to have the "security" listed first, rather than leading the table with the external link ticker template. Accordingly, I am going to reorder them; may take a few edits to do all 500, so I am going to tag with In use. UnitedStatesian (talk) 15:33, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
 * ✅ Now moving on to the other index articles. UnitedStatesian (talk) 21:10, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Headers
Could you please stop changing the headers of the table! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.66.62.111 (talk) 20:14, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Somebody messed up the table
the table headers are broken. it looks like somebody made mistake formatting it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.107.215.251 (talk) 21:10, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Change BHGE to BKR as of October 18, 2019
https://finance.yahoo.com/m/e74243e5-f8e4-365f-9cf2-8eb7bb58c33e/baker-hughes-name-change.html

Baker Hughes has a new name once again. The change from Baker Hughes, A GE Company, to simply Baker Hughes Co. became effective Oct. 17, according to a press release. The company's ticker symbol — currently "BHGE" — will change to "BKR" on Oct. 18.

2600:6C55:6300:1CB1:0:0:0:C12 (talk) 18:08, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Apology and clarification for an edit made by my account in June 2018
I have just discovered that an edit (Special:diff/846514700) was made on this article on June 19, 2018 by my account, which has deleted a vast portion of this article. I do not recognize this edit, nor do I have any reason to vandalize this article. I suspect it was possibly executed by someone else who had somehow managed to log into my account. I offer my sincere apologies for this edit, and I would like to thank User:Bamyers99 for reverting this edit. -- lssrn  &#124;  talk  20:23, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Duplicate entries in List of S&P 500 companies and List of S&P 400 companies
There are 12 companies that are currently in both the List of S&P 500 companies and the List of S&P 400 companies:

ATO	Atmos Energy -- BIO	Bio-Rad Laboratories -- CTLT	Catalent -- DPZ	Domino's Pizza -- ETSY	Etsy -- POOL	Pool Corporation -- ROL	Rollins Inc. -- TDY	Teledyne Technologies -- TER	Teradyne -- TYL	Tyler Technologies -- WRB	W.R. Berkley Corporation -- WST	West Pharmaceutical Services

They should be in one or the other, I think. I don't have the definitive source lists, so I don't know which should be deleted from one of these lists.

After deleting them, there most-likely will be missing ones that are in the source lists from one or both of these lists. I'm guessing there should be 500 and 400 in each.

Also, there was a transaction this year whereby CZR and ERI in the List of S&P 400 companies now point to the same company at the SEC: Caesars Entertainment, Inc. So, something is probably wrong.

Frannegan (talk) 08:28, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
 * thanks for doing this work. All of those companies were recently moved from the 400 to the 500.  Editors do an excellent job keeping this page updated; the other one, less so.  If you would like to take on maintenance of the 400 list (and the even more out-of-date List of S&P 600 companies), that would be very much appreciated. One point though: this list should have 505 entries (which it does); see the article's first paragraph for the reason why.  UnitedStatesian (talk) 16:44, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

RfC Programmatic access to changes requires change of ticker to be listed in changes
I have been using a third party derivation of this page in developing a trading algorithm. The requirement, however, extends to being able to retrieve the constituents on any given day. Should we have a way of recording ticker changes in order to facilitate this? Andydoc1 (talk) 08:39, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
 * what is your brief and neutral statement? At over 2,200 bytes, the statement above (from the tag to the next timestamp) is far too long for  to handle, and so it is not being shown correctly at Requests for comment/Economy, trade, and companies. The RfC may also not be publicised through WP:FRS until a shorter statement is provided. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 21:55, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you. This was my first RfC. I am not by nature brief or neutral and hence the problem. And of course 'brief' is a subjective term :)
 * I have attempted to modify this in order fall into line. I have done this by deleting most of my original post but reproducing it in its entirety here in order that I am not falling foul of the spirit of the guideline not to edit following replies!!
 * My original lengthy and partial post read as follows:
 * My programmatic solution was to scrape the two tables, take the current list, remove the additions and add the subtractions that post date the date in question. However, it is necessary to have the ticker changes listed in the changes in order for this to work.
 * I had assumed, until I reviewed the Notes for Editors (after making a number of changes of this nature over the past week), that their ommission was an oversight. I apologise for this unilateral breach, but I think the increase in interest in algorithmic trading makes this issue more pertinent.
 * However, it is now clear that Yahoo (my data provider for this project) only uses the most recent ticker for a corporate entity. This means that the ticker in the top table can be used right back to the 'Date first added' column. However, a removal in the second table might refer to a ticker that has changed, and so recompiling the list on a specific date may not be possible without a list of ticker changes.
 * I do not see a valid reason for excluding these changes from the page: without them there are additions in the changes, with no corresponding deletion, of tickers that no longer appear in the first table, along with the converse, constituents with no addition date in the changes table, and this appears to be editorially inconsistent.
 * For example, HRS is correctly listed in the changes as included in the SP500 from 16/09/2008, but a search of the current constituents will not find it, and neither will a price history check on, for example, Yahoo financial.. The company page for Harris correctly shows it to be defunct as of June 2019. The company it became, through an M&A process, L3Harris, is to be found in the constituents table under LHX but with no entry for inclusion in the changes table.
 * The alternative would be a third table of ticker changes, or another page - both of which are probably/possibly less desirable...
 * Some of my changes are NOT solely due to ticker changes either, for which I seek no plaudits ;)
 * Andydoc1 (talk) 08:39, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I have now undone the edits that were purely related to name/ticker changes pending resolution of this RfC
 * Andydoc1 (talk) 09:15, 22 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Explanatory Comment: to summarise what I believe Andydoc1 is proposing: Should ticker symbol renames be listed in the table of "selected changes"?
 * The editors note they are referring to comes from a comment in article space, which states "Company name changes or ticker changes are not changes to the index and should not be in this table." BilledMammal (talk) 02:12, 24 August 2021 (UTC)


 * I strongly oppose making this change. We are an encyclopedia, not a market data service.  Isn't it awesome that Wikipedia is free? (Have you made your financial contribution recently, by the way? Even if yes, I assure you that you are getting a LOT more than you are paying for)  For what you are looking for, go to Bloomberg, Reuters, S&P, or untold other firms that will happily sell you the information you are looking for.  Please don't try to hijack the encyclopedia instead. UnitedStatesian (talk) 02:21, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose as it would clutter the table with things that are not substantive changes to the index. In my view Wikipedia is primarily a resource for human readers, and we shouldn't make the article less readable for the convenience of private trading algorithms. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 19:30, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose: (Comment requested via Yapperbot alert) I have in the past written some little programs which scrape from web pages and understand the frustration at what is missing or when they change format, but I accept that my usage is opportune rather than their primary purpose. Wikipedia is fundamentally a resource for human readers. To the extent that there is a data-based resource in its vicinity, that is Wikidata, but I would wonder if the development of a resource deploying volatile information based on S&P's index selection, whether in Wikipedia or Wikidata, would be appropriate use (WP:COPYRIGHT). AllyD (talk) 07:30, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Missing changes in the list of changes
In the table of Selected changes to the list of S&P 500 components there are two missing changes: LB to BBWI, and COG to CTRA. YYwiki (talk) 08:52, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
 * "Company name changes or ticker changes are not changes to the index and should not be in this table." Both of the changes you mention are merely name/ticker changes to components that were already in the index. They do not belong in the selected changes table. Ksu6500 (talk) 18:51, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your clarification. I wasn't aware of that.YYwiki (talk) 08:05, 9 October 2021 (UTC)