Talk:Nasdaq-100
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Nasdaq-100 article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: Index, 1Auto-archiving period: 90 days  |
 | This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
 | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 Archives (Index) |
|
This page is archived by ClueBot III.
|
.svg){kind=small} | Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at pageviews.wmcloud.org |
Legal names vs. page names vs. commonly known names? edit
Hey, @UnitedStatesian: I have to strenuously disagree with your edits to company names. I can't see how changing the name from Adobe to Adobe Inc., Alphabet to Alphabet Inc. or Apple to Apple Inc. adds any value or understanding of what the company is. No one calls the companies by those names not even the company logos, press releases or their own employees. The page names only include the Inc. because Adobe and Alphabet alone (as examples) already have those article names taken. I think we need to have a discussion about the proper naming. @Ptrnext: Ksu6500 (talk) 20:57, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Ksu6500 @Ptrnext: definitely welcome the discussion; I think the old way went way too far, for instance it simply showed Align for Align Technology. Maybe a compromise is to pipe to hide the corporate form (Inc., Holdings, etc.) but match the article name otherwise? What do you think? We need to be friendly to readers who come here and are not as familiar with the corporate world as we are (for whom Adobe may mean Adobe). And I note that on Nasdaq's page for the index here, they spell out the full company name. Best, UnitedStatesian (talk) 21:49, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
- I agree with @Ksu6500's point that having the "Inc." suffix doesn't add value to this list. I also agree with @UnitedStatesian that some of the companies were overly shortened (e.g. Constellation Energy was Constellation; Vertex Pharmaceuticals was Vertex). I'm fine with the compromise proposed by UnitedStatesian. I guess many names on the current list already adhere to it (e.g. just Intel instead of Intel Corporation; just AMD instead of Advanced Micro Devices, Inc.; just Amazon instead of Amazon.com, Inc.) Ptrnext (talk) 02:14, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
England and Wales edit
In the section "Differences from other indices" the article mentions foreign countries, and one of them is England and Wales. This makes no sense at all. From the U.S. perspective, the foreign country in this case is the United Kingdom. England and Wales are two constituent countries of the United Kingdom, similar to the case that New York and California are U.S. states and not foreign countries or states from the perspective of the United Kingdom. And so in that case, the foreign country is the United States. Arianoleejones (talk) 13:06, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
Undiscussed move edit
I am reverting the undiscussed move: Nasdaq no longer capitalizes the index name, and we at least need to reach consensus here before making such a change. UnitedStatesian (talk) 22:37, 1 February 2024 (UTC)