Talk:Forbes list of Australia's 50 richest people

This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Australia High‑importance Forbes list of Australia's 50 richest people is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Need help improving this article? Ask a LibrarianWhat's this? at the National Library of Australia. The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to helpwikimedia.org.au for non-editorial assistance. Business: Accounting High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Business, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of business articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BusinessWikipedia:WikiProject BusinessTemplate:WikiProject BusinessWikiProject Business articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the Accounting task force. Lists Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Economics Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Economics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Economics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EconomicsWikipedia:WikiProject EconomicsTemplate:WikiProject EconomicsEconomics articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Finance & Investment Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Finance & Investment, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Finance and Investment on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Finance & InvestmentWikipedia:WikiProject Finance & InvestmentTemplate:WikiProject Finance & InvestmentFinance & Investment articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

The rankings might have to change here, as Richard Pratt died the other day 116.240.0.2 (talk) 01:43, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Forbes; Australian top 40, 2009 - Go crazy.124.170.65.5 (talk) 10:35, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Currently, sorting by net worth doesn't work properly for 2012 and 2013. Sorting by net worth does work properly for 2011, with Gina Rinehart's data value of 9.00 appearing at the top of the data values (when sorted by descending value), where one would expect to see it (albeit below the 'not listed' values, all sixteen of them). In 2012, however, when sorted by net worth, Rinehart's data value of 18.00 appears between David Hains' data value of 2.00 and Kerry Stokes' data value of 1.80. In 2013, when sorted by net worth, Rinehart's data value of 17.00 appears between Lindsay Fox's data value of 1.95 and Kerry Stokes' data value of 2.0. I've looked at the tabulation parameters in the source and can't figure out what's wrong. Perhaps someone who can figure out exactly what is wrong could fix it? Cheers. 60.231.92.34 (talk) 02:57, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Fixed. alpha sort->number sort Moondyne (talk) 14:01, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This information is clearly notable, but is the Forbes list notable in and of itself? Would it be of more value to the reader to simply have a list of the wealthiest Australians and Cite the Forbes list as a source? This would allow other sources to be included and prevent the work of Forbes defining the material. I would welcome any comment or debate on the matter --Willthewanderer (talk) 14:44, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]