Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Business/Accounting task force/Archive 1

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

Invitation to participate in the Accountancy Task Force

If you are interested in working in collaboration with Wikipedia members on improving the article Accountancy, you will be pleased to hear that the Accountancy task force has been set up and is seeking participants who can assist with the article's overhaul. Perhaps you would like to provide verifiable content on this subject matter, in which case your input could be invaluable. Alternatively we are also seeking participants who can help with the systematic sorting of related accountancy articles into meaningful categories, an activity that does not require undertaking research but will nonetheless help improve the quality of the article's links. Either way, the task force would like to hear from you!

Re: Invitation to participate in accountancy task force

I have added myself in the list of participants. Accountancy task force is a very good initiative and a lot needs to be done in this area. I am available to assist in any capacity, whether it involves my input through new articles or sorting or proof reading existing articles. I am some what concerned about the lack of articles on IAS and IFRS and i believe we should give this area high priority. Sohail Gogal 09:29, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I am glad to have you join. I agree that IAS should receive high priority; this is an exciting time (if accountancy could be described as exciting!) in terms of the convergence of accounting standards. The standards themselves will form an important source for refence material used to verifying contributions. Do you have access to the actual texts themselves? If so, you will be in a good position to make comparison with some of the definitions used in Accountancy and the related articles. --Gavin Collins 12:05, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I have access to original text of accounting standards. Since the articles relating to the IAS/IFRS are for an encyclopedia we have to agree on a standard format and structure of the articles that should highlight the features of the IAS/IFRS in the context of convergence efforts with other accounting standards ( plus we don't want to end up with something that is overstuffed with technicality and loose the wikipedia context). i would luv to hear your thoughts on this. Sohail Gogal 07:04, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I have added myself as an interested member. I don't feel like I have the time to work as full-time participant. I would love a small project. I can look into gaining access to the University of Illinois Library. The material there may become useful.H.al-shawaf 19:59, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I am interest in assisting with this. --DWR 12:32, 30 September 2007 (UTC) I'd like to help - I've already had a look at some of the articles listed as needing attention as I was browsing, but I baulked at the scale of the challenge. Where do I sign up?! AnthonyUK 18:58, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Proposed framework for article overhall

Somehow the article Accountancy needs to be structured on a rational basis, but I only have a vague idea of what this structure or framework should be based on. My current thinking as to what this framework might look like:

  • Accounting started as an occupation in ancient Mesopotamia or China, and has developed from relatively humble beginnings to become a profession in modern times;
  • During its development, accounting has come to encompass a wide range of activities (e.g recording of inventory, debts and taxation) whilst also increasing in sophistication in tandem with economic development;
  • The article Accountancy needs to be reflect the evolution from occupation to profession in order to cover all the diverse activities which now come within its domain.

This framework is based on reading an interesting accademic paper entitled "Recordkeeping and Human Evolution"[1]. Have a look at the paper and let me know if you think it is a suitable starting point for overhaulling the article Accountancy. Note that such a framework seems to have aready been developed in the book outline "A short history of accounting and business" by Dr Gary Giroux [2]. If you have comments or ideas, do let me know. --Gavin Collins 12:05, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I havent read the article completely, yet i like the approach. we have to beware of getting off-course with too much historical detail. I believe we should also have a section discussing the current developments and their implications on the accounting profession especially the impact of globalization and drive towards global convergence etc. This is the title article of the catagory and we have to ensure that it is very well referenced and cites useful external links. Sohail Gogal 06:23, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
The article "Recordkeeping and Human Evolution" is heavy going, but it contains some useful insights as to how accounting has developed. I agree that using this article as a framework should not result in following a strictly historical narrative. In the meantime, do you have a access to a book or journal that has a comprehensive definition of accounting/accountancy which can be used to introduce the article? So far I have had no luck in finding one (see Profession below), but I am still looking.--Gavin Collins 17:09, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I have split off the Professional Bodies section from the main Accountancy article and moved it to List of accountancy bodies. Please feel free to check it and correct/amend as necessary. AnthonyUK (talk) 00:24, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Accountancy

Does anyone know how to archive pages? The talk page is now quite long and is probably in need of archiving, so we can start afresh. --Gavin Collins 09:52, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Profession

Having borrowed the book "Accountancy & Society" from my local library, I have used it as the basis for updating the definition in the article Profession. I borrowed the book with the intention of replacing the definition in the introduction to the Accountancy article, but was disappointed to find that the book does not contain a definition of accountancy or accounting, despite this being the focus of the book. I appreciate that updating Profession is a bit off-topic, but because the book has got a lot of useful content about this topic, I thought I may as well apply this. --Gavin Collins 14:28, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Gavin.collins, thanks for your note on my talk page, and I hope this project makes progress -- the accounting articles certainly need the attention! I'm working on a mixed bag of articles right now, so I won't sign up for the project, but I'll try to be helpful with my edits. If my edits aren't helpful, please just revert them, no offense taken. For what it's worth, I suggest this project consider using the more common term "accounting". I don't know why the topic "accounting" was redirected to "accountancy" in the article and in various categories, but the term accounting is more widely used than the term accountancy. Possibly some specialist editors wished to subtly advertise their erudition. If you borrow a book with the term "accountancy" in its title, and the book doesn't define the term succinctly, that's usually a sign that the book's author and publisher are more concerned with book sales than sharing insight. Also for what it's worth, I suggest you look into the difference between "license" and "certification". A license is granted by a government entity. Certification is granted by non-governmental organisations. From a legal and practical standpoint, this is a distinction (with a difference) that Wikipedia articles should make as clear as possible. Hope this is helpful. -- • • • Blue Pixel 01:06, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
With regard to your point about the controversy surrounding the use of 'accounting' and 'accountancy', you may wish to read the (extensive) discussion on the article's talk page. I think the consensus was that the article would use both words more or less interchangeably, depending on which one you are more familiar with. With regard to the distinction between "license" and "certification", I do not have any source material that I could cite that would clarify this point, but again I think these words are more or less used interchangeably, depending on context as you suggest.--Gavin Collins 08:52, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Financial audit

I am continuing to read Perks, R.W.(1993): Accounting and Society, Chapman & Hall (London); ISBN 0412473305 with a view to updating the article Financial Audit. Let me know if you are reading an academic book or journal about this topic too by posting a message here or at the talk page of the article. --Gavin Collins 11:22, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

IAS, ISAs etc

I am a bit intrigued as to what the intended focus is in relation to descriptions of specific standards. I spent some time writing the IAS 37: Provisions, Contingent Liabilities and Contingent Assets page, but I see that this has now been removed (albeit with no discussion as far as I can tell). I can understand if somebody removed this with the view that pages on specific standards are too specific. However, the task force lists pages on auditing standards (ISAs) as requiring specific work. I think a general approach needs to be agreed here. --DWR 12:36, 30 September 2007 (UTC) I'm not sure why the IAS37 article would have been deleted. At the moment the article International Financial Reporting Standards has a section, "features of IFRS", which includes a brief description of some key requirements. This includes three sentences on Provisions! That certainly is not a summary of IAS37. One IFRS standard has an article of its own (IAS 19: Employee Benefits), although in my opinion it isn't particularly thorough. I think it would make sense to have a page for each standard (or perhaps a page for a theme, like "Financial Instruments" which is addressed by three separate standards). However, note that the IASB home page includes summaries of each standard, for example on IAS37 [3] Swinnow16 14:04, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

The article was deleted for copyright infringement. If you want a copy of the article so you can re-tool it, just hit me up and I'll email it to you. the_undertow talk 15:48, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

The term "Accountancy" is in question

Is the lead article, is was presumed that thee term "Accountancy" the underlying methodology, but actually it is not all that clear. Maybe Foggy Morning has a point: accountancy is not a well defined term. Outside the dictionary reference, we don't have very much in the way of sources for this term. Accountancy may be a term that refers to a methodology, a body of learning, profession depending on how it is used. Books such as the History of Accountancy in the USA [4] suggest that it is used in both the US and the UK. However the question still arises: what is the difference between "Accountancy" and "Accounting"? --Gavin Collins (talk) 16:52, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I have found a suitable definition:
"Accountancy is the art of communicating financial information about a business entity to users such as shareholders and managers. The communication is generally in the form of financial statements that show in money terms that show the economic reources under the control of management. The art lies in selecting the information that is relevant to the user and is reliable."
Taken from "Financial accounting and reporting" (Elliot, Barry & Elliot, Jamie, FT Prentice Hall, London 2004, p.3), quoted in Corporate Reporting and Company Law By Charlotte Villiers. --Gavin Collins (talk) 17:43, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Double-entry bookkeeping system

The article Double-entry bookkeeping system badly needs your expertise. Please help cleanup and add inline citations as soon as possible. Many thanks for your help! --Foggy Morning (talk) 04:27, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree. I have started adding sources, and note that there is a very large body of peer reviewed papers and journals that cover this topic. I will add my findings to the talk page in due course. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 10:33, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
I have been working on it for a long time and making it easier to read, please don't make it "academic" in style NilssonDenver (talk) 22:16, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
I meant to speak with you about this. My reading of the article suggests that from a perspective of its overall approach, it currently fails WP:NOTTEXTBOOK. We need to shift the perspective towards what you refer to as an academic style which means providing coverage of the topic using citations from reliable secondary sources in order to bring it in line with Wikipedia's content policies. I am willing to provide substantial assistance with this venture, if you would like to collaborate on this project. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 18:56, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Accounting model creates value

Gavin, do you have a reference anywhere that the double-entry accounting model creates value, for example, there is no constant real value non-monetary item "issued share capital" without the double-entry accounting system.PennySeven (talk) 11:43, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I think you are asking the wrong question. The double-entry accounting model does not creates value, it is merely a method of notation in which there was a debit and credit entry for each transactions. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 17:51, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Would there be an economic item "capital" which is really a concept, when there is no accounting model? A business person using cash, buying a product and selling it at an enomous profit would not have any capital if the person does not account the economic activity. The person would only have money and products like a street vendor. He could have millions in cash and products but he would not have any capital that he could sell for example. So, the double entry accounting model creates the non-monetary item capital, does it not? How else could capital be a non-monetary item?PennySeven (talk) 18:08, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
In answer to PennySeven, I am not sure if you are asking a question about Retained earnings or Market capitalization, so I will start with the former. From an economic perspective, a business using cash, buying a product and selling it at an enomous profit does have capital whether they account for it or not in the form of accumulated profit known as retained earnings, which if they were to prepare financial statements, would be reported in the balance sheet as part of Captial. A simple example is shown here. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 18:49, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
I making a statement not only about retained earnings but all items that are part of Shareholders´ Equity; especially issued share capital and retained earnings. I repeat and this time I am quoting you: "which if they were to prepare financial statements, would be reported in the balance sheet as part of Captial" And, if they do not do their accounts based on the double entry accounting model and prepare financial statements, then it is impossible to have an economic item named "capital"? I am saying: stop double entry accounting and there is no economic item called "capital" that can, amongst other things, be sold in the from of shares. Thus: double entry accounting creates the economic item "capital". If there is no double entry accounting then there would only be variable real value non-monetary items and no constant real value items such as all the items in Shareholders´Equity.PennySeven (talk) 16:41, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure where you are trying to go with this. I think it should be obvious that businesses often have non-monetary "capital" which is intangible and not measured in financial terms by usual accounting systems. These include value in brands or patents, or value in the technical skills of their personnel, or good vibes with the public or government. To record these into the usual accounting systems of businesses would require recognizing those assets, and to keep balance of assets = liabilities + equities equation, would also require creating equities.
The GAAP accounting systems / financial reporting models for businesses in the United States and elsewhere do capture some types of assets which are not monetary (but to which monetary values are attached). For example, there are assets like inventory or equipment recognized which are not monetary assets, and there are transactions like purchases of inventory which are recorded as conversions of cash assets into non-monetary assets. Also in these accounting systems, when an item of inventory is sold for more than its book value, the difference between the increase in cash asset vs. the cancellation of the inventory value is recorded as an increase in owner's equity. The systems are set up so that the total book value of assets = total of all liabilities plus equities. Using double-entry book-keeping as a notational system goes well with that and is most common. But, there could be use of single-entry or even triple-entry bookkeeping notations that would also be consistent with having a system of assets = liabilities + equities. I don't understand what you mean by "variable real value non-monetary items" or by "constant real value items". And, what are you trying to get to? I presume it is not that you want to argue against double-entry bookkeeping being covered as a topic in wikipedia because it is consistent with having equities in an accounting system and you don't like those. doncram (talk) 17:41, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Doncram, This is not about intangible assets or goodwill. I am trying to get you to agree that: the double entry accounting model creates the economic concept "capital". This is verified by the fact that without the double entry accounting model there are only cash and variable real value non-monetary items in the economy and no capital and retained earnings, for example.

I am sure you agree that there are monetary and non-monetary items in the economy. I am sure you will agree that non-monetary items are all items that are not monetary items. I am sure you will agree that non-monetary items can be sub-divided in (a) variable real value non-monetary items and (b) constant real value non-monetary items. I am sure that you will agree that variable real value non-monetary items are non-monetary items with variable real non-monetary values, e.g. property, plant, equipment, inventories, shares, patents, trademarks, etc - normally sold in a miriad of markets world wide and valued in terms of IFRS or GAAP at, for example, market value, fair value, recoverable value, present value or net realizable value.

I am sure you will also agree that constant real value non-monetary items are non-monetary items with constant real values, e.g. issued share capital, retained earnings and all other items in shareholders´ equity that are not sold on markets that can be valued in units of constant purchasing power in terms of the IASB´s Framework, Par. 104 (a) that states: "Financial capital maintenance can be measured in nominal monetary units or in units of constant purchasing power." You cannot sell the value that appears on the balance sheet named issued share capital or retained earnings on any market. I am not talking about the shares of the company, which are variable real value non-monetary items sold on the stock exchange.

"In the absence of a Standard or an Interpretation that specifically applies to a transaction, management must use its judgement in developing and applying an accounting policy that results in information that is relevant and reliable. In making that judgement, IAS 8.11 requires management to consider the definitions, recognition criteria, and measurement concepts for assets, liabilities, income, and expenses in the Framework. This elevation of the importance of the Framework was added in the 2003 revisions to IAS 8." IAS Plus, Deloitte.

I am trying to show that the double entry accounting model creates the concept capital (capital being a constant real value non-monetary item) because without the double entry accounting model there is no "capital" but only cash and variable real value non-monetary items.PennySeven (talk) 18:49, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

In answer to PennySeven, capital does exist whether a business chooses to account for it or not. A double-entry accounting model does not creates captial, it is merely a method of notation that represents the symmetry of economic activity. A cash surplus generated by a business owner can also be viewed as being the same as his retained earnings, which is a form of capital. A simple diagram illustrating this point is shown on page 19 and there is an example which follow it.--Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 17:50, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for your answer: "A cash surplus generated by a business owner can also be viewed as being the same as his retained earnings, which is a form of capital." I agree. You will agree with me that "a cash surplus" is simply cash. It is not the issued share capital of my company that I can sell to you whereunder you will become a part owner of my company with the right to dividends, etc. You thus confirm that real "capital and retained earnings" only came about as a result to the invention of the double entry accounting model. Without the double entry accounting model there would be no capital or retained earnings in the world economy. There would only be cash surpluses that can not be sold with the effect of giving someone else a part ownership of your business with dividend rights, etc. Thus: the double entry accounting model creates the constant real value non-monetary items capital and retained earnings and all other items in shareholders´ equity. PennySeven (talk) 18:25, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
I think you may have jumped to an erroneous conclusion. If you agree with me that retained earnings are a form of capital, then you will agree with me that capital of any buisness can be bought, sold or split like shares. Capital exists whether or not whether a business chooses to account for it or not. The cash surplus described above represents the capital of the business and vice versa. If the capital of the business was accounted for in the form of shares, in theory they could be exhanged for the same value as the cash. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 22:26, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Gavin, you state: "If you agree with me that retained earnings are a form of capital, then you will agree with me that capital of any buisness can be bought, sold or split like shares." I know retained earnings and every item in shareholders equity are - in total - capital. We know those items as "capital" only because we live with double entry accounting. I will agree that a cash business´s surplus cash is a form of capital, but I do not agree that it can be bought, sold or split like shares. It can not. It is cash. It can be used as capital only by the original creator of that capital, namely the cash vendor selling at a profit. He can not sell his capital. No-one can buy his capital from him. So, I do not agree with you. The only way the afore-mentioned actions can be taken is when the double entry accounting model is implemented. Thus: the double entry accounting model creates real value, namely, the constant real value non-monetary items issued share capital, retained earnings and all other items in shareholders equity.

You state: "Capital exists whether or not whether a business chooses to account for it or not." That is not true and correct. There is no capital to be bought, sold or split without the double entry accounting model and all encumbent and supporting laws and regulations. Thus: the double entry accounting model creates real value.

You state: "If the capital of the business was accounted for in the form of shares, in theory they could be exhanged for the same value as the cash." No, that is not true and correct. It is not "if" but "ONLY IF" the capital of the business is accounted for in the form of shares ONLY by implementing the double entry accounting model they could be exchanged for the same value as the cash. Thus: the double entry accounting model creates real value.

Take away the double entry accounting model and there is no capital to be bought, sold or split in shares. Take away the double entry accounting model and there is no investment function excercised and implemented by capital. The creation of the economic items issued share capital, retained earnings and other items in shareholders equity (which are all constant real value non-monetary items) by the inventionf of the double entry accounting model is a projection or embodiment of Adam Smith´s division of labour.

Thus: the double entry accountimg model in itself creates value.

What you are saying is that a person sitting accross the table with a wad of notes totaling USD 100 000 can tell me he has capital and I can buy a portion of his capital from him. I can not. Only if he forms a company and presents me with a balance sheet can I buy some of his capital. The amount of cash in the economy will be the same, namely, USD 100 000. But, another economic item was created by the implementation of the double entry accounting model: another economic item called issued share capital - a constant real value non-monetary item - with the constant real value of USD 100 000. Just because of the use of the double entry accounting model there are now not just one economic item, namely USD 100 000 cash (a monetary item) but two economic items in the economy (only because of the use of the double entry accounting model) namely: USD 100 000 cash (a monetary item) AND USD 100 000 issued share capital (a constant real value non-monetary item).

Gavin, I am sure you will agree with me that there are now TWO economic items in the economy INSTEAD OF just one. The second economic item - issued share capital - ONLY came about because of the invention of the double entry accounting model (and all supporting laws and regualation too actually). You cannot deny that there are now two economic items fully supported in the economy where there was only one before the invention of the double entry accounting model.

Thus: the double entry accounting model creates real value. PennySeven (talk) 10:03, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

The double entry accounting model creates real value not by itself out of nothing but in conjuction with another equivalent economic value - equivalent at the moment the capital value came about.

Accounting can not and do not create real value out of nothing. The double entry accounting model can only create constant real value in conjunction with already existing real economic value and existing supporting laws, standards, rules and regulations. PennySeven (talk) 10:13, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, is this something you are trying to add to an article? Despite this extensive discussion, these conclusions cannot be added to the article unless it is verified by reliable sources. We don't want to risk a case of original research here. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 10:26, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I want to add it to the article: Double-entry bookkeeping system.PennySeven (talk) 10:38, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for finally clarifying where you were wanting to go with this discussion. As a matter of housekeeping, could we end this discussion here then and continue, if you wish, at Talk:Double-entry bookkeeping system. I suggest you state there what is the passage you want to add to the article, rather than adding it directly to the article, because I expect that there will be disagreement. doncram (talk) 11:09, 2 May 2009 (UTC)


Ok. PennySeven (talk) 11:36, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Accountant

The article accountant needs your input. --Foggy Morning (talk) 02:28, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I have added a few quotations, but I agree it is in need or an entire re-write. --Gavin Collins (talk) 08:45, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Articles needing attention

I added some articles to the list on Wikipedia:WikiProject Business and Economics/Accountancy task force#Improve articles & stubs. Of particular interest is Dividend, as it has been selected for the next Wikipedia Release Version (DVD). I have assessed it as B class, and made some suggestions at Talk:Dividend/Comments, some of which may need the attention of an accountancy expert. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 13:40, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Tagging and automatic reporting on articles for this Task force

Hi, i've just joined. I wonder, could this Task force tag articles on their Talk pages, as is done by Task Forces of some other larger WikiProjects, e.g. WikiProject Military History. Currently, I note that Talk:Accountancy and some other accounting articles are tagged with {{WikiProject Business & Economics}}, but i don't see identification as being in the Accountancy task force. For Military history articles, there are fields to identify specific Task Force associated with an article, and then there is machinery which provides a color-coded table of article counts in the Task force at various rating levels and importance levels. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Project banner for the syntax for their Talk page template. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Medieval warfare task force#Tagging and assessment for an example Task Force page with such a table. I wonder, would creating and using similar features here be valued? I could work on it if there is interest. doncram (talk) 21:50, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

My understanding is that every article should be tagged with at least one Wikiproject template as part of the drive to assess every single article in terms of quality and importance, so that improvement can be made to the weaker articles. Having a seperate template for Accountancy is not pressing at this point, because having had a look at most of the Accountancy related articles, I note that they are, almost without exception, of very poor quality, and have been poorly categorised.
In the first instance I would suggest a check to see if every article in Category:Accounting stubs has at least one Wikiproject template on its talkpage, and that each template is complete, such that the article has been assessed for quality and importance.
For example, the Talk:Generally Accepted Accounting Principles needs to be tagged and assessed in the same way as Talk:Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (United States). Would you care to start this process off? --Gavin Collins (talk) 23:07, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
I would think that if the task force wants to monitor and improve accounting articles, the first step would be to identify the articles in a suitable way first, such as by a Task Force reporting system. Then, the scope of the cleanup/development effort can be known, and articles can be assigned importance ratings and repeatedly visited to be rated in quality, and so on. Certainly "Generally Accepted Accounting Principles" and all of the articles in "Category:Accounting stubs" ought to be tagged as part of the accountancy Task force. The available reporting system would automatically show how many and which ones are the higher importance articles and lower quality, to target for improvement. The Task Force reporting system is a tool to use in taking control, taking some good ownership over the problem. It seems a little less attractive, to go off rating the articles for other WikiProjects and task forces, and to improve them for those other Wikiprojects' credit. Wouldn't it be nice to set goals on improving some number of articles to higher quality, and to be able to see progress towards those goals? I don't want to impose use of the available machinery if it is not wanted, but I rather think it would be helpful in supporting development of a coherent Task force and body of its work. doncram (talk) 23:33, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
If you are offering to do this, then that would be wonderful, as this would be a great leap forward. I don't know how to set the necessary machinery to do so, but would be willing to help once it is in place. --Gavin Collins (talk) 08:45, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
This was my first attempt at adding a task force to a banner and, after a little trial-and-error and troubleshooting, the task force is now part of the {{Business}} banner. To add the task force to a talk page just add |Accountancy=yes to the banner. Spelling and capitalization is important, so copy it exactly. Right now the statistics are limited, but as more pages are tagged a bot will automatically update the results. Perhaps now the task force will have a better idea of the overall quality of the articles and what needs to be done to improve them. Let me know on my talk page if you have any questions. Happy editing! --Nehrams2020 (talk) 02:35, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
By the way, it only works if the banner uses the {{Business}} spelling, not {{WikiProject Business & Economics}} or other spellings. If somebody knows how to fix this please do. If not, just change the banner to "Business". --Nehrams2020 (talk) 02:39, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
Nehrams2020, thanks so much for setting this up! I was intending to try to figure it out sometime, or to ask someone else to come in to do it, and I am just glad it is taken care of. So, now the task force can take off a bit, tagging articles and rating them with importance and quality codes. Thanks! doncram (talk) 02:41, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
And Nehrams2020 is tagging many articles on my watchlist, great! I had nearly forgotten about Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Accounting Hall of Fame, my traumatic first near-something experience with AfD, but Nehrams talk of the talk page reminded me. It will be great to have a Task force behind some of these. I wonder how many Nehrams can tag. doncram (talk) 08:16, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
Okay, I finished...at least for tonight (I'm going to be dreaming accounting articles tonight!). I tagged about 800 articles, and the majority were assessed. Hopefully the bot updates soon so that a better representation can be seen of the tagged articles. The articles I looked at definitely had some good ones, but a lot need to be expanded significantly, merged, cleaned-up, or even deleted. A lot of the accounting terms could probably be merged together leaving redirects behind. Feel free to remove the banner from pages that don't relate to accounting, I just tried to tag anything and everything that might be relevant to this taskforce. Good night (closer to morning now!) and happy editing! --Nehrams2020 (talk) 09:58, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
Sounds like a flying start! Hopefully the bot will do its work.--Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 10:29, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
I just created some shortcuts to access this page easier. Unfortunately, both WP:ACCT and WP:ACCOUNT are already in use, so I created WP:DEBIT and WP:CREDIT, which will redirect to this page. In addition, I created a userbox that can be added to the page. I used a money symbol I found on Wikimedia Commons (also for the banner mention of the task force). If you can think of/find a better logo (or wish to create your own), feel free. Also, if you want to change the color scheme, go ahead. I'll try to add other elements to the main page, feel free to revert if necessary. Happy editing! --Nehrams2020 (talk) 08:44, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Accounting template

Currently, there is a template ({{Accounting}}) that is not used in any of the main accounting articles. I believe the template should be reorganized to be added to main accounting topics similar to the {{Marketing}} template. I reworked the template in my sandbox, coming up with this. Does the template look acceptable to add to the included topics and should other topics be added to the template (or some removed)? The template also obviously needs to be thinner so it doesn't take up so much space in the article, but I'm going to wait on formatting until we decided what needs to be added/taken out. I'd appreciate any feedback. Happy editing! --Nehrams2020 (talk) 07:00, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Your sandbox version basically looks good to me. Not sure how this is to be used on pages. It's a bit wider than the marketing example you are pretty much following, which might be a problem for including it, if it is meant to be at top right of an article as i imagine.
Also, you should drop "FIFO and LIFO accounting" from the fields of accounting area: Fifo and Lifo are just two cost flow assumption options, within financial accounting (where some assumption has to be made to come up with period end inventory values and COGS for a period) and within cost accounting / managerial accounting. It's too specific, it is not a field like the others area.
Overall, I think you are doing good with this. You are thinking clearly about organizing the key concepts / topics to be talked about, and I say go ahead and roll it out (assuming there will be no objections posted here soon). It is a matter of taking control of this area, which is a good thing to go ahead and do. If it turns out later that some refinement of the key topics is agreed upon, it can be changed, later. Good job. doncram (talk) 07:41, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
The template will be narrower, I just didn't want to keep modifying it each time we added or removed a topic (lazy, I know). When we're finished it will likely be about the same size as the marketing one. For the FIFO/LIFO would you think that it should be completely removed or moved up to the basic accounting topics section? --Nehrams2020 (talk) 18:55, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Okay, good. Glad you are being bold. I think Fifo/Lifo should just be removed, at least from that schema. There are at least 2 other cost flow assumptions for merchandisers: a weighted average one, and specific identification (i.e. tracking specifically which items were sold, rather than making the assumption that it was the earliest or last purchased item. Specific identification sounds most objective, sort of, but is most easily manipulated by a merchandiser actually). There are five or six or more other equally important defining aspects of costing systems that could be described, if the cost flow assumption was covered. I wonder if describing these aspects is part, yet, of cost accounting or another article. doncram (talk) 19:08, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, I think I felt a little too bold modifying the page so much, especially for an outsider of the task force (I added my name as a participant to alleviate the guilt). I also considered the fact that the template didn't mention weighted average, and as of right now, I don't know if there is an article/list that covers all of the cost flow assumptions. Since it would not be beneficial to only mention a few methods instead of the entire picture, I removed it from the template. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 19:22, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Alright, I added the template to the topics listed. Feel free to remove/add additional topics or tinker with it in any way. Hopefully this will provide a great link among the various topics to provide readers a better understanding of accountancy. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 00:20, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Should Historical cost accounting and Constant Purchasing Power Accounting be added to the Key Concepts section of the Template ({{Accounting}}) since they are the two alternatives officially allowed by the IASB in the Framework, Par. 104 (a): "Financial capital maintenance can be measured in either nominal monetary units or units of constant purchasing power."?PennySeven (talk) 16:48, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Historical cost accounting is the de facto world accounting model in non-hyperinflationary economies. The IASB requires IAS 29 to be implemented during hyperinflation. IAS 29 is the IASB´s Inflation accounting version of the CPPA model. Most economies world wide measure salaries, wages, rents, etc in constant purchasing power units when these items are inflation-adjusted by means of theConsumer Price Index. PennySeven (talk) 17:16, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Offhand, of those topics i would think the Inflation accounting article might be the most relevant to add to a Key Concepts list. But I don't think any of these are really as basic as some other concepts that should be added first. Revenue recognition and/or the matching principle should be added, first, in my view. One included term is Standard accounting practice. That is a non-standard term, is not a very good article, and I think it should dropped. It appears to be a constructed term (is that what a wp:neologism is?) trying to avoid referring to the U.S. GAAP or any other national-specific version of GAAP. I have never heard/used the term, and certainly would not recommend this article to basic readers about accounting. For topics in the Key Concepts section, I would think it should be really basic principles and ideas, like the matching principle. Inflation accounting seems like a more specialized topic. It is one of great importance, a key concept, in some economies in history / in some places in the world today, but it is not part of the basic core material in introductory financial and managerial accounting courses, so I don't think it should be in the Key Concepts section.
How about beginning a second template, to cover secondary / advanced concepts, such as are covered in Intermediate Accounting courses and textbooks? Accounting for leases, etc.
How about starting a list or template for key concepts in management accounting, in auditing, in each of the field areas?
Overally, i like the template now, including how it ends with links to the 5 or 6 field areas. It's intro, key concepts section needs refinement, but it is a fine template already, fit-for-use. :) doncram (talk) 19:26, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I agree that Standard accounting practices should be removed from the Key Concepts list. That is covered under GAAP/IFRS.
What about listing the Stable measuring unit assumption? Unfortunately there is no article for it yet. I think it is important to highlight that the Historical cost paradigm reigns supreme in accounting. Something about Historical cost has to appear somewhere on the Template ({{Accounting}}). PennySeven (talk) 19:41, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

User_talk:Dank55#Notability

I speedy-deleted this accounting software, and the author has left some references on my talk page, does anyone want to have a look? - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 02:59, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Accounting Template

I didn't propose this template, in fact I oppose its use. It is restrictive and one persons view point of what are relevant links. New variants are appearing in articles which contain links that have no relationship to the article. You have to take into account non accounting people will be reading these articles. NilssonDenver (talk) 22:47, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I do agree that it can be difficult to determine what are relevant topics. In the above discussion, we tried to get consensus on what should be included. With more editors determining what should/shouldn't be included will help to improve the quality of the template as well as its usage on the various pages. I expanded the template to provide a link to various important accounting topics that readers may not otherwise have known, especially if they are non-accounting people. --Happy editing! --Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 23:24, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

The links within the article provide the reader with further articles to read. If there are no links in the article the article needs more content. Side bars, bottom bars, top bars take from the article. No matter how many times you revise a bar how can the same bar be appropriate to both Debits and Credits and Petty Cash. I have discussed this before, content contribution is needed. An icon (tag) identifying the article as an accounting article will link all accounting articles. NilssonDenver (talk) 06:58, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

academic-type vs. instructional-type articles

I am confused whether the wikipedia coverage of accounting topics should be academic-like, as in giving history of development of topics, or whether it should be instructional, as in a textbook explaining how to do accounting. Isn't there a wikibook on accounting, or other on-line textbooks/sources that we can refer to on the basics of how to do accounting? doncram (talk) 13:18, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Are you perhaps referring to this: Wikiversity [5]? PennySeven (talk) 13:50, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
In answer to Doncram, Wikipedia is not a manual, so we need to be giving history of development of topics using coverage from reliable secondary sources. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 15:45, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Thanks Pennyseven for that link to Wikiversity's Financial Accounting course. Also I see there is the similar Wikiversity's Managerial Accounting course. I probably mostly agree with Gavin, but I think some of the discussion about the Accounting topics template and other matters has to do with many persons (including perhaps me) wanting some coverage of basic accounting topics. Would it help if we focused some discussion here on what is in these Wikiversity courses, and link to them from our wikipedia articles? Perhaps on occasion we could add basic, non-encyclopedic material to those courses, and that would help allow us to develop the wikipedia articles in a more encyclopedic way. doncram (talk) 18:35, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Enron

Would anyone like rewrite the section on the Enron scandal and possibly add more sourced material to the article Enron scandal as well? If they do, I have come accross some interesting accademic papers that could be used which can be downloaded from SSRN[6]. If anyone would like to collaborate on this, let us know. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 15:45, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I seem to be making good progress, and this article is rapidly imporving. Assistance would be most welcome. I have also improved the section Accountancy#Accounting Scandals, which is now fully sourced. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 11:25, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Business/Accounting_task_force/Archive_1&oldid=1137391521"