Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Business/Accounting task force/Archive 2

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Accounting ethics GAN

I have nominated accounting ethics at GAN to hopefully bring the total number of GAs for the project up to three. I would appreciate it if anybody could take a look and check for any errors prior to somebody reviewing the article. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 01:30, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

GA Sweeps invitation

This message is being sent to WikiProjects with GAs under its scope. Since August 2007, WikiProject Good Articles has been participating in GA sweeps. The process helps to ensure that articles that have passed a nomination before that date meet the GA criteria. After nearly two years, the running total has just passed the 50% mark. In order to expediate the reviewing, several changes have been made to the process. A new worklist has been created, detailing which articles are left to review. Instead of reviewing by topic, editors can consider picking and choosing whichever articles they are interested in.

We are always looking for new members to assist with reviewing the remaining articles, and since this project has GAs under its scope, it would be beneficial if any of its members could review a few articles (perhaps your project's articles). Your project's members are likely to be more knowledgeable about your topic GAs then an outside reviewer. As a result, reviewing your project's articles would improve the quality of the review in ensuring that the article meets your project's concerns on sourcing, content, and guidelines. However, members can also review any other article in the worklist to ensure it meets the GA criteria.

If any members are interested, please visit the GA sweeps page for further details and instructions in initiating a review. If you'd like to join the process, please add your name to the running total page. In addition, for every member that reviews 100 articles from the worklist or has a significant impact on the process, s/he will get an award when they reach that threshold. With ~1,300 articles left to review, we would appreciate any editors that could contribute in helping to uphold the quality of GAs. If you have any questions about the process, reviewing, or need help with a particular article, please contact me or OhanaUnited and we'll be happy to help. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 21:47, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

GA Sweeps Reassessment of Single Audit

Single Audit has been nominated for a good article reassessment. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to good article quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article. Reviewers' concerns are here. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:31, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I have left my comments at Talk:Single Audit/GA1 along the lines that there is no evidence that this topic is notable, so I am not sure why it is being even considered as a Good Article candidate. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 08:09, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Heqanakht papyri

Does anyone know about the Heqanakht papyri, or could write something about Egyptian accounting to add to Accounting Early History section? --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 10:56, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I don´t know if Dr Gary Giroux would know something about this. He is writing a book about accounting history. His details are here [1]

PennySeven (talk) 21:56, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

The first accountant

Anyone interested in doing an article about Amatino Manucci, the first accountant? Here is the info [2]

PennySeven (talk) 22:03, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Certainly notable, I think, as compared to Pacioli being the first accounting textbook author. I think it is important to make the distinction between the two as Giroux is making. PennySeven (talk) 22:08, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Stock

Stock needs to be fixed. It is a very confusing article treating a company´s market capitalization and its shareholders´ equity value as the same item.

PennySeven (talk) 18:49, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

WP 1.0 bot announcement

This message is being sent to each WikiProject that participates in the WP 1.0 assessment system. On Saturday, January 23, 2010, the WP 1.0 bot will be upgraded. Your project does not need to take any action, but the appearance of your project's summary table will change. The upgrade will make many new, optional features available to all WikiProjects. Additional information is available at the WP 1.0 project homepage. — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:25, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

A Brief History of Double Entry Book-keeping

A new 10-part series "A Brief History of Double Entry Book-keeping" starting on Monday, 8th of March 2010 at 15:45 GMT on BBC Radio 4[3]. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 12:25, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I'll start four FASBs

I intend to write during the month of september 2010 four articles on the following FASB statements: 65, 91, 114, and 117 (see my user page). After those I plan in writing at least another 5 FASBs by end of October. Please drop by my talk page if you need to work on those too so that we may collaborate. --Sulmues ^(talk) 16:34, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Do you have any sources about the history of FASB's? --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 11:41, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't, but I'll just focus on the FASBs as stated. See User:Sulmues/Sandbox/FAS_91. What do you think? I also worked on Installment Sales Method today. Please review and let me know. --Sulmues ^(talk) 15:11, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

You will need some third party coverage to demonstrate notability, and provide context to the reader. The way that the FASB's are written is that the audience is assumed to be accountants, but they won't be understood by a more general audience. What this means in practice is that you will need to find more commentary, criticism or analysis that paints a broader picture than just the mechanics of the FASB itself. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 15:29, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. I'll just need to keep writing. I have some sources. --Sulmues ^(talk) 11:44, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Hong Kong Engagement Standards

The article Hong Kong Engagement Standards has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

A search for references failed to find significant coverage in reliable sources to comply with notability requirements. This included web searches for news coverage, books, and journals, which can be seen from the following links:
Hong Kong Engagement Standards – news, books, scholar
Consequently, this article is about a subject that appears to lack sufficient notability.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 15:45, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

New Infobox Template for Accountancy bodies

I have created a new infobox template for accounting bodies at {{infobox accounting body}}. Its time that the accountancy task force takes up the task of implementing the template in all accounting body articles. Some of these articles already have a infobox which needs to be replaced with this one. is a good place to start with. R.Sivanesh ✆ 16:04, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Indian Accounting Standards

Indian Accounting Standards need to be amplified with more specific details. Also important difference with existing Indian ccounting standards need to be included. concepts of fair value and MTM needs to be included. pls help. --Vi1618 (talk) 16:15, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Sweetmat (talk) 10:00, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Renaming the Accountancy Task Force to Institute of Wiki Accountants

I have a strategic proposal to rename the Accountancy Task Force to Institute of Wiki Accountants. Since the name resembles a Professional accounting body, it will instantly become popular and the furtherance of articles on accountancy will become much easier. We can offer the designation Wiki Accountant to the project participants. We can create a Userbox for the users to designate themselves as Wiki Accountants. It may be a good step forward and may attract more resourceful persons. This renaming is legally allowed in wikipedia and precedents are already available. For e.g. we have Guild of Copy Editors which is wikiproject which portrays itself to be a association. I request all interested participants to reply to this post for or against the proposal.-- R.Sivanesh ^{✆ ©} 10:23, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Great idea! I like your pointing to the Guild of Copy Editors as a good example to follow, and i'd be happy to be one of the "Wiki Accountants". Why "Institute", though? I note that "Guild" implies a loose association of equal peers, while "Institute" might imply a more formal structure. Maybe the idea can be tweaked a little. Basically, i like the idea, and SUPPORT making such a name change. --do ncr am 18:15, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

I proposed the name Institute because anyone who is related to accountancy will probably be a member of a professional accountancy body. Normally such bodies follow the nomenclature of Institute. This name will not only be very comfortable and know to them but also increase the dignity of the task force. For e.g. if the project banner in an articles talk page says that the article is supported by the Institute of Wiki Accountants, it will not only be appealing but also portray some kind of professionalism. Over the years, if the issue kicks off, we can even have elected co-ordinators. -- R.Sivanesh ^{✆ ©} 20:22, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Would an Institute of Wiki Accountants be limited to professional accountants? The name may give that impression. Is that something we want? An Accountancy Task Force would obviously be for people with an interest in accounting, but perhaps not just professional accountants. Folklore1 (talk) 02:37, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

It's not like that. Anyone who wishes to contribute to accountancy articles will be termed as a Wiki Accountant. It will not be a professional qualification. It will only show the pride of contributing to accountancy articles.-- R.Sivanesh ^{✆ ©} 05:58, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

IMHO, the proposed name is not an improvement; to my mind it is misleading, as indicated by Folklore1, and sounds less than sensible, because we do not account for wikis (cf. for instance ICWAI). For Accountants who belong to an Association rather than an Institute, the name may actually put them off. If the ATF needs kick-starting, then a recruitment drive among Category:Wikipedian accountants may be a place to start, perhaps preceded by improving the focus with a short list of articles to be improved (I would point out Talk:Matching principle for a start). - Fayenatic (talk) 09:57, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

I oppose this name change. I'm a Chartered Accountant but do not in any way consider myself a "wiki accountant" - I'm an accountant who sometimes edits wikipedia articles. I feel that the use of "Institute" in the proposed name is an attempt to assert a claim that the task force is somehow an authority on accountancy topics - of course we all recognise that this is not the case. AnthonyUK (talk) 16:37, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Ok, if use of the name Institute is the cause of concern, what about the name Guild of Wiki Accountants. As pointed out by Doncram, Guild would give the meaning of a loose association of equal peers. We have to do something to further the accountancy articles and why not this?..-- R.Sivanesh ^{✆ ©} 17:08, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

"Guild" would be more appropriate than "institute". However, a "task force" would be more inclusive, allowing participants who are not professional accountants. If you prefer a group limited to professional accounts, than "guild" would be appropriate. Folklore1 (talk) 12:39, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Strong oppose. Hey guys. I'm relatively new to this task force, but here's my two cents: I oppose the name change because the definition of institutes is rather different from what we're doing here (institutes "are often research organisations", they can refer to institutions of learning), and the word in general refer to organizations founded to promote a cause - which we aren't exactly doing). Also, I would argue that using the guild of copy-editors is a weak comparison because IMHO the word guild carries a lot less of its original meaning today than does the word institute.-Samuel Tan 11:39, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Userbox proposal

A model userbox for Wiki Accountants is under:

This user is a Wiki Accountant and works for the furtherance of accountancy articles.

anyone is welcome to improve it.-- R.Sivanesh ^{✆ ©} 21:57, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

I oppose this change, because I think Accountancy is a more inclusive term than Accountants. The latter term would exclude professors, students, attorneys, managers, and other folks who don't think of themselves as primarily accountants. Otto Neubauer (talk) 17:48, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

I too oppose this change for the same reasons mentioned by Otto. In addition, please do not use the word "furtherance" if you decide to change the user-box - it sounds awkward. Rather use "development" or "expansion" if you wish to change this.Sweetmat (talk) 10:00, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Oppose. I'm not bothered by the distinction between accounting and accountancy (they're used interchangeably where I come from), but the phrasing is just rather unsuitable for a userbox in my opinion. And anyway the current userbox is already quite matter-of-fact; there's no need to replace it with one that sounds even more serious.-Samuel Tan 11:44, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

ACCPAC

ACCPAC has been nominated for deletion. 65.93.12.101 (talk) 05:15, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

certified accountant

certified accountant and Certified Accountant currently redirect to Certified Public Accountant, which is dedicated to the US topic. Other countries are listed at Certified Accountant (disambiguation). My instinctive reaction was that this feels like the US topic being given too much prominence, as the title "certified accountant" is a WP:COMMONNAME used across the globe, and the exact name "Certified Accountant" was the title of UK Chartered Certified Accountants from 1906?-1996. At the same time, I wouldnt be surprised if there is a valid justification for the US topic being deemed the most common use of the term. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 02:51, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Well spotted, thanks. I've cleaned up that page and the redirects. While we are on the subject: in case anyone else can help, Association of Chartered Certified Accountants is a right mess at the moment! - Fayenatic (talk) 18:50, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Cash method of accounting

I wrote today the Cash method of accounting article, but I am aware that it is very much US based, and it would need the help of several editors so that it can reach a higher level of quality. I thought that bringing it here would attract interested parties for a successful collaboration. I intend to write other articles in the accounting field, so anytime you have an idea or need help with your own articles, please feel free to drop by my talk page.Markerdryer (talk) 20:21, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Renaming of Category:International Accounting Standards

Hey guys. I've put up a CFR to rename Category:International Accounting Standards to Category:International Financial Reporting Standards. I've listed my reasons in detail at the CFD page, so if you have comments or would like to voice either support or non-support, please do so there so the admins can hear your opinion. :) Well-rested ^Talk 04:06, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Looks like the moves been done. :) -Well-rested ^Talk 09:00, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Introducing myself - New user - Andrew Read

I am a new user on this site. The introduction asked for users with access to University libraries. Well, that's me. I am on the Faculty at the University of Canberra in Australia. I am also the author of a very old textbook on financial accounting. I am encouraging my undergraduate students to improve the Wikipedia financial accounting pages by setting my final year students an assignment to analyse a page relevant to financial accounting using Wikipedia's criteria for a good article and then to write an improved article. I will be asking the students who submitted the best assignments to post their assignments to Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AndrewRead (talk • contribs) 13:22, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

It's fun to charter an accountant...

And much less fun to do work for free. That said, net income and net profit need a major overhaul, first to explain the terms lucidly on their own merits without simply listing a bunch of hyperlinked acronyms but more importantly to clearly and deliberately distinguish them from one another and from net revenue, which seemingly means net income but currently links to net profit, which itself is given as a synonym for net income on its page. — LlywelynII 06:45, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Net earnings is another one... — LlywelynII 06:47, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Hey LlywelynII. A problem with the net income article is that net profit is usually defined with respect to other accounting variables, as a residual. So it's not possible to explain it on its "own merits". A few days back I updated the lede to make it more coherent (and accurate), but the rest of the article still needs quite a bit of work, yes. -Well-rested ^Talk 08:56, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

While FASB and IFRS define net profit as a residual it can be explained on its own merits. British economist J.R. Hicks wrote the seminal book on this topic in 1946. The reference is Hicks, J. R. (1946). Value and capital: An inquiry into some fundamental principles of economic theory (2nd ed.). Oxford: Clarendon Press. When I have time I will add Hicks definition to the article on net income. --AndrewRead (talk) 13:33, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Template:Social accountability

Hello, I'd like to invite input and contributions from Accountancy Task Force editors to a new navbox, Template:Social accountability. I've tried to assemble a mini-gateway to a set of related articles. Some editors here may have further suggestions. The topic that started me on this was Social auditing; currently this redirects to Social accounting. I am particularly interested in any suggestions that might strengthen the Auditing and Reporting sections of the template. Thank you & Kind regards, DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 18:21, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Interested users?

Hello! I have been watching several Accountancy-related pages for several years now and making small edits here and there (particularly on Debits and credits) and I am interested in joining the task force. However, I don't see on the WikiProject page any rules you might have for editors interested in joining, other than a list with no instructions. Shall I just add myself to the list? Cheers! Ivanvector (talk) 16:01, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Never mind, I found instructions in the invite template. Ivanvector (talk) 16:09, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Liability

Wikipedia should cover the area of auditor liability, e.g. Audit and Accreditation could really use sections on liability - i.e. the auditor's solvency and reputation is put on the line, (with examples, such as the enron scandal's on Anderson as well as less notable cases). Should, practically and legally speaking, discuss the liability shouldered by performance of an audit and public release of an audit letter or accreditation statement. Anyone? --Elvey (talk) 19:56, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Improving the Accountancy article

Hello, Taskforce! I've been doing quite a bit of work on the Accountancy article, restructuring the lede and shifting the previously-massive History section to its own page with significant updates. I think the updated page is now ready for some significant improvements by the community, so I'd like to invite you guys to metaphorically stride over to the page boldly and improve the article.

I've listed some initial issues for discussion here at the article's talk page, so do head over there if you'd like to help.

- Well-rested ^Talk 10:52, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Heads up: there's an ongoing discussion over at the Accountancy talk page regarding the article title, and in particular regarding which term is more commonly used. We'd like to establish broad consensus before implementing any changes, so do head over if you'd like to contribute. -Well-rested ^Talk 05:09, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Accountancy (disambiguation)

The article Accountancy (disambiguation) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Not necessary to disambiguate this topic. Delete per WP:TWODABS as there are only two related articles and Accountancy is clearly the primary topic, and it is unlikely that another "accountancy" topic will be listed which is not related to one of these two articles. Accountant is linked from Accountancy, and Accountancy (constituency) is linked via hatnote.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Ivanvector (talk) 16:06, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Requirements of IFRS is up for deletion

The article Requirements of IFRS has been nominated for deletion, with the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Requirements of IFRS. Comments are welcome. --Mark viking (talk) 18:56, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Accounting articles

Many of the pages currently in Category:Accounting articles are about business or finance generally rather than accounting, e.g. bankers, State Comptrollers and corporate takeovers, so "|Accountancy=yes" or "|Accounting=yes" should be removed from their talk pages. Would user:Well-rested or user:Nehrams2020 care to comment, as I happen to have reverted two each of your classifications today? – Fayenatic London 21:53, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Proposed rename to Accounting task force

As the main article was moved from Accountancy to Accounting, I propose to rename this to the Accounting task force. – Fayenatic London 10:27, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Support but rename to Accounting Taskforce, following naming convention of other Wikipedia taskforces. Alternatively, move this to a full-fledged WikiProject Accounting. I think there are enough articles to warrant it now. Ivanvector (talk) 13:50, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
- Which other projects are called "Taskforce"? I looked today and found very many that are "task force" and only a few that are "Task Force"[4] or "Taskforce"[5] (including Wikipedia:WikiProject Physics/Taskforces). Counting is difficult because Wikipedia:Cleanup Taskforce has many sub-pages. I participate in category renaming at WP:CFD and we mostly see changes to "task force". – Fayenatic London 16:24, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
  - There may be enough articles to justify a new wikiproject, but probably not enough active editors. We in the Business and Finance wikiprojects can always help with the less technical aspects of accounting articles, but I guess those of us whose competency is limited to bookkeeping or investments are unlikely to join another wikiproject. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 16:32, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
    - I agree with Hroðulf about not splitting this to a separate WikiProject. The state of accounting articles here is still generally poor. – Fayenatic London 16:37, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Let's let this discussion run and establish a consensus before doing any more arbitrary page moves, eh? I'm not opposed to calling this "task force" versus "Taskforce", but I've been working for the last few days on renaming things (like categories & templates & such) to match the existing name, and I'd like to see that we've decided on something before doing all that work again. I don't think anyone here is going to oppose changing "Accountancy" to "Accounting" - nobody did in the most recent page move discussion, although there was one editor who wanted to change to a different name altogether. As for "task force" versus "Taskforce", I like the single word because it feels powerful, however it turns out there is a guide to task forces already, so I support changing to "Accounting task force". Ivanvector (talk) 20:12, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

I beg your pardon, I only noticed the old move of the main page today and reverted it, and did not realise there had been other recent work related to it. – Fayenatic London 21:49, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Apologies to you as well, the move from the original name was way back in 2012! I assumed that "Accountancy Taskforce" was the original name because it had been that way since before I was involved. I've withdrawn my requested move of Category:Accountancy task force pending the outcome of this discussion, and I think you already undid my other changes. Ivanvector (talk) 23:06, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

This discussion seems to have run its course, and there's no opposition or reason to expect there will be opposition. Want to go ahead with the move, Fayenatic london? You seem to be more efficient at it than I am. Ivanvector (talk) 15:39, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
- OK, thanks. I've done the main page and templates, and will nominate the categories. – Fayenatic London 22:58, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Overlapping articles

Hey guys, thought I'd see what the consensus was before editing some of this task force's articles. I've noticed that the various time value of money-related articles have grown to overlap each other greatly. Some examples:

Where some of these articles have large sections of rewritten information from the main article. What is yall's opinion of organizing these a little better and consolidating the redundant content? I've already done a little bit (though fairly poorly) with the present value article. Additionally, I think it would be pretty helpful to have one of the related article tables at the bottom or side of each of these pages, as they are all highly related. Thoughts? --Zojj t c 18:41, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Could we agree that Time value of money is the main topic for all of these? Creating a navbox would be fairly simple. Ivanvector (talk) 18:54, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Draft:Management accounting control systems

Hello accountants! This old abandoned draft will soon be deleted unless someone who understands it fixes it up for mainspace. Is this a notable topic? —Anne Delong (talk) 02:06, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Expert attention

This is a notice about Category:Business/Accounting task force articles needing expert attention, which might be of interest to your WikiProject. It will take a while before the category is populated. Iceblock (talk) 21:07, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Institute of Certified Public Accountants of Pakistan - not a professional accounting body

I have found several links/references on Wikipedia to "Institute of Certified Public Accountants of Pakistan (ICPAP)" being presented as a professional accounting body. According to its own website, ICPAP does not confer any degrees as defined in the UGC/HEC Act (Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page).http://icpap.com.pk/index.php/about-cpa/cpa-history). I would appreciate if persons maintaining the various pages can delete ICPAP as it is misleading information.Shman2007 (talk) 12:23, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

@Shman2007: in most countries, conferring degrees and awarding professional qualifications are not connected. – Fayenatic London 15:44, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
- @Fayenatic london: in the country of ICPAP (i.e. Pakistan) the accounting bodies are established under an Act of parliament or Ordinance issued by the President of the country. ICPAP has neither of that to claim legitimacy.Shman2007 (talk) 19:12, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
  - In that case, if it has neither official standing nor notability for other reasons, feel free to be WP:BOLD and remove places where it is improperly mentioned. Just be sure to give an explanation each time in the edit summary. – Fayenatic London 18:35, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Commercial accounting

Does anybody here have any idea about the term "commercial accounting" ? I have seen this term in some pages, but none of them define it. I wonder if this is an outdated branch or a minor one under a major branch like financial accounting. --Quest for Truth (talk) 15:32, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Move

Talk:Accountancy_Constituency_(Hong_Kong)#Requested_move_2_May_2016 In ictu oculi (talk) 16:56, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Deletion discussion on a draft outline page

MfD nomination of Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Outlines/Drafts/Outline of accounting law

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Outlines/Drafts/Outline of accounting law, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Outlines/Drafts/Outline of accounting law and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Outlines/Drafts/Outline of accounting law during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you.

Leaving a note here for members who might be interested in this discussion. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 11:40, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Everyone must oppose this and create an accounting law article. Contrary to one lunatic's theories, see these sources. 107.77.228.186 (talk) 00:15, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Please evaluate a new draft at AFC

Please take a look at Draft:Replacement Approach Deprecation and give an opinion of the subject's notability. I think the sourcing is rather thin, but accounting is completely outside my comfort zone as an AFC reviewer. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 11:27, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Category:Wages and salaries and Category:Income

Is there anything that fits in Category:Wages and salaries that wouldn't fit in Category:Income? Do we need two categories for the same thing? Dream Focus 01:23, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

General structure about Cash receipts journal

Are there any different structures available in the world about Cash receipts journal. Take a look at the structure that I given here which is practiced in Sri Lanka

Date	Receipt number	Description	Discount allowed	Value	Receipt analysis				L/F
Date	Receipt number	Description	Discount allowed	Value	Cash sales	Received from debtors	Income received	Other	L/F
01.04.2017	657890	Cash sales		50,000	50000
02.04.2017	657891	Dividends		10,000			10000
03.04.2017	657892	Additional capital		100,000				100,000
05.04.2017	657893	Debtors	1,000	9,000		9,000
			1,000	169,000	50,000	9,000	10,000	100,000

I have just added this model into Cash receipts journal article. Abishe (talk) 11:33, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Splitting up ERP companies from Accounting software category template

RE: Template:Accounting_software

I was going to split retail accounting software into two groups:web and desktop, but many of these programs are ERP which are significantly different in scope from accounting software programs. I think it would be better to create a new ERP software category template. I'm not seeing anything under ERP templates. Thoughts? JustaZBguy (talk) 18:51, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Request for information on WP1.0 web tool

Hello and greetings from the maintainers of the WP 1.0 Bot! As you may or may not know, we are currently involved in an overhaul of the bot, in order to make it more modern and maintainable. As part of this process, we will be rewriting the web tool that is part of the project. You might have noticed this tool if you click through the links on the project assessment summary tables.

We'd like to collect information on how the current tool is used by....you! How do you yourself and the other maintainers of your project use the web tool? Which of its features do you need? How frequently do you use these features? And what features is the tool missing that would be useful to you? We have collected all of these questions at this Google form where you can leave your response. Walkerma (talk) 04:24, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

CPA term?

Hi! A student of mine is planning on editing the Certified Public Accountant. It looks like the term is primarily only used in the US, as that's the only sourcing he can really find. Is this used elsewhere or is it only used in the US? Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 15:17, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Primarily used in the USA> Other countries normally use the term "Chartered Accountant" --WikiCpa (talk) 18:27, 24 October 2020 (UTC)