Talk:International Financial Reporting Standards requirements

Requested move 25 January 2014

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: No consensus. Obviously the nominator gave us little to work with. No one would find any fault with one of the participants here in the discussion if they decided to up and move this to a title they prefer, but there's absolutely no consensus here, obviously. (non-admin closure) Red Slash 02:17, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

---

Requirements of IFRS → Requirements of International Financial Reporting Standards – WP:ARTICLETITLE 174.3.125.23 (talk) 06:09, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.

• Weak oppose. I can argue this one both ways (see below), but my gut feeling is leave it as is. Andrewa (talk) 09:09, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
• Support revised proposal International Financial Reporting Standards requirements for clarity and to expand an obscure abbreviation per WP:TITLEFORMAT: Abbreviations and acronyms are often ambiguous and thus should be avoided unless the subject is known primarily by its abbreviation and that abbreviation is primarily associated with the subject (e.g. NATO, laser, SCSI).
  It is a pity that nominator lazily omitted to mention which part of WP:ARTICLETITLE applied, but it is a better rationale tan the above opposer's "git feelings". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:13, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:

A Bold move would have been appropriate if there's a good case for this. If it's not obvious, then nom should have said something about why. This RM should be closed as vacuous, either way. Dicklyon (talk) 02:33, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

• Comment I've thought about the name a little more, and think International Financial Reporting Standards requirements may be more mellifluous because the article talks about the requiresrequirements of IFRS, and is not necessarily a list. In response to User:Dicklyon, WP:PRECISE is a specific reason for the move.174.3.125.23 (talk) 04:38, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

I can argue this one both ways. I don't think WP:PRECISE supports the move as claimed. But I do note that IFRS currently redirects to International Financial Reporting Standards. Line call, but I'd leave as is.

On the other hand, I don't think raising it here hurts. When in doubt I tend to favour going straight to a full RM. Agree that a bold move wouldn't have hurt either, but I think this RM is fine. Andrewa (talk) 09:09, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

The bold thing would be to close this article altogether and move the content back to the main article International Financial Reporting Standards, where it originally was. That article is terrible, it does not actually describe IFRS. Swinnow16 (talk) 00:03, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Do you mean this article is terrible? This article does seem to violate WP:SYN.174.3.125.23 (talk) 08:07, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

No, I mean that I think International Financial Reporting Standards is a terrible article.Swinnow16 (talk) 22:41, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Proposal to delete 12 February 2014

I've changed the heading from "21 February" to "12 February" to correct the date of the proposed deletion174.3.125.23 (talk) 10:08, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

I mildly oppose the deletion unless it's intended to move the content back to International Financial Reporting Standards.

• ambiguously referenced? I think it's actually clear, the references are to the primary source in a standard form for users of IFRS. It isn't Wikipedia-standard but this could be changed, so instead of having "IAS1.10" in the text there would be a footnote referencing International Financial Reporting Standards, published by the International Accounting Standards Board, standard IAS 1 "Presentation of Financial Statements", paragraph 10. However, it's a waste of time to amend the article if it's going to be deleted anyway.
• overly detailed? The article's a summary of over 4,000 pages of the IFRS standards themselves. I'd say the article is under-detailed, it's barely scratching the surface
• how-to-ish? No idea.
• overall not encylopaedic? No idea. Articles about celebrities and science fiction don't belong in an encyclopaedia but there are plenty in Wikipedia.

Swinnow16 (talk) 22:41, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

I'll elaborate on my objections to this article here. First, by ambiguous referencing, I do mean Wikipedia style, in that there isn't a list of references to make the (unformatted) inline citations very meaningful to a general reader. If the article relies entirely on primary sources, that's a problem too (actually, that's worth tagging). Second, by overly detailed, yes, I'm sure this is concise compared to the full IFRS. But for a generalist encyclopedia, this is much more than a reader needs to know about IFRS. Reading over WP:NOT, several points seem to apply to this article (e.g., resource for conducting business, instruction manual). That leads into my final point: by its very nature, this article seems to be about how to adhere to IFRS, rather than presenting information about IFRS in the manner of an encyclopedia, which I believe it better done at the main page International Financial Reporting Standards. It may be best to redirect this title there, which will also allow for this page's history to remain in case anyone is interested in merging content there back to the parent article. --BDD (talk) 22:59, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

User:BDD has summarized the problems with this article, not International Financial Reporting Standards, well. I was concerned about the WP:NOTHOWTO nature of this article, but if the IFRS standards do amount to +4000pages, this also falls afoul of WP:SYN.174.3.125.23 (talk) 10:32, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

I've edited the first paragraph, presentation of financial statements, to add footnotes including primary and secondary sources. I could potentially do the same for the rest of the article, but it's a waste of time of you're going to delete it anyway.

Do you actually understand IFRS or are you in any way interested in it? If so, why not have a go at editing this article or better still International Financial Reporting Standards? Or perhaps you think IFRS is already adequately explained in Wikipedia... Swinnow16 (talk) 21:30, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose A quick search found secondary sources for IFRS reporting requirements like [1], [2], [3], and [4]. A GBooks search for "requirements of IFRS" netted 7,330 results and GScholar 464 results. This seems a highly notable field with ample sources on which to build an article. I don't think this is a howto, in the sense that this is very far from a detailed manual for how to report financial information. But in any case, removal of any content deemed howto or synth can be accomplished with ordinary editing; deletion should be an action of last resort. For these reasons, I am deprodding. --Mark viking (talk) 22:16, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

IFRS are a body of requirements. The sources you cited and those on GBooks (Google Books) and GScholar (Google Scholar) are simply secondary sources of the actual IFRS accounting rules. I can't see how providing sources could take this article's subject into a nonoriginal article.174.3.125.23 (talk) 22:55, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Secondary and tertiary sources like the ones quoted above are precisely what is needed to avoid original research. If I was to read the entire set of of primary IFRS documents (heaven help me) and decide what the main points are to put in the article, that would be an evaluative judgment in the realm of OR and likely SYNTH. But if experts in the field write books or papers describing "these are the main points, and this why they are important", then a simple straight summary of those source is all that is needed, no OR required. The section WP:PSTS within the WP:OR page describes the policies. --Mark viking (talk) 23:19, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

I've gone through the sources and there is no consistent reference to any set or specific group of "requirements". In reality, all International Financial Reporting Standards are requirements and rules. Ultimately, those sources are sources of private companies, and handbooks to use IFRS. IFRS rules must be followed in order for accounting reporting to be considered to be under International Financial Reporting Standards. Otherwise, they are ad hoc rules or sometimes GAAP rules, if they are following a national body's rules.174.3.125.23 (talk) 14:52, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

• Taken to AfD: see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Requirements of IFRS. --BDD (talk) 18:24, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

• PLEASE COMMENT AT THE AFD, not here. The AFD takes precedence and has the power to actually delete this work in progress. --doncram 15:09, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. Andrewa (talk) 01:32, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

---

Requirements of IFRS → International Financial Reporting Standards requirements – Per WP:ARTICLETITLE and WP:PRECISE, since the article is not necessarily a list, and User:BrownHairedGirl above: clarity and to expand an obscure abbreviation per WP:TITLEFORMAT: "Abbreviations and acronyms are often ambiguous and thus should be avoided unless the subject is known primarily by its abbreviation and that abbreviation is primarily associated with the subject (e.g. NATO, laser, SCSI)." 174.3.125.23 (talk) 22:13, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

• Rename per nominator and per my comments in the previous discussion. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:17, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

• Support the abbreviation IFRS isn't obvious or commonplace enough that it is an exception to the general rule that we should spell out abbreviations. --Mark viking (talk) 22:57, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.