Template talk:Accounting

Layout

This template looks nice but it can never cover every topic related to accounting. It is appearing in articles all over wikipedia. What is the point of having this link at the bottom of a page. It does not include many articles that can be linked to accountancy. It takes over the article and does not fit in with the standard layout of articles. If this type of template appears in accounting what will appear in other sections of wikipedia. There are 1.6million articles as I write this and there are a lot more accountancy related articles that could be put in this template if you wanted to be totally correct. It should not be placed on any article it is just decoration. NilssonDenver 23:11, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

So let's make it better! - Tragic Baboon (banana receptacle) 23:13, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Here is a list of the starting categories and it drills down deeeper and deeper, where do you start? [1] The category at the bottom of each article is there to lead you to other related aticles. NilssonDenver 13:29, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

The link above should be to Accountancy and not to Accounting systems. - Rob smith 06 (talk) 17:58, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

I think the idea of having a template is to link similar articles, so that information within wikipedia can flow better. However, the template needs alot of work, but then again, so do most accounting articles. The Accounting Template is a start, but all articles, categories, and relateed media should be revised. I think the template should stay and should be improved to include relevant and related articles, as well as improving all acocunting related articles. Maybe we should start a wikiproject? - Mtmelendez 21:57, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Anyone please change the template box.. it is showing some code related things on the page.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Veejayyc (talk • contribs) 13:47, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Target locations of this template

Although the ICAI is a professional accounting body having this template on that page makes no sense. Its like trying to have every medical fact listed on an article about a Professional medical association. The template is a distraction on this page and does not add value to the ICAI article. At best it should have a single small box linking to 2 or 3 lines such as "Learn More about Accounting" or Accounting concepts. (But then what about Finance, Securities, Audit ???? I mean the list can go on. WikiCpa (talk) 17:41, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Accounting qualifications

Add accounting qualifications to list in the template only if wider notability is demonstrated by a article in Wikipedia. Further I propose that only articles regarding accounting qualifications should be added to the list and not the institutes that offer the qualification. If we keep on adding the list of institutes that offer the qualifications, there will be no end to it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SivaneshR (talk • contribs) 16:56, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

I replaced DIFA with CGFM, which is becoming important among government accountants. DIFA does not link to a supporting article in Wikipedia. Folklore1 (talk) 13:36, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Redirects in nav boxes

Just a note re my last change. Per WP:BRINT Redirects should not usually appear in navigation boxes, for two main reasons. First whenever a template is used on a page the link to the page itself is highlighted in unlinked bold, to emphasises this and to stop readers trying to leave the page via the link. This does not work when the link is a redirect. Second navigation templates are explicitly for linking related articles, to help readers find them, so are unlike article text where e.g. redirects serve to deal with different wordings, or to link topics which do not have an article but for which there's a suitable related redirect. And if the common name for a topic is e.g. Balance sheet it is much clearer to link to that than to the less common Statement of financial position. There are exceptions; if an article is unrelated but a section of it is related the section link should be used instead of a link to the article. But I don't see any such articles here.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 07:28, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Please don't add ACCA

I request everyone not to add ACCA to the list of accounting qualifications. ACCA is the institute which offers CCA qualification. Since CCA is already listed adding ACCA is unwarranted. Further if we keep on adding the names of institutes which offer accounting qualifications, the list will be never ending. So please let us put a fullstop to this issue.-- R.Sivanesh ^{✆ ©} 17:03, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Types of costs

Can I get an expert to break out the types of costs in this box? A number of them are listed at the cost article, but it is in poor shape. 70.247.162.84 (talk) 00:40, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Put the old sidebar back

Hey guys, I've implemented a new version of the sidebar. Many of the articles that were on the previous sidebar are still there, with some additions. The main change was to improve the formatting and bring it in line with sidebars of other topics, such as finance. The old version is available for reference at my user page here. -Well-rested^Talk 03:55, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Hey guys, completely changing a template just because you feel like it is not a very good idea, especially when you leave out fundamental concepts. Please put the old version back. Thank you.

You should know that it is correct to first discuss massive changes to a template on this talk page. You did it the other way round. You made the massive change and then said: Hey guys, I´ve implemented a new version of the sidebar. Please reference Wikipedia procedures that state that that is the way massive changes are made over here. Wikireference please. CameraWallet (talk) 15:50, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Please put the old version back.CameraWallet (talk) 15:51, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

I unfortunately do not know how to roll back all your illegal changes. Some people know how to do it. CameraWallet (talk) 15:53, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Can someone please roll back WellRested´s changes so that the old version of the template is put back. Thank you. CameraWallet (talk) 16:11, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Hello CameraWallet, and welcome to Wikipedia! In general there is no requirement to discuss changes on a talk page before making them (and not doing so certainly isn't illegal in and of itself!). In fact, editors are welcomed to be bold when updating Wikipedia. There is already an ongoing discussion regarding the accounting template and lots of other issues over here, and you are very welcome to join in. :) -Well-rested^Talk 16:41, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Notes to FS/MD&A

Another editor recently merged in the article on notes to financial statements into Financial statement, and I merged in the article on management discussion and analysis today as well. There are still links in the template that point to the now-redirected pages. I have intentionally not removed the links from the template because they are important concepts. If another editor feels differently, I encourage you to discuss here first before deleting the links. Ivanvector (talk) 17:20, 19 February 2014 (UTC)