Talk:IAS 19

Viability as an article
I've moved the above templates to talk as it's not obvious to me why they are needed. Enchanter 23:20, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
 * It is explained in the edit summary. There are no third-party sources; encyclopedia articles do not have bullet points with questions, encyclopedia articles are descriptive; and there are many terms that would be appropriate for linking but which are not linked. —Centrx→talk &bull; 23:45, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I am moving the Primarysources and Inappropriate tone tags back to article, as it is inappropriate to have it here on the talk pages. --  Emana  (Talk) 04:06, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

To be more specific on what I think:


 * The majority of the article is describing what this particular accounting standard says; in this case I think it is appropriate to use the standard itself as a source. There is some interpretation in the "criticisms" section which could benefit from specific sources;
 * I think the format of questiondon't agree that questions or bullet points are necessarily bad.

Enchanter 00:00, 17 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is not a directory of accounting standards. There must be enough third-party sources to support a complete encyclopedia article. In this case, a summary of the accounting standards belong in the main article, International Financial Reporting Standards, not a description of every minutiae in every sub-guideline.
 * What established Wikipedia articles have this format?
 * —Centrx→talk &bull; 06:25, 17 December 2006 (UTC)


 * To reassure you about notability - these accounting standards are used by every major company in Europe, Australia, China, Russia, and a good many other places, and there are plenty of third party sources to back that up, listed on the International Financial Reporting Standards page. The article as it stand already has good primary and third party sources.  Plenty more could easily be found to support a longer article than this, so I would suggest retaining the article rather than merging.
 * I have no strong views either way on what format the article should take, although as I have already said I rather like the approach the original author took - I don't think a less clear presentation would be justified simply on the grounds that it should look more like other articles. Enchanter 13:40, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * It needs to be an encyclopedia article, verified by multiple sources that have this IAS 19 as their main subject. Wikipedia is not a summary of accounting standards. This is not in the form of an encyclopedia article, and it does not have the sources appropriate to an encyclopedia article. The sources on the IFRS page are about IFRS, not IAS 19. IFRS is a fine subject for an encyclopedia article; this does not appear to be, and the current article is not. —Centrx→talk &bull; 09:06, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
 * To address your concerns about notability, the standard is the subject of multiple works by credible third party sources in addition to those already in the article; many readily available on the web, such as, , as well as most recent accounting textbooks.  For verifiability, the article is mainly concerned with summarising the primary source; in my view the primary source is the most appropriate reliable source in this setting (citing "Source X says Y" is more concise and often more reliable than "Source Z says Source X says Y").  The content is an encyclopedic summary of the subject matter; I agree structure and style could be improved.  Enchanter 23:04, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I've removed the wikify tag since this page doesn't need wikifying. Rich257 17:12, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Accordingly? What?
There is a line in the intro that says, "Accordingly, most of the standard is taken up with explaining the rules for long term employee benefits." When it says "most of the standard" what does it mean? Is most of IFRS taken up by explaining employee benefits or just IAS19?