Talk:XBRL/Archives/2012

Fair use rationale for Image:Xbrl-logo.png
Image:Xbrl-logo.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 18:43, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Section refusal to adopt
I would like to see a section on adopters as well. Just to stay balanced.

Aixroot (talk) 14:07, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Aixroot, I changed the section to Adoption in Europe giving the full list of countries.Lancet (talk) 15:30, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Um, no. What you've provided is a list of countries where the banking supervisor has agreed to use the COREP taxonomies. This is not a list of comprehensive adoption of XBRL for any other purpose. Either "Adoption" should be qualified as to use by a regulator (financial, banking, taxation, stock exchange, companies registrar, etc.) or the material should be removed. As it is, it is just wrong.Dvunkannon (talk) 22:59, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Financial message
This category does not exist, so I removed it. Lancet (talk) 11:01, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Critics section
The "Critics" section contains two quotes from the same person, Jay Starkman. There are more persistent critics of XBRL, such as Dennis Keeling of BASDA, who are somewhat more penetrating than Mr Starkman. However, if we had NPOV questions about the salemanship in the lead paragraphs, should we not apply the same standards here? I would suggest that instead of carping quotations, critics should address the specifics in a neutral and informative manner.Dvunkannon (talk) 23:14, 25 February 2008 (UTC) Yes, that's a theme you repeat very consistently. I don't see how expanding and explaining the criticisms could be considered promotional, so it is somewhat irrelevant here. It is also not helpful to delete the entire section.Dvunkannon (talk) 04:18, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I restored the "Critics" section to its previous state. There is no rule forbidding more than one quote by the same person. The quoted criticisms don't have to be balanced, it's the article as a whole that has to be balanced, neutral and informative. Whatever the merits of XBRL might be, articles on the Wikipedia should not be promotionalLancet (talk) 14:52, 28 February 2008 (UTC).

XBRL Examples
I noticed that there are some pretty extensive examples of XBRL code in the article. I can't tell who added them, but I think it would also be helpful to the reader to see what the code produces when read by an XBRL reader. By showing the output, the reader can get an idea of why anyone would want to use XBRL. --Glennfcowan (talk) 15:43, 19 May 2008 (UTC) --Lancet (talk) 16:58, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I think I need to be a little more clear, I think it would be helpful if the article showed what the financial statements looked like and also what the code looks like. Both elements need to be present so that any reader can know that XBRL looks normal in financial statements, but has deeper meaning in the actual data. A similar example would look like this: (Just so there is no disclosure conflict, I work for this firm. I am only recommending looking at it because I am familiar with the site and think is a good example of showing how XBRL works.) --Glennfcowan (talk) 23:30, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

No Introduction
This page reads more like a specification overview than an encyclopedia page. I've read it, and I have almost no idea what XBRL is used for other than to "communicate business and financial information", whatever that might mean. Who is using XBRL? What are they using it for? Who created the standard? That's the kind of thing that should be in the first paragraph, not a bunch of links to the many parts of the XML specification. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aquameta (talk • contribs) 23:56, 2 August 2008 (UTC)