Talk:Double-entry bookkeeping system/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive 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.

Contents

Language used

US English

Other spelling issues, hyphens and english language differences

Now that bookkeeping has been moved to its own area, the difference between bookkeeping and accounting can be explained. Bookkeeping is the recording of information, accounting is the using of that information. This can now be further explained in bookkeeping. Double-entry bookkeeping system is also used to describe Double-entry accounting system.

A lot more links need to be setup to redirect back to Double-entry accounting system

Word Combinations problems:
Double-entry or Double entry (people may search using "incorrect" grammar)
bookkeeping or book-keeping
system or no system in title
Accounting or Bookkeeping --NilssonDenver 13:13, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Tidy up

A request (30th June 2006) has been made to tidy up the article. I have done some tidying up. For those that have contributed to this article, please review any changes made to your contributions or suggest changes to any other information added. --NilssonDenver 05:27, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

This may be the worst explanation of double-entry accounting I have ever seen. What needs to be done is to start from scratch.

Would the contributor of the above comment please identify themselves and provide some constructive criticism on how to approach double entry. The IP address of the comment is unusual. NilssonDenver 07:43, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

History of how article name was finalised

Double-entry accounting system

Bookkeeping is not accounting. Bookkeeping is the keeping of books. Accounting is another subject. Please do not change the article name. There has been much discussion and as someone in this industry for over twenty years, double-entry bookkeeping is the term used. I am removing the request to change the name to double-entry accounting. This article name has been discussed, you can read the history for yourself. NilssonDenver 21:24, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

With respect, the correct term for this topic is "Double-entry accounting system" not "Double-entry bookkeeping system". LindaWarheads 22:36, 2 September 2006 (UTC)


Can we have a final decision on naming this article.

The discussion has been going on for many weeks.
Set final deadline for Wednesday 12th July 2006 23.00 Hours UTC/GMT.
Please read the arguments below --NilssonDenver 11:49, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
Given the expiration of the deadline above and taking into account the apprent consensus reached in discussion below, I have now renamed this article and fixed up all the redirects. -- The Anome 08:58, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Moving

Is this the right name? I've always seen this refered to as "Double entry book-keeping", not "booking". Google gives several thousand hits for "Double entry book-keeping" and only 66 for "double entry booking". Also, the capitalisation doesn't follow normal Wikipedia style. -- DrBob 22:53 Jan 10, 2003 (UTC)

I agree, so I moved the article. However, some people might argue for bookkeeping rather than book-keeping. -- Heron

You mean people who can actually spell? "Book-keeping" is inexcusably illiterate. That spelling has no place on Wikipedia. http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=book-keeping&x=0&y=0 --User:Spellingguy

I was inclined to agree, as this spelling and hyphenation appeared odd to me. However, an internet search for either form yielded results, and it appears "book-keeping" is the commonly used form in The Queen's English  ; ) --70.236.161.82 09:17, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Rename - I checked several of my accounting books and Double-entry accounting system is the name that is consistently used SirIsaacBrock 16:00, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
I agree. 'Bookkeeping' is, to my knowledge, the correct usage. —Stonefield 17:39, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

"Double-entry system" is ABSOLUTELY the worst possible title for this article. It is two adjectives and misses out on the verb entirely. The topic is essentialy 'bookkeeping'. That the most commonly accepted version in use is 'double-entry' is a qualification of the sort of 'bookkeeping'. 'System' is just fluff. Awful-awful, poorly thought out move. --Mig77 08:49, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

"Double-entry system" was a temporary name to stop to-and-fro move wars; after lengthy discussion, I believe that consensus has now finally been reached, and I have moved this article to double-entry bookkeeping system. -- The Anome 08:52, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Rename

Are we agreed on the name for this entry. Yes/No?

I keep seeing references to Double-entry bookkeeping. Is it Double entry accounting or Double-entry bookkeeping? Bookkeepers do the work, books are used, what is the difference between accounting and bookkeeping?

Wikipedia definition of accounting is
 Accountancy (profession) or accounting (methodology) is the measurement, disclosure or provision of assurance about information that helps managers and other decision makers make resource allocation decisions.

Wikipedia definition of bookkeeping is
 Bookkeeping is the recording of all financial transactions undertaken by a business (or an individual)

Based on these definitions I would go for bookkeeping --NilssonDenver 22:37, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

I see no objections anywhere to the title "double-entry accounting system" and the redirection of "double-entry bookkeeping" and "double-entry book-keeping" to "double-entry accounting system". It could be argued that "Double-entry accounting" would also be suitable. But double-entry accounting is a system and to leave out the word system would be incorrect. Those with knowledge of english grammar might perhaps explain it better. —Preceding unsigned comment added by NilssonDenver (talk • contribs)

I vote for "double-entry bookkeeping" --EMU CPA 12:25, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Final naming

FINAL ARTICLE NAME: Double-entry bookkeeping system
The following to be redirected:
Double-entry book-keeping system
Double-entry bookkeeping
Double-entry book-keeping
Double-entry accounting system
Double-entry accounting
Double entry bookkeeping system
Double entry book-keeping system
Double entry bookkeeping
Double entry book-keeping
Double entry accounting system
Double entry accounting
Possible redirects but may conflict with other articles:
Double-entry system
Double entry system
Double-entry
Double entry
Not to be redirected as they have their own article:
Bookkeeping
Book-keeping
Bookkeeper
Book-keeper
Accountancy
Accounting

Once and for all can with go with this so that all references can reference the correct article and I can get on with finishing my double-entry example? --NilssonDenver 21:55, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the move to "double-entry system"

I recently moved this article to "double-entry bookkeeping system". Since doing this, I have recieved a request to move the article back to "double-entry accounting system".

I made the move based on the request in the article, my reading of the arguments made in the talk page above, and also, as per the Manual of Style, on popular usage, since both "double-entry bookkeeping" and "double-entry accounting" are used by various different and apparently authoritative sources.

Popular usage, by Google hits:

  • "Double-entry bookkeeping": 206,000; "Double-entry book keeping": 51,000; total: 257,000
  • "Double-entry accounting": 196,000

However, since it seems that there is some controversy about the name, and since there is not a massive difference between the two choices in popular usage, I'm going to try to cut the Gordian knot by moving the article again, this time to the (hopefully) neutral "double-entry system", which takes no position on whether it is a bookkeeping system or an accounting system, and is compatible with both. -- The Anome 23:16, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

The process of moving an article requires dicussion. This has been bypassed. This article has moved through many variation of its title. I asked for discussion about a move. I did not ask it to be moved. Double-entry system does not describe clearly what the double-entry is about. I ask again that it be placed back in Double-entry accounting system, that the article refences that have been changed be put back to double-entry accounting system and that proper discussion takes place.
I support moving this article to double-entry bookkeeping system as bookkeeping, not accounting, is when double entry begins. In these modern days the two are seen as similar, but they are not. The true from of bookkeeping is recording transactions in the books and ledgers of an organisation.
Unless someone can come up with a better reason, backed up with solid references to use double-entry accounting system, I go with double-entry bookkeeping system. Google, while a place to get good statistics, is not a place of reference. The common misuse of terms is not unusual.
In short let us go back to when the discussion of the article move was started and then have a discussion. --NilssonDenver 09:27, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
I agree with you that "double-entry bookkeeping" is the correct name for this, and I thought from reading this talk page that there was consensus for the move, and acted accordingly. However, after another editor complained about the move, I found that the term "double-entry accounting" is also in wide use, even among accountants, particularly in the U.S. and that the margin between the two was relatively slight (57% and 43% respectively). Given the history of disputes over different names for this article, and rather than move it back to what I consider to be the wrong term, or risk a to-and-from move war, I decided to move it to a name that would defuse the conflict by making both sides equally unhappy: whether you consider it to be the "double-entry bookkeeping system" or the "double-entry accounting system", it certainly involves double entries, and it's certainly a system of some kind. (I thought briefly about just calling it "double entry", but it sounds too much like a title for one of the sexology articles.)
You asked me whether I am an admin. Well, yes, I am, but I'm not, and have not been, acting as one here; I'm just another editor without any special influence, as all admins are when they are acting as editors. Any editor who has had an account for four days can move pages; I've acted boldly (WP:BOLD) to try to solve what I see as a possible conflict, but I won't intervene in this further. I've restored your move notice; good luck with getting unambiguous consensus for your move. -- The Anome 15:53, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for putting the move notice back. I am looking for consensus to avoid a to-and-from war. I have put my argument on the table and want feedback. While acting boldy is a worthy aim, it can be a kick in the teeth to those trying to get agreement who have gradually brought the differing factions to an agreed consensus. Someone being bold can be seen as dictatorial and getting it their way. Unless you know the history of the entire argument, I advise that you don't go guns blazing. Ask, wait for replies (a few days), if none assume everyone agrees (usually oppponents are most vocal) and then act. You may still get gunned down but at least you go down with honour!!! --NilssonDenver 21:29, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Move to consensus title of "double-entry bookkeeping system"

After lengthy discussion by other editors, and the expiration of the deadline for discussion yesterday, I am now moving this article, hopefully finally, to Double-entry bookkeeping system. -- The Anome 08:20, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

The following to be redirected:

Possible redirects but may conflict with other articles:

Redirects that currently point here:

Redirects that point here, but should point elsewhere:

Sorry I've come to this rather late. The OED has no comma in "double entry", but does have a comma in "book-keeping". I wouldn't want to make a fuss about it, but personally I always feel more comfortable in such cases if there's a respected precedent I can follow. MikeSy 18:01, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
This is a case of US English and British English and other variations, and so every possible combination of the spelling is redirected to here. There appears to be rules on when to use use hyphens '-' which goes beyond my knowledge of english. Go talk to the spelling guy he can explain more. There are also precedents on wikipedia for spelling http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#National_varieties_of_English. Unless you are an expert in US English Grammar and can prove the spelling wrong, the Oxford English Dictionary (British I presume) is overuled by US English. By the way I write in Irish English! NilssonDenver 14:11, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
I have no intention of disputing Wikipedia's spelling rules. A hyphen is rarely worth making a fuss over. Worse, one should never, ever call it a "comma". I was pressed for time, wanted to say more, about more serious issues, and made a mess of it. The only observation I would make now about the title is that the word "system" is redundant. bookkeeping is said by various dictionaries to be "the activity or occupation of ...", The art of ...", "The practice or profession of ...", and "the activity of ...". Does the qualification by "double entry" make it anything else? One could speak of "The double entry system of bookkeeping", I suppose (Note: I'm not proposing that for a title), though that seems to suggest there might be another. Perhaps there is, but if so I'm not aware of it.
I have more things to say about the whole page but I'll do that later in a more appropriate place. MikeSy 10:05, 9 August 2006 (UTC)


More on debits/credits

I'm not an accountant, but I (think I) understand debits and credits well enough to write a simple example, which I have done. If this is not correct, please fix it, remove it, or write your own. Gwimpey 02:09, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)

I'm also learning about accounting and I was confused about exactly what Debit and Credit means. After digging around, it appears the names are just labels and shouldn't be interpreted based on the definitions of those words. Debit simply means put in the left column and Credit in the right. We should make a note of this perhaps. - Fando


The OED definitions 10 and 12 of credit, n seem most appropriate. Credit is money or assets on the books at the disposal of the account.

Debit is simply money or assets owed by the account, according to the first OED entry for debit, n.

It makes sense then that Debit and Credits must sum to zero: If you owe me money, to me that debt is an asset at my disposal (a credit), and to you it a debt you owe (a debit) --ASL 21:19, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Circular Definition

The definitions of debit and credit don't really explain what the terms mean, they merely say to me: a debit increases a debit account, and a credit increases a credit account. Okay, that's nice. If someone tells me "This is an expense account," how do I reason out whether it is a debit or credit account, other than rote memorization? What are the first priciples? --ASL 05:55, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

I am not an accountant but I find the following clarifies things (assuming it is valid :P). Imagine if a business was instantly liquidated and the money handed to a person named Bob. Now Bob is indebted (as in DEBIT) to the shareholders and the creditors of the business. The shareholders and creditors have CREDITs with Bob. So on the credit side we have people/entities who own certain proportions of the business. On the debit side we have what makes up the business, measured dollars and cents. If a creditor were then to lend Bob more money then it would be additional debt for Bob, but a credit for the creditor. If Bob were to give money to shareholders then he gets a credit while the shareholder gets a debit. I hope that helps someone.

--207.81.225.190 02:14, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

       Im new and dont know how to draw fancy tables and stuff but look at this:

                  DEBIT SIDE         CREDIT SIDE
                    ASSET              LIABILITY
                    EXPENSE            INCOME
                                       CAPITAL

And there you go! An asset must always have a DEBIT balance (you cant have something worth less than nothing so could never be a credit balance) etc. So if youre reducing an expense - credit it! if introducing more capital into the business - credit it! if youre reducing liabilities - debit it! --lincs_geezer 22:50, 27 October 2005 (UTC)27.10.2005

While an "abnormal" balance may indicate a problem, the statement "must always have" is entirely false. There are numerous contra-accounts (e.g., Accumulated Depreciation, Drawings) that do not have "normal" balances, plus cutoff issues. --70.236.161.82 09:17, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Maybe I havent come across it, but please explain to me how accumulated depreciation can have anything other than a credit balance? or how drawings can have anything other than a debit balance? --lincs_geezer 02:16, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. I just don't think you should say "must always have" when describing any account balance (i.e., accumulated depreciation is technically an asset account, but has a credit balance); "normally should have" would be better, but it's just semantics. The original question here dealt with how to reason it out vs. rote memorization; I think memorization plus knowing the accounting equation is the key. --EMU CPA 04:00, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Posting Negative Numbers/Revenue

Hi all, I've tagged the article as disputed because of this bullet point: "Revenue (note that since it is a credit, revenue is recorded as a negative number)", and because of other implications of negative numbers being recorded in transactions. I'm not an accountant, so I don't want to try to say anything with authority, but... this just seems wrong, it disagrees with the accounting books I have, and my wife (who has a degree in finance) also thinks it doesn't look right. Yes, a revenue account has a normal balance of credit, meaning you post credits to increase the value of the account. To decrease the value of an account with a credit normal balance, you post debits. No negative numbers should ever be posted in either the debit or credit column of a transaction, as far as I know. Stevegt 06:31, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes there was a problem with the point. I've removed it it is non-sensical out of context. The only context where it would be relevent would be when using a single column to record both debits and credits, such as in database, or rough work. I've never seen anybody do this outside of a classroom though. In the real world people seem to be fairly fond of their debits and credits. I think this was a "classroom" explaination that "escaped". --Mig77 12:10, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Examples section

Example 1 discussion

  • Is it understandable? Any questions about it? Are further explanations required?--NilssonDenver 07:13, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

As a non specialist of reasonable intelligence, i can tell you that this is incomprehensible to a non specialist of reasonable intellegence. If that's the target audience some first principles type elaboration is needed, or a link to some appropriate first principles. -Unregistered 09:02, 13 November 2006

What level of explanation should be shown? If first principles mean showing a beginner then that would not be appropriate here. I feel a wikipedia book would be more appropriate. Double-entry bookkeeping requires training. What I have tried to do here is get across the principle of Double-Entry and that Debits must equal Credits. I feel that the explanation is long and perhaps there should be a link to the example outside of the main article. The example I hoped would give a visual explanation to the reader. The article on Double-Entry Bookkeeping is an introduction and if you understand it that is great, but if you don't then you probably need to get training. But I do understand what you are saying and I am looking for a way to guide this article so that it is easy to read and gives a primer to the reader but not necessarily a lesson in bookkeeping. All comments are really appreciated and actively sought. NilssonDenver 22:27, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Example 2 discussion

Regarding this exerpt from the "Examples" section:

  Selling merchandise on credit:
     1. The amount of trade receivables (an asset) for the business increases.
     2. The sales revenue for the business increases (eventually this will become part of equity).
  Upon payment, the trade receivables account decreases while the cash account increases.

Should 2. read: The inventory (an asset) for the business decreases.

Following that it should read: Upon payment, the trade receivables account (an asset) decreases while the sales_revenue/cash account (an asset) increases.

This seems like it would better account for each occurence of the transaction...thoughts? --JFN 05:11, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

No - you wouldn't normally do this. The stock/inventory of a business is not usually treated as one account (this is because business might buy stock at different prices) but as separate sales and purchases accounts. You don't then have double entry transactions through an inventory account. So when a sale is made you increase debtors and increase sales (dr debtors/cr sales). When the debtor pays you decrease debtors and increase cash (dr cash, cr debtors). The level of stock is adjusted for at the period end - often following a physical stock take). Make sense? --BramleyBarn 18:52, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Concepts

The difference between an Asset/Expense (debit) account and a Liability/Revenue (credit) account is simply this: A Credit account is owed to the owner of the business, a debit account are the assets/expenses that this capital has contributed too.

You are talking about multiple transactions at times here.

In your examples, when selling merchandise on credit you enter an invoice: DR Trade Debtors (Asset) CR Sales Revenue (Revenue)

When payment is made you enter: DR Cash/Bank (Asset) CR Trade Debtors (Asset)

If you want to do stock accounting, then enter: DR Goods Out (Liability) CR Stock (Asset)

Hope that helps. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.159.180.132 (talk • contribs)


First impressions

This is my first visit to to this page. I thought it was good, but slightly complicated. I think it can be cut down - there is some repetition, which makes it appear more complex than it need be.

I'd think it easier if in the first para, the article sticks to the point that each transaction has 2 entries (perhaps a footnote to deal with the potential for 3)? Then a simple example: like "so when a business sells an item for cash, this is represented by a credit in the sales account, and a debit in the cash account) without having to go into detail - just to give a flavour.

I didn't like the bit about source documents being produced for every transaction, which go into ledger. I understand the point, however I think this complicates and confuses - and is anachronistic nowadays in many businesses. The concept of the daybook also complicates the double entry concept - I'm even thinking that this could be split out somehow? If retained, would this fit better after the explanation of debits and credits?

I'd get rid of 'normal balance' page - I've never even seen the term used.

I think you can spend a lot of time trying to rationalise the meaning of debits and credits, but it does come down to a bit of rote learning.

I was too tired to plough through the example, but I'll come back and have a read! --BramleyBarn 22:05, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I too visited this page for the first time quite recently. A number of things struck me and I wonder whether you'd care to comment (when you're not doing other things).
Essentially, I agree that the presentation could be simpler. However, I wonder whether more should be said about the distinction between different sorts of accounts, particularly the distinction between capital and revenue, though it's arguably an accounting issue. But then there's more accountancy on the page than I would expect for an article with the current title. Perhaps something should be done about that?
The purported explanation of debit and credit seems to me rather unsatisfactory, if not circular. The balancing of books seems to me analogous to the fact that in any system in equilibrium the sum of the forces acting on it must be zero (or it would move). But I'm not sure how to express it. Any sum of money (or monetary quantity) that arrives at A must have come from some B?
The introduction of the term T-account seems to me to be completely unnecessary.
MikeSy 18:17, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
How do you explain double-entry bookkeeping to the layperson? Double-entry is such a simple idea that can easily be misunderstood e.g. what is the difference between an expense and an asset (they are both things you pay for). Why are sales general ledger accounts negative (credits are usually calculated as a minus amount)
The term Debit and Credit do not mean anything, it is just which side of the 'T' account you put the transaction on. At the end the value of all debits must equal all credits.
I wrote the example (not fully completed) to try and visually explain double-entry. In todays business world of computer accounts software much of the doubel entry is hidden within the software. if you return to manual bookkeeping you will see the cogs and wheels the make the double-entry bookkeeping system work.
The key thing about this entry is what are we trying to show here.

--NilssonDenver 21:24, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

If we were to go back to the origins of accounting, I think we should find that ledgers contained only personal accounts, i.e. records of debts (debits), owed to the enterprise by its debtors and credits allowed to it by its creditors. I suspect (though I can't cite any authority) that nominal accounts were introduced at least partly to turn the ledger(s) into a system that was at least arithmetically accurate, whether or not it gave a true and fair view.
We could have a debate about whether and if so how to explain the difference between revenue and capital. One might say that every item of expenditure creates an asset, and the value of every asset changes more or less rapidly over time, either through ageing, or use or even appreciation. The purpose of bookkeeping is to track such changes.
And it's when we get into nominal accounts that the respective meanings become less obvious. However, when an accounting period comes to an end, as sooner or later it must, any debit, including diminution of the value of a fixed asset becomes a loss on the P&L account, while any credit becomes a profit. The fact that a revenue account is really an asset (benefit to the enterprise) is shown by the carrying forward of accruals to a future accounting period.
Having now trawled round http://www.samarak.com/bookkeepingterms.htm, http://www.dwmbeancounter.com/tutorial/Tutorial.html and http://www.accountz.com/glossary.html, I'm not sure that I want to take the whole subject any further. I feel I could criticise all, to a greater or lesser degree, but I'm not convinced it would be worth the effort. And I'm not even completely convinced I could do better. Sorry to be so negative. MikeSy 18:20, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
I had been struggling to understand the distinction between debit and credit with little success, but it has just become completely clear after reading the comment above by MikeSy. I think the whole thing can be understood in terms of credit meaning something of value in, and debit meaning something of value out. The only further step you need to make is to consider the accounts to be an accountant's-eye view of things, rather than the company's-eye view. The accountant sees every transaction as items passing through his hands. Assets of the company are not assets of the accountant: asset accounts are where an accountant puts items of value that have come from some other (creditor) account. This is why an asset account is a debit account because, as far as the accountant is concerned, it is where items of value are put. I wonder if someone with a better command of the English language might make use of this insight to improve the article? Glidos 14:58, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
Glidos, Debits and Credits are a useful way of performing calculations. Debit is usually treated as positive value and a Credit treated as negative value, purely from a mathematical calculating point of view. Assets and Expenses are classified as Debits, Gains and Liabilities as Credits. In the Bank account Money received is a debit and money out is a credit. Double Entry Bookkeeping is a method of ensuring that when an debit entry is made there is a corresponding credit amount and vice versa. Double Entry being two opposite entries of equal amounts. To confuse you more, a combination of debits can equal one credit or credits. Try and understand where the entries made are going to. When you purchase an item examine the breakdown of the transaction. Dr the expense account, Debit the VAT/GST account, Credit the Creditors Ledger, look at the double entry, see how both Debits and credits must always balance. Double entry is when there is a debit, there must be a corresponding credit. The Bookkeeper and accountant only manage and present the values in a readable format. See double entry as a system used to manage transactions and place them in their general ledger accounts from which financial information can be retieved and presented. Remember the great financial frauds of the last century were based on how the financial data was presented. With double entry everything has to balance. How you analyse and present the information can allow for different interpretations of the same numbers. If you buy an item for $1000, is it an expense or an asset. With double entry it is a debit. You decide whether to post it to an asset account or an expense account. The Credit entry can also be debated. It depends on how you will pay for the item or not. But the double entry is a credit, you decide which account to credit. --NilssonDenver 21:49, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
Yes I get all that. What was worrying me (and isn't worrying me now) was that I had no intuition for why a revenue account should have its value as a credit, whereas an asset account should have its value as a debit. It all seemed arbitrary. But it isn't. Every transaction is a movement of money or items of positive value from one account to another. The transaction is a credit in the account that the item comes from, and a debit in the account the item goes to. Revenue accounts tend to go into credit because they are a source of value/money, whereas asset accounts tend to go into debit because they are a sink for value/money. Its not at all arbitrary. The mistake I was making before, and perhaps others have made was to think of it in terms of money coming in and going out of the company, whereas every transaction is just a movement between accounts Glidos 09:51, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

How should this article be completed

History - Are there any other places that more history on bookkeeping can be found?

Explanations and definitions - Should there be more?

Double-Entry working examples - Should there be a link to another wiki entry?

Link example 1 to "Double-entry bookkeeping system examples" This would make the article shorter and more readable --NilssonDenver 20:00, 27 September 2006 (UTC)


Is below correct? Why would 400 be entered in Trade Creditors control when it's wages Catmatic 19:22, 23 February 2007 (UTC)Catmatic


Date Supplier Name Reference Amount Trade Creditors Other 17 Jul 2006 Electricity Company BP701 1000 1000 19 Jul 2006 Widget Company BP702 900 900 28 Jul 2006 Owner's Wages BP703 400 400 ------- ------- ------- Total 2300 1900 400 ==== ==== ==== Credit Debit Debit Profit & Trade Wages loss Creditors control a/c control a/c control a/c


Line 3 - Amount value 400 is posted as a debit to the Wages general ledger a/c code

Line 3 - Trade creditors value 400 is posted as a credit to the Bank general ledger a/c code

Double-entry has been observed Dr = 400 Cr = 400

Yes, line 3 should read Other and not trade creditors. My mistake when copying text. I have fixed it in main article. NilssonDenver 22:40, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Manual Bookkeeping practice versus Computerised bookkeeping practice, should their be separate sections?

See also - Is there anymore relevant links?

External links - Should links to sites with advertisements be allowed?

Accounting Template

This template I feel is restrictive in what it shows. Many of the items under Basic Accounting to me are not basic accounting. And what is the point of "other". Other can be unlimited in what could be listed there. The design of it is not in style with the rest of the article. Can someone point our where it came from. Is this now the format for templates to be placed in articles? NilssonDenver 00:46, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

v • d • e
Accountancy
Basic Accounting
Basic Financial Statements
Auditing
Other

Explanation?

Suggestion: anyone care to explain the meaning of: A/c, a/c, b/f, and c/f in the Article? It might be interesting not only for non-natives in English... Thx. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 62.178.77.228 (talk) 08:47, 11 April 2007 (UTC).

Using template

I recognize that user NilssonDenver prefers not to use the template above, but does anyone else feel that templates should be included to unify the articles within the area of accounting? The content of the template could be improved to meet the consensus of users, if necessary...--Dpr 16:57, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Archive 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.