Jump to content

Talk:Bitcoin Cash: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
Splitting proposal: response regarding conflict of interest
Splitting proposal: comparison of the old vs the new article
Line 56: Line 56:
:: English is indeed not my mother tongue. I would appreciate any help. Thanks [[User:Gal Buki|torusJKL]] ([[User talk:Gal Buki|talk]]) 05:47, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
:: English is indeed not my mother tongue. I would appreciate any help. Thanks [[User:Gal Buki|torusJKL]] ([[User talk:Gal Buki|talk]]) 05:47, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' - I have already declined [[Draft:Bitcoin SV]] once, because I was relying on the deletion discussion at [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bitcoin SV]]. I have created a copy of the deleted version of the article, which is available for inspection at [[User:Robert McClenon/Bitcoin SV]]. I do not know much about cryptocurrency, and I do not think that I want to know much about it. However, I will try to comment. I think that the previous article needed deleting, but at the same time I am not sure that redirecting it to a different Bitcoin variant made sense. I personally consider the whole subject area to be a mess; I am not sure that there is any right answer. [[User:Robert McClenon|Robert McClenon]] ([[User talk:Robert McClenon|talk]]) 03:34, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' - I have already declined [[Draft:Bitcoin SV]] once, because I was relying on the deletion discussion at [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bitcoin SV]]. I have created a copy of the deleted version of the article, which is available for inspection at [[User:Robert McClenon/Bitcoin SV]]. I do not know much about cryptocurrency, and I do not think that I want to know much about it. However, I will try to comment. I think that the previous article needed deleting, but at the same time I am not sure that redirecting it to a different Bitcoin variant made sense. I personally consider the whole subject area to be a mess; I am not sure that there is any right answer. [[User:Robert McClenon|Robert McClenon]] ([[User talk:Robert McClenon|talk]]) 03:34, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
::Thank you for retrieving the old article. I think we can agree that the new article is nothing like the old one and the arguments against the old article (no RS and too early) do not hold against the new. [[User:Gal Buki|torusJKL]] ([[User talk:Gal Buki|talk]]) 07:02, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
*[[WP:COI|Conflict of interest]] query: Does [[User:Gal Buki]] have any [[WP:COI|conflict of interest]]? They have been a [[WP:SPA|single-purpose account]], editing only with regard to this topic. [[User:Robert McClenon|Robert McClenon]] ([[User talk:Robert McClenon|talk]]) 03:34, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
*[[WP:COI|Conflict of interest]] query: Does [[User:Gal Buki]] have any [[WP:COI|conflict of interest]]? They have been a [[WP:SPA|single-purpose account]], editing only with regard to this topic. [[User:Robert McClenon|Robert McClenon]] ([[User talk:Robert McClenon|talk]]) 03:34, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
:I have been a Wikipedia editor for over 16 years both in the English as in the German Wikipedia. During this time I have created multiple articles and worked on many others. I find the suggestion that my account is a [[WP:SPA|single-purpose account]] disturbing and far from the truth.
::I have been a Wikipedia editor for over 16 years both in the English as in the German Wikipedia. During this time I have created multiple articles and worked on many others. I find the suggestion that my account is a [[WP:SPA|single-purpose account]] disturbing and far from the truth.
:As for conflict of interest. I'm not paid to write the article and I don't believe I get a financial gain by working on this article. The majority of text in the article has an RS and is not for publicity but to show facts and uniqueness that should have a place in an Encyclopedia. [[User:Gal Buki|torusJKL]] ([[User talk:Gal Buki|talk]]) 06:57, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
::As for conflict of interest. I'm not paid to write the article and I don't believe I get a financial gain by working on this article. The majority of text in the article has an RS and is not for publicity but to show facts and uniqueness that should have a place in an Encyclopedia. [[User:Gal Buki|torusJKL]] ([[User talk:Gal Buki|talk]]) 06:57, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Revision as of 07:03, 1 July 2021


There's too much junk in this article

The article should state what Bitcoin Cash is and why it was created (which it does). It could state, briefly, that there is controversy around the need to create Bitcoin - with a link to online sources that discuss the controversy, perhaps. A brief section titled "History", stating what actually happened and about a quarter of the length of the current blow-by-blow he-said/she-said history section would be reasonable.

All the rest is junk. Details of who said what about Bitcoin or Bitcoin Cash are not appropriate in an encyclopedia article. Mentioning the current price of any cryptocurrency is pointless because prices change daily. Maybe there could be links to a couple of the (many) websites that track cryptocurrency exchange rates, but even that is redundant because any search engine will find them. As for volatility of cryptocurrencies, again it is ephemeral information, anybody who wants to know what it is right now can look at the exchange-traded options or at one of the volatility indexes like BVOL24H or one of the indexes calculated by T3Index.

Does anyone seriously disagree that most of this article is inappropriate to an encyclopedia and should be deleted? Longitude2 (talk) 15:17, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Why would we delete cited content? The article is not too long. We are listing historical prices in the Bitcoin article as it is encyclopedic. But I do think some style changes would probably be useful. Thoughts? Maybe we address your thoughts section by section? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 17:08, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that good sources should not be removed, but the article certainly could be reorganized. Many wikipedia articles suffer from what I call "section syndrome" where a couple editors focus on specific sections, and not the overall organization of an article. Then people come in and add a sentence, and each section becomes a list of facts. IMO the article should have a section on why BCH exists, what the unique features and philosophy is, what influenced it, and what did it influence (fork from and what forked off it). The problem with "History" sections is they become lists. If @Longitude2: does some of this in their sandbox, I'd be happy to collaborate. Beakerboy (talk) 15:02, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I did some cleanup of the prose a bit today, some of it seemed to repeat itself. Please feel free to comment. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 11:20, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 18 May 2021

Bitcoin Cash open Official Twitter Handle ( @BTCTCH ) . Zoyahssn (talk) 18:08, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Run n Fly (talk) 18:13, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Splitting proposal

Gal Buki (talk · contribs · logs) proposed at the AfC Help Desk that the Bitcoin SV section be split into a separate page called Bitcoin SV, which is currently a redirect leading to this page. The user has already created a draft: Draft:Bitcoin SV. They didn't know how to create this split discussion, so they asked me to start it for them. There is an old AfD regarding this. Seeking consensus for this split. Curbon7 (talk) 22:39, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@David Gerard: I have added multiple additional RS to the article. torusJKL (talk) 23:00, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe. The draft article almost reads like it was written by a non-native English speaker. My apologies to the author if they are. It requires a bit of proof reading. Beakerboy (talk) 22:15, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
English is indeed not my mother tongue. I would appreciate any help. Thanks torusJKL (talk) 05:47, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I have already declined Draft:Bitcoin SV once, because I was relying on the deletion discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bitcoin SV. I have created a copy of the deleted version of the article, which is available for inspection at User:Robert McClenon/Bitcoin SV. I do not know much about cryptocurrency, and I do not think that I want to know much about it. However, I will try to comment. I think that the previous article needed deleting, but at the same time I am not sure that redirecting it to a different Bitcoin variant made sense. I personally consider the whole subject area to be a mess; I am not sure that there is any right answer. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:34, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for retrieving the old article. I think we can agree that the new article is nothing like the old one and the arguments against the old article (no RS and too early) do not hold against the new. torusJKL (talk) 07:02, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have been a Wikipedia editor for over 16 years both in the English as in the German Wikipedia. During this time I have created multiple articles and worked on many others. I find the suggestion that my account is a single-purpose account disturbing and far from the truth.
As for conflict of interest. I'm not paid to write the article and I don't believe I get a financial gain by working on this article. The majority of text in the article has an RS and is not for publicity but to show facts and uniqueness that should have a place in an Encyclopedia. torusJKL (talk) 06:57, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]