Talk:ERC-20

Name

This should be renamed to ERC-20. That is the canonical naming. Full Decent (talk) 02:17, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

+1 to @Fulldecent, please go ahead. Xinbenlv (talk) 20:21, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Actually in the source code maintainers are using an ERC20 name ERC20.sol Beno neno (talk) 11:03, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Beno neno Instead of in the source code I will argue it should be in a source code because openzeppelin-solidity is only one of the implementations. The canonical name should refer to the canonical source which is https://eips.ethereum.org/EIPS/eip-20 Xinbenlv (talk) 18:51, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Xinbenlv in fact that makes a lot of sense. +1 from me for renaming of an ERC20 to ERC-20.Beno neno (talk) 05:09, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kudos to being open minded. Xinbenlv (talk) 22:10, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Done Cleduc (talk) 18:13, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I will work to get a more authoritative reference that the dash is preferred. Full Decent (talk) 19:46, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @Fulldecent Xinbenlv (talk) 22:10, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Notability? Any RS coverage?[edit]

I'm seeing zero or one actual RSes here, if Investopedia counts - David Gerard (talk) 08:31, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that Investopedia should count. See WP:RSP Retimuko (talk) 16:19, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Ethereum for now? - David Gerard (talk) 17:15, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree. Retimuko (talk) 17:18, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Literally zero RSes on this article, no action to remedy this in several weeks - I've redirected it for now. We can remake this as a standalone article when we have actual mainstream third-party RSes - David Gerard (talk) 21:05, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]