This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article was nominated for merging with Ethereum on 08 December 2016. The result of the discussion was No merge. |
This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors |
There have been multiple discussions and references in recent weeks to alleged/potential shortcomings in the Solidity language that might have prevented some of the security problems that have surfaced in the June exploit of The DAO. Clearly those reliable sources make the info notable, and so should be considered in improving this article. Let's start a list of sources here, which I will start here. Please add others. N2e ( talk) 05:30, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: no merge. Clear consensus against a merge. ( non-admin closure) -- Frmorrison ( talk) 21:45, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
This article is really rather a stub, when chopping unsource or self-sourced material. Solidity really isn't that notable in itself, outside of the community of ethereum, and most sources talking about Solidity reference it as "Ethereum's language Solidity", implying people wouldn't know what they article was about without mentioning ethereum. I propose merging. 12.168.201.132 ( talk) 04:42, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
- Propose this nomination be closed Jtbobwaysf ( talk) 13:19, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
- Propose this nomination be closed (2nd time) Jtbobwaysf ( talk) 10:54, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
It says uint constant totalCoins = 100000000000; but also /// Endows creator of contract with 1m GAV.
So what am I missing, or is the comment supposed to say 100b GAV? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.66.89.99 ( talk) 17:34, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can , contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse. |
Could an admin please tell me how to close this green box section so we can add new talk sections below? I guess there must be some tag to close the green box, but I can't find it when I google it. Thank you! Jtbobwaysf ( talk) 01:53, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
Long list of solidity creators. Are these people listed in the sources? Jtbobwaysf ( talk) 01:53, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
ref check: too many crypto blogs, book sources of questionable notability or reliability - there's been enough mainstream coverage that this article should use it, and probably academic coverage. Everything tagged needs something more solid - David Gerard ( talk) 10:58, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
I'm a bit confused. David seems to be arguing that no "crypto blog" is an acceptable source when he says "crypto blogs are not acceptable sources per WP:RSN"
I went to that link; did not find any policy against "crypto blogs" one way or the other.
I continued. Found the more specific single instance of an RFC that David subsequently linked. That one RFC, looking at one particular outlet called "CoinDesk", found this:
I'm totally down for all that.
None of that says anything at all about "crypto blogs are not acceptable sources".
Moreover, it specifically says "no consensus on whether CoinDesk should be designated as a questionable source.", which seems to have been the only one single source site that was under consideration there in that RFC.
So all of the many (more than a dozen) inline tags of {{unreliable source}} that David had previously added to this article, an article about a programming language, do not seem to be founded on any particular Wikipedia community policy, guideline, nor even an RFC case about some site called "Coin Desk."
Am I missing something that you are saying David Gerard? N2e ( talk) 22:18, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
@ Dandv: we are not using cryptozines as sources for all crypto articles. They are not considered to be WP:RS. You also cannot re add the content per WP:GS/Crypto even if you disagree. CThanks! Jtbobwaysf ( talk) 09:25, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
Isn't solidity a contract orienteded language instead of a object oriented language? -- Anonimous — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2804:14D:72A9:82BC:2C8F:5EA4:FA95:2934 ( talk) 00:16, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
Not only is this line uncited (and JS should probably be expanded to JavaScript), but it doesn't actually say anything. Having a basic familiarity with 4 programming languages is a weird and useless qualifier, those languages are extremely different from each other, and only one of them (JavaScript) is actually related to or similar to Solidity. And taking between "one and six months" to learn also means nothing, the range is so wide that it ceases to be a useful gauge.
Also, this line does not belong in the "Limitations of Solidity" section as it doesn't state a limitation and instead seems like it intends to compare it to other languages, which is already done in the Description in a more clear manner.
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article was nominated for merging with Ethereum on 08 December 2016. The result of the discussion was No merge. |
This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors |
There have been multiple discussions and references in recent weeks to alleged/potential shortcomings in the Solidity language that might have prevented some of the security problems that have surfaced in the June exploit of The DAO. Clearly those reliable sources make the info notable, and so should be considered in improving this article. Let's start a list of sources here, which I will start here. Please add others. N2e ( talk) 05:30, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: no merge. Clear consensus against a merge. ( non-admin closure) -- Frmorrison ( talk) 21:45, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
This article is really rather a stub, when chopping unsource or self-sourced material. Solidity really isn't that notable in itself, outside of the community of ethereum, and most sources talking about Solidity reference it as "Ethereum's language Solidity", implying people wouldn't know what they article was about without mentioning ethereum. I propose merging. 12.168.201.132 ( talk) 04:42, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
- Propose this nomination be closed Jtbobwaysf ( talk) 13:19, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
- Propose this nomination be closed (2nd time) Jtbobwaysf ( talk) 10:54, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
It says uint constant totalCoins = 100000000000; but also /// Endows creator of contract with 1m GAV.
So what am I missing, or is the comment supposed to say 100b GAV? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.66.89.99 ( talk) 17:34, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can , contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse. |
Could an admin please tell me how to close this green box section so we can add new talk sections below? I guess there must be some tag to close the green box, but I can't find it when I google it. Thank you! Jtbobwaysf ( talk) 01:53, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
Long list of solidity creators. Are these people listed in the sources? Jtbobwaysf ( talk) 01:53, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
ref check: too many crypto blogs, book sources of questionable notability or reliability - there's been enough mainstream coverage that this article should use it, and probably academic coverage. Everything tagged needs something more solid - David Gerard ( talk) 10:58, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
I'm a bit confused. David seems to be arguing that no "crypto blog" is an acceptable source when he says "crypto blogs are not acceptable sources per WP:RSN"
I went to that link; did not find any policy against "crypto blogs" one way or the other.
I continued. Found the more specific single instance of an RFC that David subsequently linked. That one RFC, looking at one particular outlet called "CoinDesk", found this:
I'm totally down for all that.
None of that says anything at all about "crypto blogs are not acceptable sources".
Moreover, it specifically says "no consensus on whether CoinDesk should be designated as a questionable source.", which seems to have been the only one single source site that was under consideration there in that RFC.
So all of the many (more than a dozen) inline tags of {{unreliable source}} that David had previously added to this article, an article about a programming language, do not seem to be founded on any particular Wikipedia community policy, guideline, nor even an RFC case about some site called "Coin Desk."
Am I missing something that you are saying David Gerard? N2e ( talk) 22:18, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
@ Dandv: we are not using cryptozines as sources for all crypto articles. They are not considered to be WP:RS. You also cannot re add the content per WP:GS/Crypto even if you disagree. CThanks! Jtbobwaysf ( talk) 09:25, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
Isn't solidity a contract orienteded language instead of a object oriented language? -- Anonimous — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2804:14D:72A9:82BC:2C8F:5EA4:FA95:2934 ( talk) 00:16, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
Not only is this line uncited (and JS should probably be expanded to JavaScript), but it doesn't actually say anything. Having a basic familiarity with 4 programming languages is a weird and useless qualifier, those languages are extremely different from each other, and only one of them (JavaScript) is actually related to or similar to Solidity. And taking between "one and six months" to learn also means nothing, the range is so wide that it ceases to be a useful gauge.
Also, this line does not belong in the "Limitations of Solidity" section as it doesn't state a limitation and instead seems like it intends to compare it to other languages, which is already done in the Description in a more clear manner.