Template talk:Infobox cryptocurrency

So I noticed that Radom1967 updated the 'market_cap' field at Bitcoin, which makes sense. Before, there was no citation, so that editor also added coinmarketcap.com as a source. Per Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_384#Coinmarketcap.com, coinmarketcap.com is not seen as a reliable source, even in the crypto community.

So that introduces a deeper problem. What, exactly, would qualify as a reliable source for this? Including this number at all is telling reader it is significant, but this is not up to editors to decide based on first-hand familiarity, it must be supported by sources. To put it another way, if market capitalization is significant, it should be possible to find reliable sources for every crypto in which it is significant, and these sources should be cited in every single infobox which includes this information.

I don't really think that's practical or neutral, so I would suggest that this field be removed. If this is important for a specific crypto, it should be explained in the body of that article with reliable WP:IS providing context. Grayfell (talk) 06:55, 6 November 2022 (UTC)Reply

FYI, TPU param usage lists 21 articles using |market_cap=, as of Nov 1 ([1], click-to-show).

With ref: coinmarketcap.com: bitcoin; bscscan.com: SafeMoon; cryptolistcoin.com Tether (cryptocurrency), USD Coin (sic). DePiep (talk) 08:16, 6 November 2022 (UTC)Reply

Since there has been no response in the past few months, and the only article which includes this field per TPU param usage was Cardano (blockchain platform), I have removed this field. Grayfell (talk) 06:35, 8 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

Oh, I should mention that Worldcoin also used it, but it again cited Coinmarketcap.com which is still not a reliable source, so I removed that, also. Grayfell (talk) 06:38, 8 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

In brief, the current "Website" field I believe is too narrow. It currently asks for a website, which would presumably be an official website. Many projects do not necessarily have an "official website." Some like Bitcoin.org, while highly common, I don't believe would be classified as "official," given the largely decentralized nature. This is not to say all cryptos have this issue, many do have an official website! Solana, for example.

This is where my suggestion for revisions come in

1. change website to official_website
2. add informational_website
3. add research_website

informational_website would be for a general website that hosts information for a currency (such as bitcoin.org)

research_website would be for a website where researchers discuss development of a currency, such as bitcoincashresearch.org ILoveFinance (talk) 18:50, 30 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Normally for corporations we would only put the official website and I think put nothing if we dont know it. For cryptocurrency genre, we are facing a lot of WP:PROMO edits and WP:COI issues, thus we need to reduce the number of WP:EL, thus I would oppose adding any more links fields than we have now, we have enough issues with editors adding fishing sites, their favorite exchange (maybe with a referral code built into the url, etc). This matter has been discussed a little prior to coming here, at this Talk:Bitcoin_Cash#Change_"Website"_in_Infobox_to_"Informational_Websites". I am not sure what we want to do for crypto projects where there is no official website, but there might be a generally considered quasi-official website. Normally we just add what we think looks good, if it starts to be disputed we delete the value in the field entirely. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 21:31, 30 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Fair enough points. How about the research_website, though? If there is a primary discussion forum, that would be consistent across cryptos, I imagine. ILoveFinance (talk) 21:58, 30 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

(edit conflict)I do not support this proposal. Any information included in an infobox will still be held to the usual standards of being supported by reliable sources. If an external link is reliable and useful, it can be included in the 'external links' section, and if it isn't reliable, we shouldn't be creating loopholes to allow us to include unreliable sources in a prominent place.

If there is a credible dispute over whether or not a website is official, that is a sign that it shouldn't be cited, or at least not without context, and that context would not fit in an infobox, and wouldn't belong there even if it could be crammed in. Grayfell (talk) 21:37, 30 September 2024 (UTC)Reply