Jump to content

Talk:Cred (company)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Talk:CRED)

Requested move 20 May 2021

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Moved to Cred (company). (non-admin closure) Tol | talk | contribs 18:22, 12 July 2021 (UTC) Tol | talk | contribs 18:22, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]


CREDCred – Not an acronym; MOS:ALLCAPS 162 etc. (talk) 23:31, 18 May 2021 (UTC) Relisting. ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 08:02, 28 May 2021 (UTC) Relisting. BD2412 T 15:36, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is a contested technical request (permalink). 162 etc. (talk) 14:23, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Strike comment on caps, I made a mistake when I saw the uncontroversial move I must have searched vanilla Google or something. I now see "Cred’s valuation soars to $2.2 billion after fresh funding" etc. So Support Cred (company) In ictu oculi (talk) 21:04, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Can you cite sources which associate "Cred" with "credibility"? I've seen this argument a few times in the thread, but no actual references to make that link. The article at Credibility, as it reads today, has only one instance of the word "cred", specifically "street cred". As noted earlier, street cred has its own primary redirect. See also WP:NWFCTM. 162 etc. (talk) 16:20, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@162 etc.: indie cred also has its own redirect target. BD2412 T 17:43, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No, cred is clearly the primary topic for cred. Where it heads now is fine. Cred (company) solves all problems nicely In ictu oculi (talk) 21:06, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As I've mentioned above, cred=credibility has not been supported by any references so far in this RM. How is it "clearly" the primary topic? 162 etc. (talk) 21:40, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/cred It’s the primary meaning, more fundamental than primary topic. “Cred” is isolation is overwhelmingly associated with “credibility”, and is known to be non-formal, and so it is to be expected that people do not go to “cred”, or link to that. But if people started making “cred” links, it would be astonishing to find something unrelated to credibility. SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:10, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not a dictionary. A dictionary definition does not automatically make something a primary topic. See Ford vs. Ford (crossing), or Dell vs. Dell (landform). A company getting 1000+ hits per day should be primary over a little-used neologism. 162 etc. (talk) 16:19, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
NOTDICT is about putting dictionary definitions in wiktionary. It does not mean Wikipedia is blind to words. A dictionary definition does not preclude a primary topic, like Dell and Ford, but sometimes it does, and CRED/Cred, as big as it is, is no Dell or Ford. Out there, there are “Cred awards”, and they could easily be misconstrued as relating to credibility, and be astonishing. As a general rule, I think commercial companies should not easily be given primarytopic status over simple words, as it makes for difficult to read English. This applies particularly to companies because they like to grab catchy words for ease of sticking in memory. SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:44, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.