Talk:Cred (company)

Requested move 20 May 2021

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)

---

CRED → Cred – 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)

This is a contested technical request (permalink). 162 etc. (talk) 14:23, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose cred means credibility as in street cred (sure the current redirect is wrong). And what's more all news sources are capitalizing the payment portal as CRED. In ictu oculi (talk) 09:42, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
• I undid revision 1017289667 by Smartse, cred is now back to pointing where it always has done. In ictu oculi (talk) 09:50, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

  I'll open this up to RM. Generally, Wikipedia doesn't like to use all-caps brand names, although I agree that in this case most sources do use the all-caps. 162 etc. (talk) 14:23, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

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)

• Support: At least some reliable sources like The Times of India use lower-case ([1], [2]), which indicates that the all-caps version is a stylization which Wikipedia should not copy. Rublov (talk) 01:11, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
• Support: I find quite a few sources using initial-caps "Cred", like Fortune India, TechCrunch, Financial Express, Money Control, Mint, Nasdaq Kr Asia, Forbes India, Entrepeneur and Business Today among others. I agree that the all-caps version is a stylization. CodeTalker (talk) 02:16, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
  • @Rublov and CodeTalker: Thoughts on moving the title to Cred (company)? BD2412 T 21:54, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

    BD2412, no objection from me. Rublov (talk) 22:19, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

  • Cred (company) makes perfect sense to me. CodeTalker (talk) 14:19, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
• Move to Cred (company). Not the primary topic for Cred. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:37, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

  That was my first instinct, but the pageviews are significant. Google test also favours the company. "Cred", as in "credibility", is not usually heard outside of the expression "street cred", which has its own redirect. 162 etc. (talk) 14:02, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

  That’s a good example of Pageviews being interesting but not decisive. “Cred” is isolation is so 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) 01:58, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

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)

@162 etc.: indie cred also has its own redirect target. BD2412 T 17:43, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

• Comment I've found a couple more definitions, so I've created Cred (disambiguation). 162 etc. (talk) 15:10, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
• Move to Cred (company). Not the primary topic for "cred". Pageviews are interesting, but pageviews are not for making the decision. The primary meaning of "cred" is credibility. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:49, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
  • "Primary meaning" is not a factor in determining WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. --В²C ☎ 06:10, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

    Nonsense. If everyone reads “cred” as a short form of “credibility”, that prevents anything else being “primary topic”. SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:53, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose. Page views per 162 etc. show most people searching with CRED are looking for this topic, so it's the primary topic ("primary meaning" is not a factor here). Google shows CRED is the WP:COMMONNAME per In ictu oculi. When IIO and I agree we must be onto something. --В²C ☎ 06:10, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
• Move to Cred (company) per statements advocating this outcome above. If there is a primary topic for any capitalization of "Cred", this isn't it. BD2412 T 15:37, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
  • BD2412, how is a topic getting 15 times as many pageviews as the nearest other use of the term not the primary topic? (note to closer: if this question remains unanswered, or is answered without policy basis, please discount claims of "not the primary topic" accordingly). --В²C ☎ 20:42, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
    • Note to closer: I think I can answer the above objection satisfactorily. The pageviews cited above are for the last thirty days. Looking at long-term pageviews over the last five years, credibility gets about 288K page views compared to about 121K for the company. Furthermore, the general social concept of "credibility" (whether street cred, indie cred, or some other kind), has vastly greater long-term significance than any given fintech startup. BD2412 T 21:52, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
      • Umm, the CRED article was created in April 2021. Looking at page views before then is silly. The point is since its creation the CRED article has totally dominated Credibility and there’s no evidence that even a significant percentage of Credibility views arrive via users searching with “cred”. —В²C ☎ 03:07, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
        • Looking at page views before then reflects the reality of long-term views versus WP:RECENTISM. The defining characteristic of a flash in the pan is the flash. BD2412 T 03:48, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
          • Yeah, and those page views for Credibility are pathetically low. And considering how low the page views are for the actually relevant Cred redirect, it’s a complete bust. Even per your five years of page views numbers, CRED beats Cred 55 to 2 in average daily views. No contest. —В²C ☎ 04:00, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
            • I repeat, flash in the pan. Wait until there are two comparable five year stretches of history with both articles existing. BD2412 T 04:07, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
              • Five years of data shows practically zero interest in “Cred” as a search term for Credibility. Do you expect that to change? The situation here is akin to there being no other use of “cred” in which case this article would be at CRED no question from anyone. If the page views for CRED ever come down to the near-zero levels of Cred, then we’ll have a primary topic issue to consider here. But right now it’s a no-brainer. —В²C ☎ 05:15, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
                • Ninety days of data tells us nothing at all about the long-term prospects of a startup with a new article. BD2412 T 05:53, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
                  • Doesn’t matter. The only other use for “CRED” is practically zero per five years of page view data. —В²C ☎ 09:25, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
                    • I think we can agree that the company is primary for the all caps version but the lower case versions is less clear. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:48, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
                      • I actually don't agree with that. The dab page that 162 etc. put together has two acronym senses, and although they have fewer page views than the company at the moment, that may also be a function of the company's newness. Most startups fail within their first few years, and are forgotten. There's no way of knowing if this will be such a case. BD2412 T 17:51, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
                        • Oops, I missed those but overall the all caps is still less ambiguous. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:58, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose "Cred" should probably be a DAB per BD2412, no objection to moving to Cred (company) per Necrothesp. Crouch, Swale (talk) 16:12, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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.