I found two Thesis that talk about Nano, maybe they can be used as references in the article:
Continuing the discussion from Wikipedia article (requested):
This paper also mentions Nano: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1904.04098.pdf.
Another one: https://arxiv.org/pdf/2001.07091.pdf
That last one is very thorough.
Thanks for those Fiono! I added them to the draft.
The Wikipedia article is live! Thanks to all who helped bring it to fruition.
Now that the article is public, we have begun the process of migrating the discussion and maintenance to a public channel within the Nano Discord. If you'd like to help, see the #wikipedia channel in chat.nano.org
Nano is now in Wikipedia's 'List of Cryptocurrencies':
It's actually in with a small formatting error in the table (for a now obsolete 'Governance' column.)
I did ask on the Talk page for that to be corrected - and got told it already had been corrected (though it hasn't.)
( But actually I don't really mind if that error stays forever - because it makes Nano's row slightly stand out from all the others! )
Thanks for pushing through this update Martin.
FWIW, I can't see the governance column when I load the page.
I see a small right-hand empty column artifact in the Nano row, making it stand out slightly from other rows. I see it after Ctrl+F5, after clearing my Chrome cache, and also in an Incognito Window - so I don't think it's my browser cache.
Now you've shown me I cannot unsee!
Is the wiki page ready to be translated?
Yeh, seems like it is relatively stable now. It would appear to be a good time to start working on some translations.
This report is also in-depth and could be used to build the Wikipedia. https://cryptoeq.io/coreReports/nano-abridged
Any updates on this?
It's been more than 10 months since the launch of the English wikipedia page for Nano.
Otherwise I'll just go ahead and start with the German translation
It was good for a while, but recently there's been some talk page discussion about unreliable sources and significantly trimming the page (or deleting it completely). More academic (peer-reviewed) sources would probably be helpful
After checking the wikipedia articles of other cryptos, I think we actually need less academic sources and more articles from the web
We probably need both. The problem that some of the editors have with Nano's sourcing is that it's mostly conference papers and not traditionally peer-reviewed journal papers. I'd argue that conference papers with citations are a form of peer review, but Wikipedia has had problems with sketchy cryptocurrency behavior in the past, so they're pretty strict now
Neither Ripple nor Dash have any peer-reviewed papers referenced on their wiki pages from what I can see.
They only reference web articles and a book.
One problem for us is that Nano is still so unpopular that there are no articles by major news sites covering it, but only shady crypto news sites
i think there is alot more things to do , great coin amazing work done on it