Style Guide -- EIP123 or EIP-123?

[fulldecent]

Let us canonicalize the references for EIPs. They are inconsistently referred to as EIP-123 and EIP123 in the EIP documentation as well as the EIPs themselves. Another option is EIP 123.

Workplan

• Decide preferred citation format
• Update all text that is in the voice of the EIP authors (README, HTML files, EIP-1, etc.)

Motivation

EIPs are much higher visibility than BIPs or PEPs. To reduce reader and community confusion, we should promote a consistent reference to these standards.

It is unavoidable that end-users of Ethereum-based systems will be seeing EIP numbers. It will improve the professional image of these projects if we can have these look consistent.

In other words, seeing "You have 5 ERC-20 tokens" in MetaMask and "You have 5 ERC20 tokens" in Etherscan and "These are ERC 20 tokens" in the actual specification is less than optimal.

Background / data

EIP is inspired heavily from BIPS which draws inspiration from PEPS. Both of those projects refer to proposals like BIP 1234.

Current usage of these words is tracked by Google. "ERC20" is a clear winner versus "ERC-20" and "ERC 20".

https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?geo=US&q=%22erc%2020%22,%22erc-20%22,%22erc20%22

However this includes ERC20, the slug used in contracts.

[fulldecent]

Pinging esteemed top contributors to this repository for your thoughts please. @Arachnid @jamesray1 @cdetrio @axic @pirapira @chriseth @wanderer

[jamesray1]

I dislike using ERC20 for the same reason people use 50m, 50W, etc—ERC and 20 are different words (the former is an acronym) and should have a space in between them. ERC-20 and ERC 20 are OK, although ERC-20 is probably less confusing. E.g. in your example, "These are ERC 20 tokens", the uninitiated might think "20 tokens of ERC, whatever ERC means". Then they might look up ERC and see a bunch of results, none of which are the intended meaning. Generally, not a good experience. FWIW, Wikipedia consistently uses ERC-20.

[fulldecent]

I agree with all these points and do support ERC-20 naming for clarity. Previously I did not consider that ERC can be interpreted as a currency symbol. But with all the crazy currency symbols coming out this will now be my primary arguing point.

Let's not cite Wikipedia in this debate. I am an editor on that article, I think there is an XKCD for that. I stopped editing and came where when I realized this is an explicit decision we need to make before cleaning up external references.

[jamesray1]

OK, we agree then. Since you are actively involved with Ethereum it's probably best not to edit Wikipedia articles related to Ethereum. I've been told off for doing so.

[fulldecent]

👍 I am only working on the talk page, not editing actual pages. If editors can make an agreement here and it is authoritative (published to README.md, etc) then I will go back to Wikipedia talk page to point them to this authoritative source and my job is done.

[jamesray1]

They will probably want a secondary source. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research#Primary,_secondary_and_tertiary_sources.

[axic]

It seems I never left a comment here. To me it seems there is a tendency towards the EIP-nnnn format. It would be nice to codify it in EIP-1.

[fulldecent]

Related --> #2738

[axic]

This was actually accomplished by #2734.