Oppose merge w/ strong cryptography
Crypto strong is an adjective and, as such, modifies the description of various things such as algorithms and protocols. And is misued quite often in legal contexts to describe this or that. It has no connedtion to any particular <algorithm, protocol, cryptosystem, ...>, yet because of its use (and misuse), it deserves an article here on WP. Parsimony, however admirable, should not reduce accessiblity of WP information. ww 21:12, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
- I don't think the two concepts are that distinct. An algorithm that is cryptographically strong is a form of strong cryptography and vice versa. Both concepts are some what vague and refer to the absence of something, a known attack or weakness, and possibly something positive, a certification or extensive peer review. The present "Cryptographically strong" article is a rambling essay, with no citations and both need major rewrites. Combining them would b best in my opinion. --agr 20:56, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
- Perhaps not a strong article for the reasons you cite, but still distinct in meaning (though connected) from strong cryptography. Because readers will often be looiking for one (having come across it somewhere) but not be up to disentangling it from the other, I think they can remain separate.
- The cure for rambling is to edit and rewrite not to add to some other related article, but not to all related artcles. Nor vice versa. I think this concept as an adjective, can be abstracted out and usefully so for WP coverage purposes. ww 18:26, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
- I reworked strong cryptography and included the term "cryptographically strong." Please take a look and tell me what you think isn't adequately dealt with there with regard to "cryptographically strong." So far I just don't see enough difference to warrant two articles, but maybe I am missing something.--agr 00:44, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
- Consider this phrase from Microsoft documentation, "The GetRandomFileName method returns a cryptographically strong, random string that can be used as either a folder name or a file name" which I mention because somebody here at work was reading said documentation, and used Wikipedia to try to find out what "cryptographically strong" meant. They were confused when the article only mentioned encryption. They read the article strong cryptography and were still confused. Anyway, I don't think combining the articles would help somebody like this. --User:gjcarrette