This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cryptography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Cryptography on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
The apostrophe may be technically incorrect, but "Davies' attack" is the common name, coined in the paper by Biham and Biryukov. Ntsimp 15:30, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Yeah; if the crypto literature consistently uses the single "s", then we probably should follow that usage. — Matt Crypto 20:55, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Since neither Biham or Biryukov are from English-speaking countries, their mistake is forgivable. However, yours is not. You are perpetuating a grammatical mistake that will inevitably result in people thinking it is correct usage. At least put some kind of notice in the article explaining why the fault is perpetuated here, in our beloved repository of academic knowledge. It's ridiculous to assert knowledge of an academic topic, but express it in an oblivious, ignorant style. 220.127.116.11 20:20, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
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. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the move request was: page moved. Andrewa (talk) 00:41, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
Davies' attack → Davies attack – The current title is a misspelling, but is the only apostrophe form used by a source. Calling it the "Davies attack" resolves the dispute by entirely avoiding the neologism "Davies's attack". Ntsimp (talk) 17:00, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
Support to match article content and for WP:CONSISTENCY with other things with such names; they are rarely possessivized, and even when they are this is not done consistently in RS, so it can be dropped. However, the nom's rationale that "Davies's attack" would be a neologism if a false; it would simply be a style variation following normal rules of English in a particular variant. A neologism would be something like "Davittack". — SMcCandlish☏¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ< 12:13, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.