Talk:Code (cryptography)

Cryptography: Computer science Top‑importance

	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.CryptographyWikipedia:WikiProject CryptographyTemplate:WikiProject CryptographyCryptography articles
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Computer science (assessed as Mid-importance).

Tip: Anchors are case-sensitive in most browsers.

This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.

[[Spanish Civil War#Outbreak of the war|the nationalist military revolt in Spain]] The anchor (#Outbreak of the war) has been deleted by other users before.

Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors

Maths calendar[edit]

Well, even the most prestigious... The 2005 Mathematics Calendar discusses (briefly) the 'Enigma code'. It may be that all the chemicals in the water has caused brain damage to the neural circuits responsible for undertanding such arcana. ww 20:00, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Hmm...outside of technical discussions about cryptography, I don't really see a problem with the way "code" gets used when referring to a "cipher"; this really is just a difference between the meaning of the word in general use compared to the meaning in specialist discussions. This occurs with "hacker" -- which, to most people, has the meaning of people who break into computers and so forth; technical people, though, often distinguish between "hacker" and "cracker". Because of this general/technical difference, even David Kahn is happy to be lax about usage, e.g., his book: "Seizing the Enigma: The Race to Break the German U-Boat Codes" — Matt 20:28, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Doesnt anyone think that if the germans had

a) not repeated the message code for their Enigma machines

b) been less regular with their specific message timings and

c) had not been lazy and had chosen completely random message keys that didn't correspond to the keyboard,

then the enigma's code would have been impossible to crack?-Will de Renzy-Martin 16:03 5 October 2006

All of these did in fact contribute to Alled breaking of Engima traffic. But they were not sufficient, The Poish break was fundamental and the British work at BP was as well. ww 06:44, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Germans were never that strong so thats why the lost and their codes were good but every code can be broken

Idiot code[edit]

~~The article "Idiot code" is currently the subject of an AfD discussion. Its contents have been moved to the "Idiot code" section of this article. Part of the AfD discussion is below.~~ Brian Jason Drake 04:11, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article "Idiot code" was nominated for deletion, with the result being to merge into this article and redirect. It was merged into the "Idiot code" section of this article. Some of the AfD discussion took place after the merge and was therefore moved to this page. Brian Jason Drake 03:30, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AfD discussion[edit]

I took out the trivial unsourced parts and extra level of subsection heads; I hope you see that as better. And I fixed the case in Code (cryptography)#Idiot code, and made the article into a redirect (well, it will be after the tag is removed). Dicklyon (talk) 23:18, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The part you deleted as unsourced was actually taken from the original reference from the first line. I'm not saying that the information is needed but I would like to know the correct method to reference that for my own information.

More importantly, we have lost the example that I thought was useful in explaining what it is in the first place. I'm not sure I would have understood it's simplicity the way it is written now. I don't know when it was deleted, but I've added it back, slightly modified. - Operknockity (talk) 00:27, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The correct way (on Wikipedia, at least) is, of course, more <ref> tags. To have two <ref> tags refer to the same source, add "name" attributes to them with the same value, but only include the actual source in one of the <ref> tags (if multiple tags have a source, only the first one is used). See Wikipedia:Footnotes#Naming a ref tag so it can be used more than once. For an example, see revision 187406484. Brian Jason Drake 04:46, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! - Good to know! - Operknockity (talk) 04:53, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be referring to revision 187213373. The edit summary for this edit contains the phrase: removed "Example" section (nothing special about that code). I meant that there is nothing in that section that's specific to "idiot codes", so it should be in a more general place than the "Idiot code" section, like an "Example" section for the whole article. Brian Jason Drake 04:32, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We should note that this discussion is now about Code (cryptography)#Idiot code and so should the discussion be moved there? - Operknockity (talk) 00:34, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Heinlein reference[edit]

Moved from Talk:Idiot code. Brian Jason Drake 06:04, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I mentioned that the origin seemed to be the Heinlein book because it is the earliest reference I can find. Is that insufficient or just incorrectly worded? Perhaps something like, "The earliest reference appears to be..." or "The origin may be..."? I'm new so all advice is welcomed. - Operknockity (talk) 13:28, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The "may be" might be OK, but in general making such inferences from what you can find is WP:OR. Better to just say "an early use of the term is" or something that's not forming a conclusion based on limited evidence; best, if you can find someone who has already published a comment on the origin of the term, is to report and cite that. Dicklyon (talk) 16:56, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I took it to "an early use appears to be" so as not to formally even conclude that it is definitively an early use. Only the earliest we've found. Better? - Operknockity (talk) 18:43, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Concerning revision 186972069:

Why remove the long quote? The short quote seems meaningless by itself.
What does "use the one with an accessible source" mean? The source that was removed can be accessed just fine by me, whereas the source that was left there doesn't actually give the quote, just the page number. Brian Jason Drake 08:15, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I put it back like it was. I wasn't able to access your source, but found enough in quote in Google book search. The extended quote is a bit useful, since it seems to clearly imply a meaning of idiot code that's simpler and more specific than the one given in the article. Still, sci fi can't be taken as a reliable source, and the topic is still non-notable, as far as I can tell. Dicklyon (talk) 08:21, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have again made the changes in one of my edits that you reverted along with two of your edits.
It's not like the book is talking about something and we then reference the book; we are talking about the book itself. Thus I don't think that sci fi not being a reliable source is a problem here.
Is the topic non-notable or are these uses of the term "idiot code" non-notable? Brian Jason Drake 08:43, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's not a problem. My point was just that it doesn't contribute toward establishing notability, which is still the big problem with this topic. Dicklyon (talk) 17:31, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Syntax and semantics[edit]

Moved from Talk:Idiot code. Brian Jason Drake 06:04, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article defines an “idiot code” in terms of syntax, but semantics is at least as important. For example, let's have an idiot code thus:

“the cough poodle” → “Steve”

“Saliva Joe” → “Wendy”

“dances” → “drops eggs down the dean's chimney”

any time → that time plus 12 hours

Now, the difference between

“The cough poodle dances at midnight.”

and

“Saliva Joe dances at midnight.”

is purely semantic. —SlamDiego_←T 23:19, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Definition[edit]

I have changed the definition, but I'm not sure if the new definition is still accurate. Does anyone have a source that actually defines the term "idiot code"? Brian Jason Drake 05:03, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Quotes[edit]

The "idiot code" section has quotes from Friday and a news article on terrorism, followed by another sentence about this term being used in connection with terrorists. These quotes and sentence appear to be there only to support the fact that "idiot code" is a valid term. Without the "etymology" heading, they are a little confusing. Brian Jason Drake 05:03, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

September 11, 2001 attacks[edit]

SlamDiego changed September 11, 2001 attacks to September 11, 2001, attacks with this edit summary: Grammar. (See Chicago Manual of Style 6.46 on commas in dates.). Unfortunately, I'm not familiar with the Chicago Manual of Style, but:

Why not move September 11, 2001 attacks to September 11, 2001, attacks and change "September 11, 2001 attacks" to "September 11, 2001, attacks" in that article?
I'm quite certain that this is incorrect: because the date is being used to qualify the term "attacks", they should not be separated by a comma. Brian Jason Drake 07:35, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Most style manuals will explain that in dates, the year is typically set off by commas before and after; read it as "September 11 attacks", with a sort of parenthetical 2001 in there. It's not wrong. Why the linked article didn't do it right I can't say. Dicklyon (talk) 05:20, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Removed image[edit]

I just removed the image in the article, which was a picture of some sort of symbols font for geometric notation. It could conceivably be used to illustrate Simple substitution (except that we already have better illustrations there), but it is in no way related to codes. -- Securiger (talk) 05:25, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Article Quality[edit]

The quality of this article is really low. It doesnt explain anything. scope_creep (talk) 00:41, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]