Talk:International Cryptology Conference

This article was nominated for deletion on 25 March 2020. The result of the discussion was merge.

This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Cryptography: Computer science This redirect 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 This redirect is supported by WikiProject Computer science. Academic Journals This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Academic Journals, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Academic Journals 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.Academic JournalsWikipedia:WikiProject Academic JournalsTemplate:WikiProject Academic JournalsAcademic Journal articles See WikiProject Academic Journals' writing guide for tips on how to improve this article.

If I wasn't lazy, I'd make this a disabigous page, or at least include a statement that Crypto is a general shorting of cryptography. --ORBIT 02:02, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Crypto already redirects to Cryptography. This is in all caps and the only all caps usage is for the conference. In fact, I'm going to go change Crypto to be a disambig page, as that is the most appropriate thing to do. CryptoDerk 03:25, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)

I strongly disagree that this stuff about SHA1 should go in this article. Collisions in SHA1 are notable, sure. But so are most things that get into CRYPTO because it is a good conference. I think it takes more than being "notable" to be included in an article about a conference on all of cryptography. Are CRYPTO and research on SHA1 collisions so intrinsically? When someone mentions the CRYPTO conference, do people think "oh, that place where they publish papers about finding SHA1 collisions?" No. Should we add other notable CRYPTO papers to make it more fair? In my opinion no, because it will only reflect the subjective opinions of whoever makes the list (my list certainly wouldn't contain anything about SHA1). I don't think any highlighting of particular results should appear here (until I present my paper that settles P vs NP!). Blokhead 05:05, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

@