Talk:Tamperproofing

Merger proposal
Hello everyone,

I'd like to propose that Tamper resistance be merged into Tamperproofing. These two articles address the same concept more or less, and I argue that it's unnecessary to have two articles for this. None of the two articles is too long as to cause any problems either.

I don't necessarily insist that one should be merged into the other in the order I've proposed, but I do believe it would make sense to merge these.

Considerations

 * There are more results on google for "tamper-proof" (google.com: 2,790,000 results ) than for "tamper resistance" (google.com: 117,000 results );


 * Tamperproofing needs to be changed to Tamper-proofing, most likely;


 * Tamper resistance needs some attention for style and proper citations for verification;


 * Anti-tamper software could also be merged Tamperproofing, as a section. Perhaps in the future there will make more sense to have these as separate articles but it doesn't seem to be the case for now.


 * Likewise, Tamper-resistant security module could be merged into Anti-tamper software as a section or into Tamperproofing, as part of the Anti-tamper software section.


 * While we're here, the Tampering and Tamper pages could also benefit from a closer look and perhaps be merged. Plinuxs (talk) 11:51, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Discussion

 * Tamperproofing can easily be merged into Tamper Resistance. The Tamperproofing article is small and, as it suggests, the term is a misnomer.  Nothing is "tamper proof". Merging into Tamper Resistance makes sense.  Pkgx (talk) 23:10, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
 * The question is not whether an article title is a misnomer; the question is what title readers are likely to look or search for. So, Tamperproofing, or some variant (like tamper-proof), is more Recognizabable and Natural (as the searches in the previous section show) than Tamper Resistance. In common use, something which is tamper-proof is not immune from tampering; language is more than semantics.
 * PS: Merge discussion are best kept in one section, which aid in linking unambiguously. In my view, splitting discussions away from proposal, with their own section, is liable to fragement discussion unnecessarily. Klbrain (talk) 12:37, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Confusing title
The article is now supporting the misuse of the term "tamperproof": Nothing is tamperproof. WP:PRECISE requires titles to correctly reflect the content. This currently does not. I have tried to clarify this confusion somewhat by having the lead section highlight the fact that the article is not really about tamper-roofing. Pkgx (talk) 12:34, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
 * "Tamperproof" is a concept shown in many Google book searches; like a frictionless pulley or an ideal gas, it's a concept that can only be approximated in the real world; nothing is tamperproof if you have a long weekend and a bulldozer. But someone stealing license plates on an impulse is not likely to bring along all the gear needed to defeat one-way screws, unless they are doing it as a business. I've revised the lead paragraph to de-emphasise the absolute term without context. --Wtshymanski (talk) 21:47, 14 December 2019 (UTC)