Talk:Petname

This article is rather inconsistent: it cannot decide whether it is about petnames in general or the Petname extension for Firefox. (Not to mention its simultaneous use of the spellings PetName, Petname, and petname.) If the Firefox extension warrants discussion of an infoboxly degree, I think it should get its own article, while either way, this article should primarily discuss the concept behind such systems. I suppose the 'examples' etc. are useful and informative, but it doesn't make sense to give the page an infobox for one specific implementation of this concept. Yes no? --Adam Atlas (talk) 02:54, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I've fixed the name as "Petname", but leaving "PetName" for the XML part, and made it more clear that the article is about the concept, with examples. I moved the infobox to the extension section, and yes I agree the Firefox extension should be split off to say "Petname tool". Widefox (talk) 18:39, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

As the extension is a dormant software project, I now favour keeping them merged and not splitting off (and keeping the infobox in that section is also ok). Widefox (talk) 12:17, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Background needed

The article would be much improved by a more intelligible definition of a Petname system. In particular, an enumeration of such a system's requirements would help a lot. Also, the current description in terms of a "naming system" is frustratingly vague. Peter (talk) 23:46, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Frankly...

... this is well-hyped triviality. The lack of secondary sources here is rather telling. Given how trivial the actual solution is (which this article does a good deal of ambiguity-smoke-puffin to hide), some actual secondary evaluations (as opposed to occasional "related work" citation here and there) would have told said this much. There's little wonder users didn't flock to adopt this security add-on. Someone not using his real name (talk) 18:00, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Someone not using his real name erm, thanks, but why is your opinion important? We go by what WP:RS say. Considering this concept has practical anti-phishing technology, my opinion (also as worthless) is that this is more important than ever for Internet (web) trust in this post Snowden era.

I'm not sure about your logic for assuming primary sources - a mention of primaries makes it a secondary. It appears to have at least 3 secondaries so would pass WP:GNG. Which notability measure were you thinking of? It's a stub too. Clicking on the notabilty tag quickly finds more [1] [2] . I've removed the ridiculous product notability tag as it's not a product and appears notable. Widefox; talk 01:37, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Deletion of Firefox extension

The Firefox extension is no longer available for download, and appears to be incompatible with any modern version of Firefox. Should the mention of this extension be removed until a new version/replacement is found? DelyaErricson (talk) 18:52, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Yeah both the links for it are dead, so I removed the links. I think the article is wrong anyway, because I understood Zooko's Triangle as a variant of CAP theorem: DNS is consistent, but you have to trust the DNS roots. Onion addresses are consistent but are human-unfriendly. Pet names are human-friendly and you can trust them if you assign them yourself, but they aren't consistent across computers. I have no citation for this, so I can't fix the page. 98.214.76.193 (talk) 19:48, 24 November 2020 (UTC)