Talk:MI6

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the MI6 article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1: 365 days

This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

Espionage Top‑importance

	MI6 is within the scope of WikiProject Espionage, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of espionage, intelligence, and related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, or contribute to the discussion.EspionageWikipedia:WikiProject EspionageTemplate:WikiProject EspionageEspionage articles
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Politics of the United Kingdom Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Politics of the United Kingdom 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.Politics of the United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomPolitics of the United Kingdom articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Military history: British / European C‑class

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

C

This article has been rated as C-class on the project's quality scale.

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	British military history task force
	European military history task force

On 5 March 2022, it was proposed that this article be moved from Secret Intelligence Service to MI6. The result of the discussion was moved.

Archives

Archive 1

This page has archives. Sections older than 365 days may be automatically archived by when more than 5 sections are present.

Inter-Services Liaison Department (I.S.L.D.)

In the Second World War section, the ISLD is referred to, based on a reference in a Library of Congress book, as the "Interservice Liaison Department". I think that it would be better to use the form "Inter-Services Liaison Department", which is what is used by the UK National Archives. ← ZScarpia 15:25, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 5 March 2022

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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. Favonian (talk) 13:39, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Secret Intelligence Service → MI6 – Overwhelming common name, per Ngrams, The Guardian ([1], [2]), The Times ([3], [4]), and the BBC ([5], [6]). Also makes the title consistent with MI5. Ruбlov (talk) 13:48, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed: While it is no longer the official name, "MI6" better meets the Article title guidelines on the basis of the Recognizability, Naturalness, and Precision goals. David (talk) 00:55, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support Common and widely recognised name. Elshad (talk) 22:42, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support MI6 is stated in the official logo of the organisation in he same style as Security Service MI5 and we don't include he full title in that Wikipedia article. MI6 is he widely used name. David J Johnson (talk) 14:54, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Using Paragraphs

I did add a few paragraphs - based on WP:MOS. I noted more add on sentences being attached almost immediately - very thick text blocks are common in many WP articles - one imagines folks just keep tacking on a sentence - this article is still better at this point - but the use of paragraphs really helps in readability - just a humble thought BeingObjective (talk) 13:00, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Paragraphs...

A paragraph is -- ?

Typically - a part of a written item that deals with one primary point - typically, closely aligned points might be folded into the same paragraphs.

Clearly many academic articles use fairly long paragraphs - though shorter paragraph structures do really provide for ease of readability, especially with digitally presented materials on a small format screen etc.

Just an opinion

Cheers Dr. BeingObjective (talk) 17:36, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

OK with me. But, please bear in mind WP:PARAGRAPH which says "One-sentence paragraphs are unusually emphatic, and should be used sparingly." I don't think that applies here so it is not a problem. And don't forget to maintain / restore the referencing if you divide up paragraphs. Dormskirk (talk) 18:41, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Understood - and many apologies - I actually had not considered the matter of reference issues - I am not sure I still do - I need to look at what my changes caused - and as you state - I really think the WP:MOS para guidance was never originally applied to this article, hence the issue.

I never use a one sentence para - as you state, this is not really the issue.

Originally - some hefty chunks of text in this article.

Cheers and thanks for your help - BeingObjective (talk) 18:51, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Box 850" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Box 850 has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 May 27 § Box 850 until a consensus is reached. Jay 💬 20:34, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]