Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Secret Intelligence Service. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:09, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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[edit]

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 ServiceMI6 – 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[edit]

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]


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]