Talk:Bletchley Park

message: Matt, I can't pretend to remember the Hut numbering, but the one I seem to remember is Hut Six. It's the title of Welchman's book, after all. That implies that Six was responsible for Naval Engima, not as the list is now Army and AirForce variants. Since you've clearly gotten this from a list, could there have been a list - brain - fingers obscuration. Appropriate for the crypto corner, eh?, but confusing to the non-cryptiac. 
So, Six or not Six, that is ... never mind... ww 14:57, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  Welchman's own book says (pp. 58) that Hut 6 "decoded .. mostly army and air force traffic", and Hut 8 did "decodes of the German navy's Enigma traffic". So I'm not sure what led you to your idea above that Welchman worked on naval Enigma. Noel (talk) 23:20, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

text: The list was amalgamated from a couple of online sources (one was http://www.codesandciphers.org.uk/bletchleypark/tour4.htm). It seems that huts 6 and 3 were paired and dealt with army and air force traffic; 6 did the codebreaking while 3 housed the intelligence analysts. Similarly Huts 8 and 4 were paired for Naval Enigma. — Matt 22:57, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: hut, hut, hike

message: I've moved the following rumours here for now:
The code breakers would enter the park by coach or train, and it is rumoured that there was a series of inter-connecting tunnels and chambers below Bletchley Park that allowed workers to get in secretly. It is also rumoured that one tunnel, which started in the Park grounds and emerged in the local pub, was for the use of Winston Churchill. It is also said that Eisenhower and Churchill had a meeting in one of the rumoured chambers.
Does anyone have a source for these rumours? I haven't come across them after reading a number of BP books, so I'm not even sure these are notable enough to include, but I'm willing to be proved wrong! — Matt 20:23, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Rumours

message: Comment only: on the list of people associated with Bletchley Park: I think you've linked Hugh Alexander to the wrong chap: the Hugh Alexander at Bletchley was C. H. O'D. Alexander, an outstanding English chess player, later - among other things - chess correspondent of the Sunday Times (in which capacity he once sent me a nice letter).
Brian Palmer
137.195.14.158 14:23, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for spotting that. I've whipped up a short entry on C.H. O'D. Alexander, although it doesn't include any of his achievements in chess. — Matt Crypto 15:48, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Link error? 

message: According to the caption for the picture of Hut 1, "Hut 1 was the first hut to be constructed". I am surprised by this. Surely the first hut to be constructed would logically have been Hut 76, or Hut 4931? :-p --El Pollo Diablo (Talk) 12:14, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Hut 1

message: I have added stubs for Frank Birch, Hugh Foss, and Josh Cooper (cryptographer). Hope someone can add the BP details of JC! And that no-one deletes Hugh Foss, as happened to someone else's earlier article on him in 2005.
PS re Categories, should Foss etc be shown as
Category:Cryptographers or Category:British Cryptographer(s)??
The reference to Kilindi needs to direct to a new page I will write sometime on the FECB = Far East Combined Bureau, which moved from Hong Kong to Singapore to Colombo/Ceylon to Kilindini.  
And there is a reference in Action this Day (page 142/144/531) re Hugh Foss to him being in the Japanese Naval Section in “Hut 7” at B.P. To add Hut 7 to the Huts in main B.P. article?
(Not sure who wrote above) I added Hut 7 and more people but no stubs.  One of the challenges is who to list. If a source lists someone in an article, who am I to not add them? -- DGamey 01:02, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: More People Stubs

message: Radio 4's "The Reunion" broadcast on the 6th and 11th April 2008 brought together five people who were codebreakers at Bletchley Park. If you're quick you can catch it on the "listen again" website here before it expires on Sunday morning 13th April when the next programme is broadcast. There was some useful stuff on there that could be quoted in the article - such as how the first book published on the subject was wrong, and quotations from Churchill. If I can find my minidisk recorder I'll plug it into the PC to record it but time is short and I've not found it yet. Richerman (talk) 13:31, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Available as an mp3 here. SeveroTC 15:51, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  That's lovely, but even better would be a printed transcript. I've searched for such a document, but so far without success. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 16:10, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, I didn't realise there would be an mp3. A transcript would be nice but you can quote from the mp3 and use the cite episode template from Wikipedia:Citation templates Richerman (talk) 18:54, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I recorded it from the BBC Listen Again - I'm not sure about the legality but it certainly gives us more time to listen to it and pick out useful bits for this article. SeveroTC 19:47, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Probably not strictly legal but as long as it's only for your personal use and you don't redistribute the recording nobody's going to care. Richerman (talk) 23:32, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Reunion 

message: Despite past donations Bletckley still struggles financially for the reason given in this ZD Net article.
Bletchley Park faces bleak future I don't know how best to work it into this article, so I'll leave it here for anyone who understands the situation better.--Aspro (talk) 17:00, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Bletchley Park faces bleak future

message: In my view Bletchley Park existed yet is bedevilled by the history of the contemporary times. 'When did Bletchley Park know about the "Final solution"?' is a question that recurs. The answer seems to be that the Germans passed lists of the names of those slaughtered, encrypted, and Blethcley park was aware of these lists from fairly early on. What they meant was open to question, as was the extremely vexing question of what could be done if everyone's worst nightmares were recognised. Were the orders stemming from the Wannsea conference promulgated via ENIGMA, and were they intercepted?
At the end of the war copies of the ENIGMA machine were given to commonwealth countries as an unbreakable system. MI6 wanted Bletchley Park raised to the ground and any memories sowed with salt (hence the continuing rumours of Turing's suicide - did you ever hear such nonsense as the tale that he is supposed to have coated an apple with cyanide and put it into his fruit bowl?) This destruction included Colossus. However, since the whole point of giving these machines to other countries was because the codes could be broken, clearly MI6/GCHQ must have built a replacement.
::Up to the 1970s Australia & New Zealand used (British) Typex not Enigma machines. And while Stalin knew about Enigma decrypts, he did not know about the decrypting of Fish (Tunny) ciphers according to Tony Sale's page Hugo999 (talk) 11:37, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Re: Arnhem, the additional enemy armour being present in the area would not normally have been a problem, as XXX Corps's tanks would have taken care of them. What killed the operation was the delay caused by the Son bridge being blown. So the additional German armour's presence only became crucial as the subsequent events turned out.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.29.18.153 (talk) 13:18, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bletchley Park, The aftermath. 

message: As one who doesn't know about this subject, some of the sentences seem to come out of the blue, and could use some prefacing or explanation:
:second paragraph: "The main Manor house is also available for functions and is licensed for ceremonies. A good part of the fees for hiring the facilities are paid to the fund, and is another way that support can be given to the Trust."  What fund?  What Trust?
:Under early history, second paragraph: "The first government visitors to Bletchley Park described themselves as Captain Ridley's shooting party."  What does this refer to? 
Help in clarifying would be welcome. - Special-T (talk) 13:30, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Non-sequiturs, etc. 

message: Can anyone add info. about Stalin's spy/spies at BP?
Is is true that Stalin was given intelligence information from BP, under a cover-story, but that he knew, through spying, the real intelligence source (that 3 and 4 wheel Enigma cypher has been broken, by using Bombes and so on)?
But is it also true that the Collosii were destroyed in 1945 because Britain did not want Stalin to know that the much stronger twelve-wheel German high-command cypher had been broken at BP, which was useful in the Cold War?  
Jdudding (talk) 14:14, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  What did Stalin know? 

message: The article states 
"The only direct action that the site experienced was when three bombs, thought to have been intended for Bletchley railway station, were dropped on 20 November 1940 – 21 November 1940. One bomb exploded next to the dispatch riders' entrance, shifting the whole of Hut 4 (the Naval Intelligence hut) two feet on its base. As the huts stood on brick pillars, workmen just winched it back into position whilst work continued inside."
But the Bletchley park site itself states that it is believed the bombs were just being randomly dumped by a German bomber heading home. As the statement above doesn't site evidence, shouldn't it be removed?
213.120.222.100 (talk) 15:38, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I would take out the bit about direct action maybe, as the German army never cottoned on to Bletchley Park's existance for the duration of the war, so direct action is a bit of a fallacy.  The "thought to have been intended" bit I would maybe leave in, and insert a  tag next to it to prompt someone to cite where they got that from. -- roleplayer 16:12, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bombing 

message: There are 2 refences in this article to a J Tiltman, the first to Col. J. Tiltman, and the second to John Tiltman.  The first reference says there is no wikipedia entry to Col. J. Tiltman, the second references a page about John Tiltman - including his work at Bletchley.  I am sure both references are actually to the same man ( just from reading the 2 pages, not from any personal knowledge ).  I do not know how to correct this, so can I suggest the link for Col. J. Tiltman is made the same as the link for John Tiltman?
If I have misunderstood the document, and Col. J. Tiltman is a different person to John Tiltman then please make this clear in the text. Holland jon (talk) 19:09, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Col J. Tiltman 

message: The caption of the submarine model says it is 1:40 scale.  A German submarine of that era was maybe 80 meters long (see German submarine U-110 (1940)).  A 1:40 scale model would be a little less than 2 meters long.  The one in the photo looks at least 10 meters long, so it can't be anything close to 1:40 scale.  Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 00:20, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed the "1:40" claim, since nothing supports it, and it's not really important. - Special-T (talk) 01:00, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  photo of submarine model 

message: An editor seems pretty insistent this article be included in :Category:Cryptographic attacks, which seems inappropriate. Bletchley Park is as much a crypto attack as is the NSA or CIA. Examples of the articles included in the category:
* Adaptive chosen-ciphertext attack
* Adversary (cryptography)
* Attack model
* Banburismus
* Birthday attack
* Bit-flipping attack
* Black bag operation
* Black-bag cryptanalysis
* Boomerang attack
* Brute-force attack
* Chosen-ciphertext attack
* Chosen-plaintext attack
* Ciphertext-only attack
* Clock drift
Inclusion of Bletchley Park in this category makes no sense to me. Anyone have any thoughts on the matter? Thanks! — UncleBubba ( T @ C ) 22:42, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Cryptographic Attacks" category? 

message: New pages added for Hut 3 & Hut 4; they were redirects to Bletchley Park. Any other "Hut" articles warranted? Hugo999 (talk) 11:34, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Pages 

message: These points may not be entirely on-topic in the article, but it's certainly significant in the general topic of war-time coded communications, perhaps in the "See also" section:
*When Bletchley Park (and its satellite operations) decoded a message, how did they deliver the decoded information to the people who needed to know what it said? Were the messages delivered by courier? Transmitted using a British code?
*What sort of codes did the UK use during the war? Their efforts to break enemy codes are significant, but what were they doing to communicate their own secrets?
**I found the answer to the second question myself: they used Typex, a more-secure variant of Enigma, and sometimes one-time pads. —Steve98052 (talk) 11:07, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Communicating the results of the broken communications 

message: Intelligence Service Knox currently links to Dilly Knox. I am preparing to add some information about ISK to this page but Knox died very soon after ISK was established, with Peter Twinn becoming head, so a full treatment seems inappropriate there. ISK already has several links from biography pages. Unless anyone has a better idea or beats me to it, I'll probably create a page for Intelligence Service Knox (notable for disseminating over 100,000 decrypted German Military Intelligence transcripts) and redirect links (including the Knox link from this page) to that page. RobertBurrellDonkin (talk) 20:12, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Several huts have their own pages. So yes, in my opinion, a page for ISOS make sense too. RobertBurrellDonkin (talk) 20:50, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Intelligence Service Knox 

message: From the opening paragraph: "New attractions are becoming available regularly. Up to date details can be found ......" at an external link. Sounds inappropriately like an ad to me, especially upfront in the lede. If there are no objections, I'll tone it down and move the link elsewhere. jxm (talk) 02:05, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Overt promo in Intro  

message: Ted, I wonder if you can explain why the particular shortage, complained of to Churchill by Turing et al., matters in narrating action-this-day. In other words, what does 
:Six weeks later, having failed to get sufficient typing and unskilled staff to achieve the productivity that was possible, Turing, Welchman, Alexander and Milner-Barry wrote directly to Churchill. His response was "Action this day make sure they have all they want on extreme priority and report to me that this had been done."
add to the reader's experience of the subject, relative to 
:Six weeks later, on receiving a plea from Turing, Welchman, Alexander and Milner-Barry that red tape was hampering recruitment, Churchill directed, "Action this day make sure they have all they want on extreme priority and report to me that this had been done."
(other than being 25% longer, of course). This may seem like a minor point, but I strongly believe that surplus detail adding to neither the reader's understanding nor his interest seriously weigh down an article. It's the death of a thousand dull cuts.For that matter I'm not sure why the full roster of petitioners matters either. Why not
:Six weeks later, on receiving a plea from Turing and others that red tape was hampering recruitment, Churchill directed, "Action this day make sure they have all they want on extreme priority and report to me that this had been done."
Certainly I believe in credit-where-due but there's plenty of credit due all these men for many reasons, and I think they wouldn't mind not being enumerated in this particular incident. EEng (talk) 15:11, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: The sources do not say that it was "red tape" that hampered the recruitment of typing and unskilled staff. Indeed, there is a hint that Commander Denniston may have been responsible for giving insufficient priority to this. He was later "moved sideways" away from Bletchley and Edward Travis became the effective head. My wording also makes the point that the success of the four letter-writers (and others) in decrypting enemy radio traffic meant that there was a vast increase in capability to provide critical military intelligence in a timescale that made it operationally useful. Delay, for any reason such as a shortage of unskilled and typing staff, would have made the intelligence less useful and possibly cost lives. Let's bear in mind WP:CIV. --TedColes (talk) 16:33, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

text: Attempts to rectify this situation working through official channels did not work
which it seems to me is the very essence of (extreme) red tape. If you like we can say instead official indifference or unresponsiveness, but I don't see how that better informs the reader.
I also don't see how your wording makes the point you mention re success in decrypting and the importance of that success. Obviously a request for more resources will try to convince the recipient that such will help the writers to better do what they've been tasked to do. To spell out that their desire was "to achieve the productivity that was possible" would be completely superflous -- of course that was the goal. And surely no reader needs to be told that better productivity / faster decrypting / etc. meant the entire difference between valuable intelligence and useless retrospective. Your wording doesn't mention any of that stuff anyway.
Further (as I've said before) I also don't see why it matters what specific type of resource was lacking -- the important points are: (a) the codebreakers felt that they could not do the best job possible without more resources; (b) Churchill unhesitatingly granted them carte blanche, showing the importance he attached to their work and the breadth of his authority in making such decisions. What doesn't matter is just what it was that was lacking -- typists? paperclips? light bulbs?
Some of these elements could be incorporated to enliven the narrative e.g. some kind of "for want of a nail"-type angle -- "Look, Prime Minister, you've gathered all these first-class minds here but we can't get anything done because we have to do our own bloody TYPING!" -- if sources lay something like that out.
Am I missing something? EEng (talk) 22:21, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Action this day 

message: Cottage Number 2 WAS NOT used by Dilly Knox or Alan Turing as this was the house occupied by the Budd Family from 1940 through to 1950, it was in Cottage Number 3 that Knox and Turing worked with a lot of Wrens and this Cottage became know as 'The Harem' and the girls as 'Dilly's Fillies' It is true the Cottages were converted from a 'Fruit Store and Tack Room' and the Tower in Number 2 was NOT used by Alan Turing as it is NOT a room but the stairs for Number 2 Cottage leading to the upstairs bedrooms, Alan Turing used the upstairs rooms in Number 3 Cottage.
During WWII Mrs Budd use to tell the children living in Number 2 Cottage to be 'quiet' as the girls next door were doing very important work and she did not want them disturbed. The reason I have 'Made' these changes is I have tried about 5 times before and NOTHING was carried out to change this mistake, how do I know these facts, my name is Neville J Budd the youngest son of the four children who lived in Number 2 Cottage during WWII, we were the ONLY people who lived in Bletchley Park during this time, every one else was 'Billeted' Out side of the Park, the other members of the Budd family were Robert George Buud (Dad) Emma Rebecca Budd (Mum) Robert George Edwin Budd (Brother Bobby) Jean & Faye Budd my Twin Sisters, check the Wall Hanging in the entrance of the Mansion and you will see all of our names. Comment by  -- see .
:In light of Mr. Budd's comments, and given that the article text says that "Turing, Knox, and Jeffreys did their early work in Number 3 Cottage", I've changed the image caption from
::The stableyard cottages, where Knox, Jeffreys, and Turing made the first British attacks on Enigma. The tower room was used by Turing
As I have stated the TOWER was NOT a ROOM it is the stair way for Number 2 Cottage, Turning only came into our house ONCE to see his mother and she was sleeping in one of the bedrooms downstairs.
:to simply
::The stableyard cottages.
:EEng (talk) 16:41, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: On a recent guided tour of the site, the guide confirmed Mr Budd's recollection. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 16:57, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments by an eyewitness

message: It is often claimed that Bletchley Park remained secret until 1974 and the publication of Winterbotham's memoir. This is, in fact, untrue. There are several instances in which information about BP's work was published before this date. The former BP veteran and post-war librarian, Jimmy Thirsk, details a number of these (which I've checked, and he is right) in his memoir. I have added a sentence to the Post War section to better reflect that fact.95.146.250.4 (talk) 11:05, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Secrecy 

message: I  made by Editor ECEC because:
#the caption contains the string: '©Shaun Armstrong/mubsta.com'
#the description field at the image file at commons contains the string '©Shaun Armstrong/mubsta.com'
#the image's metadata (also at commons) contains the string '©shaunarmstrong/mubstaphotography'
Editor ECEC  with the edit summary:   At the image's page, the Author field identifies Editor ECEC as the author and the Source field identifies the image as her/his own work which is in contradiction to the statement in the edit summary.
Editor ECEC may 'have permission' to use the image, but Wikipedia does not.  The image should be deleted.
—Trappist the monk (talk) 16:07, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  use of copyrighted material 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Bletchley Park. 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100108030414/http://www.bletchleypark.org.uk:80/content/bombestops.pdf to http://www.bletchleypark.org.uk/content/bombestops.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:55, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hi, I'm currently working on User:Ethanbas/Women in Bletchley Park. Feel free to help out! Ethanbas (talk) 22:19, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Women in Bletchley Park 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on Bletchley Park. 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:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.jharper.demon.co.uk/bombe1.htm
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.bletchleypark.org.uk/content/bombestops.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131204202741/http://www.jharper.demon.co.uk/bombe1.htm to http://www.jharper.demon.co.uk/bombe1.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090516183838/http://www.readersheds.co.uk/share.cfm?SHARESHED=2159 to http://www.readersheds.co.uk/share.cfm?SHARESHED=2159
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081109070803/http://savingbletchleypark.org/ to http://www.savingbletchleypark.org/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:36, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Bletchley Park. 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131104230748/http://www.bletchleypark.org/content/contact/donation/support.rhtm to http://www.bletchleypark.org/content/contact/donation/support.rhtm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130528083112/http://www.bletchleypark.org/commercial.rhtm to http://www.bletchleypark.org/commercial.rhtm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110708090316/http://www.bpsic.com/index.html to http://www.bpsic.com/index.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:22, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: My first input to Wikipedia so please be gentle with me! On a recent Monday afternoon visit to BP we were struck by the numbers of young schoolchildren visiting on school trips, all of whom, presumably, learning about the history and importance of BP in WWII. I can imagine many cut and paste Wikipedia prose into school history assignments so the introduction/summary paragraphs need to be especially clear and accurate. The second paragraph of BP entry starts:
"According to the official historian of British Intelligence, the "Ultra" intelligence produced at Bletchley shortened the war by two to four years, and without it the outcome of the war would have been uncertain." 
The claims are attributed to Professor Sir Harry Hinsley, who actually worked at Bletchley from 1939 to 1946 and then went back to Cambridge and became Professor of [the] History of International Relations and Master of St John's College. He was also the official historian of British Intelligence in World War II.
It is the second attributable clause I have issue with: "...and without it the outcome of the war would have been uncertain.". If one reads the attributed article, <"The Influence of ULTRA in the Second World War">, Hinsley is quoted as saying (twice) that:
"And so in all that story you can see that the British survived the war with little benefit from Intelligence until the Germans invaded Soviet Russia. And since Soviet Russia survived the German invasion, and that invasion was followed by the entry of the United States in December '41, we can safely conclude that Germany was going to be defeated in the long run, even if the enormous expansion of Ultra from the summer of 1941 had not from that date given the Allies this massive superiority in Intelligence which they retained until the end of the war." and
"Q. Would we have won the war without Ultra?
My own view is that given that the Soviets survived the German attack and the Americans came in as they did, the combined forces of Russia, America and the British would eventually have won the war. The long term relative strengths of Germany and those three counties were such that Germany was bound to loose in the end. But how lengthily and with what damage and destruction we should have succeeded I don't know. I think we would have won but it would have been a long and much more brutal and destructive war."
So my contention is that this sentence needs amendment as Hinsley clearly did not believe the outcome of the war would have been uncertain, and is a rather massive claim in any case. I suggest this phrase simply be replaced with something like '...and potentially saved many millions of lives' and/or '...by providing the Allies with detailed intelligence from decrypted enemy communications', or something that really can be attributed to what Hinsley said. 
As I say, I am a Wikipedia newbie and have neither the skills or knowledge to take this any further myself but would nevertheless appreciate those that do consider my input appropriately so those schoolchildren learn the real BP story. It really needs no embellishment.
IanF1UK (talk) 11:33, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Hello IanF1UK. Welcome to Wikipedia! As no one has yet taken up your well-argued suggestion, I encourage you to have a go at improving the article yourself. We all had to start somewhere, and if you need more encouragement, read this: WP:BOLD. If anyone disagrees with your changes, they will tell you! Best wishes. Blurryman (talk) 00:00, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bletchley Park introduction 

message: The following coordinate fixes are needed for
—104.219.136.47 (talk) 00:37, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: You haven't explained what you think needs correction. I've tweaked the coordinates in the article a bit, but if you still think that there is an error, you'll need to provide a clear explanation of what it is. Deor (talk) 00:46, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Coordinate error 

message: I think it could go into the popular culture section, here is what it does:
https://searchengineland.com/figz/wp-content/seloads/2014/12/google-easter-egg-Bletchley-Park-1419342795.gif
Sorry if this has already been talked about, this is *literally* my first suggestion.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64Apples (talk • contribs) 15:46, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggestion: Add the Google Easter Egg that appears when you type in 'Bletchley Park' 

message: So I noticed in some parts, it uses the "y" spelling of cipher instead of the "I" spelling of cipher. I feel like it should all be uniform, and it makes sense to use cipher with an I since it's more commonly used and the conclusion of this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Cryptography/Cipher_vs_Cypher#:~:text=In%20the%20published%20literature%20of,than%20the%20spelling%20%22cypher%22.
was that cipher should be used. HOWEVER, the Government Code and Cypher School is mentioned many times in the article and uses the "y" spelling, and that's just the name of it so it can't be changed. What should happen? I'm not very, uh, experienced, to say the least.
NickleSonic (talk) 18:23, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: See Cipher vs. Cypher "Cipher" is much more commonly used in American English and a bit more commonly used in British English. We need to use "Cypher" for the name of the school but I would suggest using "cipher" throughout the rest of the article. Dormskirk (talk) 18:46, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

text: "Cypher" where it is part of a proper noun; "cipher" elsewhere. Per Dormskirk. Zazpot (talk) 19:06, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cipher vs Cypher 

message: It seems to me really odd to say that Bletchley Park is in Bletchley, Milton Keynes, Buckinghamshire, England. All we need is , United Kingdom, Europe, Earth, Solar System, Milky Way.
Bletchley is part of Milton Keynes (and has been so since 1967). Quite a large part, maybe an eighth, but still just a part and barely notable outside 50 mile radius in its own right (probably not at all but for BP).. We need to think of an international readership and not get bogged down in detail like this. IMO, the lead sentence should drop 'Bletchley' and  at least one of 'Milton Keynes' or 'Buckinghamshire', probably the former for historical consistency (as it didn't exist '39-'45). Comments? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 20:04, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bletchley Park is in Bletchley, shock 

message: Please excuse my cheek but it occurred to me that watchers of this article may have book sources that may satisfy a , please? 
I haven't been able to find any citations online for the "New Bradwell Blitz", so I wonder if it ever actually happened? I haven't been able to find any citations online for this event, but it may be in a book that someone has? If so, would they please update the New Bradwell article and/or leave a note at talk:New Bradwell#New Bradwell Blitz - a myth?. Much obliged if you can help. TYVM. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 19:50, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Just to close this request, in May last year a reader contributed the evidence required (). My thanks to everyone who looked. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 17:36, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Off-topic request for assistance at another article: [[New Bradwell]]