Talk:Enigma machine/Archive 2

message: I did not read the entire article, however I read a large majority of it and I would like to say that as far as grammar goes it is superbly written!  Jaberwocky6669 03:33, Jul 29, 2004 (UTC) 
:J, We're getting there. Sort of. Fascinating to see that there are >= 6668 other Jaberwockys here on WP. ww 16:16, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments

message: If you're more worried about length, then maybe the article should be separated into one on the machine itself (which the article title is anyway) and one on the process of breaking the cipher.  You guys seem to have a lot more material to go in, so it would be a shame to not do that just because this article should really only be about the machine anyway. - Taxman 20:53, Jul 29, 2004 (UTC)
: Perhaps. There's a number of threads to the Enigma topic, and it is proving difficult to fit them all in: 1) A description of the workings and components of the machine; 2) A history of how the machine was developed and evolved, and who used it; 3) The techniques for codebreaking; 4) The history, people and results of the codebreaking (Ultra); 5) How the Enigma story was revealed 30 years (or more) later. As you suggest, perhaps we should stick primarily to 1) and 2) within Enigma machine, and evolve off the other parts into separate articles (I think User:ww also suggested splitting of the cryptanalysis details); of course, we should leave a paragraph or two for each of 3), 4) and 5) to summarise. Actually, maybe this comment should be on the Talk: page... — Matt 21:15, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comment from [[WP:FAC]] 

message: Soirry I could not help with this article, but it looks extremely good, and is a good ambassador article for wikipedia.  Well done everyone, especially Matt. Rich Farmbrough 10:26, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Cheers! You are, of course, very welcome to see if this article could be improved further (I'm sure it can), and there's a bunch of other World War II-era crypto pages that are in dire need of some attention if the subject tickles your fancy (see also World War II cryptography, *gulp*)...! — Matt 10:45, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

text: Thanks for the kind comments! — Matt Crypto 15:53, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Congratulations on being featured! 

message: Were any of the various models backwards compatible?  Or did units (and submarines, and ships) get upgraded and then somebody back at HQ had to remember which machine to use to transmit to them?  Tempshill 17:23, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: There was some consideration for backwards compatibility. In particular, the four-rotor Naval Enigma, used by the U-boats, was designed so that if the fourth rotor was placed in one of the 26 positions then the machine operated exactly like a three-rotor machine. Still, HQ had to remember exactly who they were transmitting to — by the end of the war, there were a large number of networks each using completely different daily settings, even though the Enigma machines were the same. — Matt 22:56, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Backwards compatibility? 

message: On 01 Nov 2004, this article was cited in a SecurityFocus article on phishing. Securiger 06:49, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  SecurityFocus cite 

message: Why were my brief critiques of the two Enigma-related movies deleted?  Citing, without due comment, fictional misrepresentations of history is tantamount to a tacit approval of disinformation.  It's all right to say that an Enigma machine used in one of the movies is authentic—but not that the whole premise of the movie is a fabrication?  Logologist 15:40, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed them because I think it's too much detail for this topic; by all means include this information in the U-571 article or the Enigma (2001 film)/Enigma (novel) articles. It's OK to briefly cite notable examples of where Enigma crops up in fiction from time to time, but launching into reviews about the historical authenticity of this or that film seems — at least to me — to be drifting off-topic. Here, we're focused on details about a specific piece of electromechanical equipment. — Matt Crypto 16:03, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: History and movies