Talk:D-Day carrier pigeon cipher

Untitled
The article has been copited to here - which is in part intended to cover such 'undeciphered documents and ciphers.'

Notability
I have removed the prod tag. The subject matter is factual, uncontroversial and described in more than one reliable source. The most recent article on the subject was just published today. There may have been many of these messages sent during the war, but none have been found in this manner some 58 years later. And unsolved codes have interest in the cryptographic community. Note that this article has already been copied to another site. I think it has lasting interest to our readers.--agr (talk) 00:49, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Ok I will nominate it for deletion and advertise it on military history to let the more seasoned editors decide. Personally I think it will be best to include it in another article as long as the parts trying to act for a primary souce are removed. If you wanted to be really strict then it is a copyvio since the text is covered by crown copyright until 2014. You might also think about including it in wikinews since it is an ongoing news story. Fireice (talk)

Will develop the page above mentioned in due course (unless anyone else decides to join in) - I was suggesting a way of 'keeping the cake' :) Jackiespeel (talk) 10:34, 17 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete. I came thinking it might be something like a special cypher developed for pigeon messages. This is silly. A whole page about a dead carrier pigeon? What next, bio pages for war dogs? 19:55, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

It is usually easier to create an article at the time of the event and then decide whether to keep or not, depending upon what happens, than trying to create something 'a while after the event.'

As the article is now on another wiki (and I will rewrite it sometime).

Suggest - have a shortened version of the article on carrier pigeons. Jackiespeel (talk) 13:19, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Comments on ongoing efforts to decipher
[I moved these comments by 60.242.170.18 from the article as they were more editorial in nature--agr (talk) 14:58, 21 December 2012 (UTC) ]

Young is very inventive, but GCHQ is saying 7 out of 26 is far too poor a score and  there is no real known use of such a technique,  if the cipher was ad hoc, how was any one reading it meant to understand it ? no, ciphers must be standardised.. Ad Hoc ciphers based on a 30 year old code book ,but not precisely, is too far fetched, as proved by the poor result.

Lance Sarjeant Stout
If encoded by Stout, then the cipher is a standard one as used in World War II by Royal Engineers, A young man wouldnt go back to some World War I code book ! Royal Enginers used  their own specific version of BX 724, that is,  “BX 724/RE”. Examples of BX 724/RE  cipher (more valuable with plain text !) would help confirm the ideas.



Merged to National Pigeon Service
Per conclusion of AfD discussion, this article has been merged with National Pigeon Service. All further discussion should take place on that articles talk page.--agr (talk) 18:12, 26 December 2012 (UTC)