Talk:Clandestine HUMINT operational techniques

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	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 lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Additional information and associated task forces: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: not checked To fill out this checklist, please add the following to the template call: <!-- B-Class-1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points have appropriate inline citations. --> |B-Class-1=yes/no <!-- B-Class-2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain obvious omissions or inaccuracies. --> |B-Class-2=yes/no <!-- B-Class-3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. --> |B-Class-3=yes/no <!-- B-Class-4. It is free from major grammatical errors. --> |B-Class-4=yes/no <!-- B-Class-5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. --> |B-Class-5=yes/no Associated task forces (general topics): Intelligence task force

[edit] Merger Proposal

I would like to merge Covert cell and Sleeper cell into this article, which covers the subject in more detail, with the exception of the history in covert cell. Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 14:50, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I feel that this article is probably already on the long side — as such, I think adding more detail to it is perhaps not the way to go. (Its only a guideline, but Wikipedia:Article length suggests that the article, at over 60 KB, "probably should be divided" as it is). I would suggest that this page serve as a central overview (which was previously lacking), but that smaller articles be maintained on subsets of the topic to contain detail — otherwise, the main article becomes longer than the guidelines recommend. Just my thoughts. -- Vardion (talk) 20:58, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Any suggestions on where to split? (edited change, as I already took cell structure to another article)Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 21:16, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Not sure. The six basic sections you've got seem to make sense, and simply dividing the article in two would destroy the coherence of the topic. Perhaps each of the current six sections could have a detailed article of its own, each one combining information from the current article and from the various articles you proposed for merger. Then, this article would summarise all six, referring to the specific sub-articles for a more detailed overview. That way, the main article isn't so long and is more easily readable for those who just want a quick glimpse, but the various subtopics are still united in a common framework that can be accessed from the summary. This is just my opinion, though. -- Vardion (talk) 21:29, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I think its fine the way it is. I enjoyed reading it in its current form, Dividing up seems like nothing but an attempt to make it more complicated to get all the relevant info. make the article longer and more detailed along with a more informative introduction paragraph if anything. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.138.96.243 (talk) 11:15, 3 June 2008 (UTC)