Talk:U.N.C.L.E.

	Television portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion. To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Suggestion

This article should be clear in that it describes a fictitious organization solely described in teleplays. algocu 18:19, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Interesting, then, that it's mentioned by name in the 1947 book The Saint Sees it Through: "[T]his thing goes too far over the world, into too many countries and too many jurisdictions. Only an organisation that's just as international can cope with it. There is such a thing, and I [the Saint] 'm part of it."

Paul Magnussen (talk) 18:49, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The "and" in U.N.C.L.E.'s name

There's someone out there who keeps replacing the "and" in the agency's name;there was NEVER an "and" in it!...every fan of this show knows that it's "United Network Command for Lacause it makes logical sense!...almost like on "The New Adventures of Beans Baxter", where that rival(as in "bad-guys") spy agency's name was "U.G.L.I", as in "Underground Government Liberation Intergroup"...Michaela92399 (talk) 03:32, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Michaela's right...please stop re-editing the name...Baldwin91006 (talk) 03:12, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently, no one cares...they keep re-editing MY "fixes"!...there was NO "and" in the show title!...Michaela92399 (talk) 02:43, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In the end credits for every episodes there is this message: "We wish to thank the United Network Command for Law and Enforcement without whose assistance this program would not be possible." Note the "and". DJMcNiff (talk) DJMcNiff 04:38, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting that the first two contributors to this discussion in 2008-09 were convinced that they were right when - in fact - the 'and' is *always* present in both shows whenever the name is written or spoken in full. What it means to be an organisation that stands for Law AND Enforcement is debatable but the use of a gun in U.N.C.L.E.'s logo implies (to me) that the separate emphasis on Enforcement was meant to underline that the organisation wasn't a 'toothless' body. That's just deduction (or even original research?) however, like much of the current text of this main article. Si-Ga-Sahab (talk) 05:06, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Uncle logo.JPG Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Uncle logo.JPG, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: Wikipedia files with no non-free use rationale as of 19 May 2012

What should I do?

Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale
If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used.
If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review

To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Uncle logo.JPG)

This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 10:17, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Possible removal of 'Fictional Structure' section. Future AfD?

I have issues with all the fictional sections in this issue, but mostly for the 'Fictional Structure' (formerly, 'Structure') section, based on WP:UNIVERSE. The section(s) are far too detailed, and largely written in an in-universe style. I have tried to tweak it a little, but I think the information given is superfluous. I do also question the WP:Notability of the article. There are still very few references and so WP:Verifiability is still lacking. Nonovix (talk) 13:20, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]