Talk:Invasion of Normandy

message: Operation Overlord ends with Invasion, followed by close of the operation. I don't see why we need two separate articles, especially given that there is also a separate one on the landing. Invasion of Normandy is the most common expression for the whole battle, and military propaganda names as title for articles should be avoided. --Galant Khan (talk) 00:16, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Operation Overlord (covering 6th June - August) and Normandy landings (6 June itself) are both Good articles - I don't think merging content in will be welcomed unless done carefully. GraemeLeggett (talk) 14:15, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

text: 100% agree. There's Normandy landings, Invasion of Normandy, Operation Overlord and probably more I'm unaware, there's simple no room for so much overlapping content. I would probably only redirect here to Normandy landings as I think that's the common name.  this article is in much worse shape than the others, I just can't see nothing worth merging into the others, everything here is there too, just better. If you disagree pls let me know. Best regards. Bertdrunk (talk) 12:16, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

text: The Normandy Landings are a part of Operation Overlord and are IMHO worthy of a separate article, as are many battles and operations within Overlord. Such an article should not stray from the actual landings, apart from a brief Aftermath. The Invasion of Normandy seems, to me, a pointless duplication of the Normandy Landings. I have no opinion on the list of leaders issue. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:00, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge with Operation Overlord 

message: Unnecessary and unsourced WP:CFORK. Can sit somewhere easily in Invasion of Normandy. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 03:58, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I just moved that page to List of Battle of Normandy leaders (lowercase i) before noticing this discussion.  Sorry if this complicates matters. Certes (talk) 13:30, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  Since there was no talk page for "List", and no one has objected in three years, I think that's fine, Certes. I have noted that change in the merger proposals box. RM2KX (talk) 01:48, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed merge with [[List of Battle of Normandy leaders]] 

message: *3 votes: 1) Merge "Operation" into "Invasion" because they are different names for the same thing. As Galant Khan suggests the battle name generally should not be used per Wikipedia:Naming of military operations 2) The blanked page should not redirect to "Normandy Landings" per Bertdrunk, but to the article it merges into. That best preserves its edit history, and "Operation" aleady links to "Landings" but could do it more prominently, perhaps. 3) Leave "List" as its own article for a direct link to a names-only search, and it is more extensive than what's in the infoboxes at "Operation" and "Invasion". Then expand that article per Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists, and rename it due to the error in the title. RM2KX (talk) 17:11, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: *I have to change my first vote. I think both articles are too long to be merged, as they were once one article and it split after discussion in Archive #4. But both articles could be further distinguished from each other a little more. Re-merging would be a huge undertaking that would undo the work of a previous huge undertaking, and would create a too-lengthy article again. The necessity of the original split justifies that operation codename as title, in this case. RM2KX (talk) 12:49, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: *They are not too long, they are repeating each other Context order of battle tourism etc... The Invasion of Normandy is just a bad ersatz of the Operation Overlord article. Kormin (talk) 12:23, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Additionally, as it exists right now, the only additional information that Invasion of Normandy details are the planning and Orders of Battle for the Normandy campaign, while the article is missing crucial details on the actual invasion of Normandy, which can already be found in Operation Overlord. Those details can easily be integrated into the Operation Overlord article. LightandDark2000 (talk) 08:50, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  New votes and comments for all proposals 

message: Henry J. F. Miller is the Wikipedia entry to Henry Miller. How is this not unreferenced material?
Sammartinlai (talk) 05:46, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Henry J. F. Miller 

message: In the Invasion of Normandy#Allied order of battle section, there should be troop numbers for each division, British and American. -ApexUnderground (talk) 04:03, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Numbers of troops 

message: Curious to know what the justification is for listing so many belligerents in the infobox and their mention in the second paragraph of the lead. According to the template documentation, "When there is a large number of participants, it may be better to list only the three or four major groups on each side of the conflict, and to describe the rest in the body of the article." According to MOS:LEAD, of which the infobox is a part, "The lead serves as...a summary of its most important contents" and should "...summarize the most important points..." Most pertinently, it says, "...the emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources. Apart from basic facts, significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article." Meanwhile, the infobox lists as belligerents:
* Greece, which is nowhere mentioned in the main body of the article;
* Luxembourg, ditto
* Czechoslovakia, which is mentioned only in a footnote;
* Norway, ditto;
* Netherlands, ditto;
* New Zealand, ditto;
* Belgium, ditto;
* Australia, ditto;
* Poland, ditto;
* France, ditto;
* Italy, which is mentioned only in a citation note.
I guess it can be debated whether these nations' contributions constitute "basic facts", but if they are not significant enough to be covered in the main body of the article, what justification is there for listing them in the infobox? Factotem (talk) 09:24, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: If there is no justification, then there should be no objection to removing them... Factotem (talk) 11:29, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Absent any justification, I've replaced the allied nations listed above with "Allied contributions" in the infobox, and moved the note that was there into the main body of the article in the new subsection "Allied contributions". I've removed "Italian Social Republic" from the list of Axis belligerents on the basis that it also is not explained in the main body of the article and there is no information in the References section for the source (Only "Viganò 1991 p. 181" is provided, with no information about the title of the work being cited, publisher, etc). I also removed the footnote about the lack of German air support on the basis that it has been tagged with citation needed for a decade now. Factotem (talk) 09:44, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  List of belligerents in the infobox