Talk:Operation Fortitude

message: The article regarding Operation Quicksilver (WWII) and this one disagree about the 'myth' of inflatable tanks and vehicles.  I am by no means an expert and do not plan on changing one to be consistant with the other, but this discrepancy makes one of these articles clearly incorrect. As the article cites Mr. Holt and the discussion includes comments from DJ Clayworth, I can only assume the two of you remain at impass.  Tofof 25 May 2006
:It's not really an impasse. Mr Holt seems to have left Wikipedia, and I'm waiting to acquire a new reference book on the subject before adding to this article. Feel free to add to the article if you like. (For your information I've also seen references that talk about mock-up tanks) DJ Clayworth 13:04, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: All the research I've done, including work by Mr. Holt, very much downplays the role of inflatable and dummy craft in the operation.130.64.143.198 00:18, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Consistency with other articles

message: To facilitate this deception, additional buildings were constructed; dummy vehicles
 and landing craft were placed around possible embarkation points.
It has to be one or the other. Dick Kimball (talk) 15:29, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Operation Quicksilver

message: :Image:Op Fortitude Inflatable Tank.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot 06:47, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Op Fortitude Inflatable Tank.jpg

message: If anyone does get around to creating maps, the only information regarding the Fortitude Pas de Calais target area is a brief note in Hesketh that describes the landing areas as:
"...beaches exclusive River Somme to inclusive Boulogne..."
Graham1973 (talk) 23:02, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Note Re: Maps

message: Footnotes 19 and 20 are incompatible: the article should explain.  Deipnosophista (talk) 09:59, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Not at all; or rather, the information is accurate but the article could be more clear about it :) In short; Fortitude North *was* successful in convincing Hitler to re-inforce Norway BUT the wireless/visual deception used in Fortitude North is not judged to have been the cause (rather, double agents fed most of the information back). --Errant (chat!) 10:05, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fortitude North 

message: The article references a "closed loop" deception system but the link is too an article of electronic circuitry that has nothing to do with deception. 209.137.134.50 (talk) 17:35, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Closed Loop Deception

message: In the image "Map of Operation Bodyguard subordinate plans", the city of Trondheim is marked on the map next to the arrow for "Fortitude North". This is the wrong location of Trondheim, its real placement is much further south in Norway. Trondheims real placement is roughly on the same latitude as the arrow for "Graffham". I suggest either moving Trondheim south on the map or just removing it entirely since the city is not mentioned in the article. Falcon1702 (talk) 11:13, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Improvement to map