This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Normandy landings article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that a key target for the Normandy landings, Caen(pictured), was not captured by the Allies until 21 July 1944?
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 a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Normandy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Normandy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.NormandyWikipedia:WikiProject NormandyTemplate:WikiProject NormandyNormandy articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Poland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Poland on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PolandWikipedia:WikiProject PolandTemplate:WikiProject PolandPoland articles
This article is related to the Pritzker Military Museum & Library WikiProject. Please copy assessments of the article from the most major WikiProject template to this one as needed.Pritzker Military LibraryWikipedia:GLAM/PritzkerTemplate:WikiProject Pritzker-GLAMPritzker Military Library-related articles
This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Netherlands, an attempt to create, expand, and improve articles related to the Netherlands on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, visit the project page where you can join the project or contribute to the discussion.NetherlandsWikipedia:WikiProject NetherlandsTemplate:WikiProject NetherlandsNetherlands articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Weather, which collaborates on weather and related subjects on Wikipedia. To participate, help improve this article or visit the project page for details.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject European history, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the history of Europe on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.European historyWikipedia:WikiProject European historyTemplate:WikiProject European historyEuropean history articles
Ike was NOT a Major General (2-star) for Normandy. He was the theater commander, a full General (4-star), and later received his 5th star. 47.156.218.197 (talk) 03:54, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Semi-protected edit request on 30 November 2022[edit]
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Normandy landings → D-Day – D-Day is the WP:COMMONNAME of this topic, not the "Normandy landings". D-Day is also a generic millitary term, and that article can keep existing under its current name. PhotographyEdits (talk) 09:09, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural close/opposed. Where is your prior discussion of this, before raising an Rfc about it? Rfc's are expensive (in volunteer time), and you should discuss this first, to see if there's some support for your position, before raising it as an Rfc. In addition, I'm opposed on the merits, because en-wiki is not only used by native English speakers, but by many ESL users, and Normandy landings is a naturally descriptive title which everybody can understand, while "D-Day" is more of a jargon accessible to native English speakers. Finally, there's this ngrams chart, which compares the terms, and shows which one is more common. Mathglot (talk) 10:42, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Mathglot Looking at the previous discussion about this, there is surely some support for my position. PhotographyEdits (talk) 12:02, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The term "Normandy landings" (or more precisely "June 1944 Normandy landings") is less ambiguous. I would be very cautious about ngrams, since it will include other D-Days and therefore show a higher proportion of D-Days than is justified. -- Toddy1(talk) 11:49, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Since it gives zero hits for D-Day, I think ngram is broken for words that include dashes. PhotographyEdits (talk) 12:01, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, ngrams process the "-" character as minus. To obtain ngrams for hyphenated phrases we need to insert a space character either side of the the "-" character, and this greatly changes the results:
English fiction D-Day is currently the most common, though in the past D Day or Normandy landings have been close rivals.
Except for English fiction, we cannot be sure that all the D-Day and D Day hits are for Normandy - some will be for other operations such as Salerno. Ngrams are useful but other factors need to be taken into account. -- Toddy1(talk) 12:16, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but that is not an argument per WP:CCC. Those are 9 years ago and Wikipedia policy is not stable. PhotographyEdits (talk) 14:39, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's not intended as an argument; it's links to previous discussions and my summary of what the consensus was at that time. I am aware that consensus can change. — Diannaa (talk) 14:55, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Okay! Though the last discussion (which you did not linked) resulted in a no consensus, so it's not completely true that it has been consistent consensus against a title change. PhotographyEdits (talk) 09:17, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. "D-Day" alone is probably a little too ambiguous, but something like "D-Day invasion" would probably be fine. Rreagan007 (talk) 19:42, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as proposed. Although the evidence proffered by Toddy1 convinces me that D-Day is likely the most common name for this operation, WP:RECOGNIZABILITY is not based wholly on the commonness of a name; I think that Mathglot's point about "Normandy landings" being understandable to a wider audience is also worth considering. The potential ambiguities with other D-Days, and the more colloquial nature of the term "D-Day" in contrast to "Normandy landings", also incline me to lean in favor of the status quo. I think you could make a reasonably strong case for "D-Day landings" as a title, as it circumvents some of the concerns I have about "D-Day" alone. However, on the whole, I think retaining the status quo ("Normandy landings" as title, "D-Day" as redirect) is ultimately the best solution. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 22:19, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom, clear COMMONNAME.--Ortizesp (talk) 07:22, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom and sources, clearly the most COMMONNAME since the 90s. Tellingly, the article itself only refers to Normandy landings 13 times, but D-Day 60. D-Day is listed in 18 of the article sources, Normandy landings only 1. If "the sources in an article shows that one name or version of the name stands out as clearly the most commonly used in the English language, we should follow the sources and use it." WP:ENTom B (talk) 12:09, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Like the previous RM discussions, I am concerned that "D-Day" by itself is still not a precise term. It is just best to error on retaining the current article title that has been stable enough for all these years. Zzyzx11 (talk) 17:58, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. D-Day is not precise enough and most serious historians refer to the landings as the Normandy landings. Nobody is denying that "D-Day landings" is commonly used, but the current title is also common and far more precise. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:33, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose For all the reasons discussed here, and the last time, and the time before that. Wiki-Ed (talk) 23:00, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Hi I am George P III, and I want to edit this article as I am an expert in my field. Also, just to let you know I've been studying this specific subject for about 5 years so it would be great if I can edit and give some extra but important information. Besides being an expert, I am a scientist and archiologist with 30 years of experience in science and 28 years in archiology. So if you want any additional information on the Normandy landings and what the Germans did to defend the French land they forcefully took over. AnonymousSushiMan (talk) 00:17, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not done: this is not the right page to request additional user rights. You may reopen this request with the specific changes to be made and someone may add them for you, or if you have an account, you can wait until you are autoconfirmed and edit the page yourself. Jamedeus (talk) 00:26, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"The Normandy landings were the largest seaborne invasion in history" Beevor 2009 p74. Only that is not what the reference states on p74. It states the largest sea force assembled in history, then lists the number of ships. Earlier on p72 Beevor states that it was the largest amphibious assault attempted - whether that attempt relates to WW2 or in history is not clarified. The two relevant pages need to be correctly cited, else we have the current POV. Additionally, other secondary sources should be used to support such a key statement in the article. Also, a comparison should be drawn with the invasion of Sicily, which had a similar number of troops in the initial assault (according to WP Sicily had 4,000 more troops) with more tanks, artillery etc during the landing. 182.239.146.143 (talk) 23:33, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What Beevor says is "Many wondered what the Germans would think when they caught sight of this armada, which was by far the largest fleet that had ever put to sea." My opinion is that it supports the included content. Here's a second source: CNN says "largest sea invasion". — Diannaa (talk) 00:22, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Diannaa. The issue is not the number of ships in the naval flotilla supporting the landing. The issue is that this was an amphibious invasion i.e. the focus is on what landed from the sea and onto the beach. We need to confirm that it was the largest in history, else we should be saying that it had the largest naval support in history - we need to be accurate. I have little faith in an opinion piece hosted on CNN - regardless of who it is - because it has not been peer reviewed and therefore not open to challenge by the writer's peers. Surely there are reliable secondary sources (history books) that support this statement? I note that the article is GA-rated and refers to many historical works already. 182.239.146.143 (talk) 06:17, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you are going to do comparisons with other amphibious landings, you need to look at more than the first day - otherwise it all looks misleadingly tiny compared with Soviet operations at the same time. Counting ships does not mean a lot either - many of the vessels that crossed the English Channel were very small. -- Toddy1(talk) 10:17, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
According to Beevor, the size of the invasion fleet was the largest in history. Do we need to amend it to say that instead? Something like "The invasion fleet was the largest in history." But this might not be necessary, as we also have sourced content elsewhere in the article that says "The official British history gives an estimated figure of 156,115 men landed on D-Day." Was this not the largest one-day troop landing in history? Do you know of one that was bigger? — Diannaa (talk) 11:13, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"The millionth Allied solider crossed the beach on 4 July." Ruppenthal Logistical Support of the Armies Volume 1, page 457.-- Toddy1(talk) 13:08, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
level-5 vital article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
.jpg)
.svg)
Not done: this is not the right page to request additional user rights. You may reopen this request with the specific changes to be made and someone may add them for you, or if you have an account, you can wait until you are autoconfirmed and edit the page yourself. Jamedeus (talk) 00:26, 2 March 2024 (UTC)