Talk:Invasion of Normandy

Merger proposals
This is rather confusing: There are two different merger proposals currently, and in the comments on the first one, another possibility has been raised. Meanwhile, the banner at the top of this article suggests the second proposal, but pointed to the talk page and not that discussion. So this is what I am understanding: '''If you wish to vote, edit this topic and comment at the bottom of the thread. Then change the appropriate vote tally above.'''

I myself am undecided for now. RM2KX (talk) 14:40, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

I have updated the vote count to reflect my vote for the merger of Operation Overlord into Invasion of Normandy. shimshamflimflam (talk)

Merge with Operation Overlord
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)

Agree. In every part. Boeing720 (talk) 14:02, 24 August 2014 (UTC)


 * 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)

After reading both articles, I thought, "Huh, these should be merged." I came here and saw that it had been discussed but nothing had been done. I'm hoping to reraise the issue. I agree both are good articles, but I don't see why that should preclude merging them.VaneWimsey (talk) 21:14, 6 November 2016 (UTC)


 * 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)

I can't understand why it hasn't been done already. Invasion of Normandy, Operation Overlord or Battle of Normandy describe the same military operation: the landing and fighting in north-western France between the 6th June and late-August/early September 1944. The two articles should be merge. The Normandy landings shouldn't since it is talking about the landing itself on June 6th, highly famous and documented, part of the more wide Battle of Normandy. Kormin (talk) 12:20, 24 July 2017 (UTC)


 * 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)

I think these four page (Invasion of Normandy, Operation Overlord ，Invasion of Normandy and LIst of Battle of Normandy leaders) should be merged as one article. It is really hard for me to get idea from so many articles which describe almost the same thing. These pages really made me confuse to read. They are duplicate with each other. Miracle dream (talk) 20:00, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

I worked on Operation Overlord in 2014 and brought it to GA standards. All the content in that article was checked, re-written, and sourced by myself, and later double-checked by a knowledgeable GA reviewer. Invasion of Normandy covers the same time period and topics, but has not been thoroughly checked and is incomplete. I think we should redirect Invasion of Normandy to Operation Overlord. — Diannaa (talk) 12:46, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

I think the focus should be on quality content, but a pair of articles for the Normandy Invasion/Landings or similar which merges the disperate articles covering the same subject would be best. Operation Overlord is a key part of it, and there are arguments for keeping it as is as it also concerns the intelligence. As for the Normandy landings, I think there's enough extra information surrounding them that's seperate from Overlord that it could be its own article. --ProtoDrake (talk) 11:53, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Merge it. It's basically the same thing, if not extremely similar. --Usernamenteredalreadyinuse (talk) 14:13, 20 April 2020 (GMT)

The article Operation Overlord is far superior and covers the same content, so the end result of a "merge" into this article would be to overwrite Operation Overlord into this article.— Diannaa (talk) 00:38, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Proposed merge with List of Battle of Normandy leaders
Unnecessary and unsourced WP:CFORK. Can sit somewhere easily in Invasion of Normandy. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 03:58, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)

New votes and comments for all proposals

 * 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 Stand-alone lists, and rename it due to the error in the title. RM2KX (talk) 17:11, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)


 * Strong Support for the merger of Invasion of Normandy into Operation Overlord - Just merge the 2 articles. They have significant content overlap, and the even if all the information from "Invasion of Normandy" was added into this article, the article would still remain well under the 150,000–180,000 KB limit for readability. As such, the invasion article constitutes an unnecessary content fork. The only extra details/information exists in the Normandy landings (D-Day) article, and that article already contains all the remaining info that we might want to fork out for the invasion phase of the larger campaign. Incidentally, combining the invasion article into the "Operation Overlord" article would fill in the blanks in the middle of the campaign quite nicely.  Light and Dark2000  (talk) 08:42, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
 * 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.  Light and Dark2000  (talk) 08:50, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Proposed merges
I am opposed to all three proposals. It has already been pointed out that the material was once a giant single article, which became unwieldy. The current arrangement (1) a list of leaders; (2) a description of the first day; (3) the campaign is a sensible arrangement of the material, though I think that a note should be put at the head of each section with that same information and links.

As so often with these merge proposals, it comes more from a desire to do something, than from a clear view of what needs to be done. It is the clearest presentation of all the material that matters.

--Vicedomino (talk) 07:13, 27 June 2017 (UTC)


 * I am inclined to agree. Although I feel that Normandy Landings and Invasion of Normandy should be merged. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:03, 24 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Added newest proposal and vote. RM2KX (talk) 01:22, 16 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose merging Operation Overlord with Invasion of Normandy.
 * Support merging Normandy landings with Invasion of Normandy.
 * Support Operation Overlord and Invasion of Normandy remaining separate articles.
 * Rational per Gog the Mild (talk) 18:19, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Comment the mixture of 2014, 2017 and 2020 votes and comments is unworkable. Close this section, ping all commenters, and start a new section. jnestorius(talk) 22:32, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

I have boldly redirected this article to Operation Overlord, which is a Good Article of high quality and covers the same material.— Diannaa (talk) 19:04, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Henry J. F. Miller
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)

About US position in infobox
Recently I tried to make edition in order to put the US flag first in the infobox. The United States had more than 20 divisions during the battle of Normandy which more than the sum of British and Canadian divisions.The US provided more manpower than any other countries in this operation, they even supplied most of the tanks in use by the British forces. They had larger casualties. Dwight D. Eisenhower was the Supreme Allied Commander here. I think the US should go first in the infobox.Miracle dream (talk) 07:55, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
 * The guidance on this at Template:Infobox military conflict is for combatants to be "listed in order of importance to the conflict, be it in terms of military contribution, political clout, or a recognized chain of command. If differing metrics can support alternative lists, then ordering is left to the editors of the particular article." Factotem (talk) 08:38, 10 April 2019 (UTC)


 * The real issue here is that the infobox is part of the lead and should summarise the most important aspects as covered in the article, but the article does not reliably give us the information necessary to determine the above criteria. There is, for example, only one statement about the relative military contribution: "...roughly half American and the other half from the Commonwealth Realms", in the first subsection of the Allied order of battle section, but this is not sourced and refers only to the troops landed (i.e. excludes naval and air contributions). The information in the article about the chain of command is not much more helpful, and there is nothing in it about relative political clout. Really, these issues should be sorted first, then the appropriate ordering in the infobox will become clearer. Factotem (talk) 08:38, 10 April 2019 (UTC)


 * There is this article and Operation Overlord; are you sure you're not getting them mixed up? This article is about the invasion of Normandy which states in dates June to mid July (ie complete foothold established). Eastfarthingan (talk) 21:29, 10 April 2019 (UTC)


 * JFYI, without Britain and the British the US forces would not have been on French soil in the first place. The British supplied almost the entire naval force involved, both during the invasion, and afterwards, and also supplied most of the air defence of US bases both in Britain and subsequently on the continent. Almost all the supplies used in the build up to Normandy, and in the subsequent supply of the Allied armies in the field, was transported on British merchant ships, both across the North Atlantic, and across the English Channel. The British were also responsible for almost all of the planning of all these operation(s), as they were also responsible for most of the reconnaissance, both aerial, and beach, via the COPP parties. They also supplied almost all of the intelligence, both signals (Ultra) and via SOE agents in France. A British commander - Montgomery - got US forces onto the continent and he kept them there, when plenty of other commanders, both British and US, would not have been able to.


 * The British don't go around stating such salient facts as they assume that those who need to know them, already do know, whilst those who don't, are free to think and believe what they want. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.53.142 (talk) 11:42, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

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

List of belligerents in the infobox
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: 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)
 * 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.


 * If there is no justification, then there should be no objection to removing them... Factotem (talk) 11:29, 8 December 2019 (UTC)


 * 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)

I'm for merging the article but I think it has to be done carefully, to make it not like unruly.162.244.172.251 (talk) 21:45, 29 April 2020 (UTC)