Talk:Invasion of Normandy: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 14:50, 30 November 2012 editHohum (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers68,573 editsNo edit summary← Previous edit		Revision as of 14:39, 8 June 2013 edit undoEh doesn't afraid of anyone (talk \| contribs)54 edits →Deletation by Eh doesn't afraid of anyone Next edit →
(3 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown)
Line 95:		Line 95:

	Looking through orphaned articles I came across ]. Should the contents of that page be entered in the infobox here and then deleted? --] (]) 17:13, 13 November 2012 (UTC)		Looking through orphaned articles I came across ]. Should the contents of that page be entered in the infobox here and then deleted? --] (]) 17:13, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

			== Deletation by Eh doesn't afraid of anyone ==

			Eh doesn't afraid of anyone, SPA deletated sourced contents. The contents should be writen, cos[REDACTED] should not drop one side view. Misplaced Pages should provide the neutral contents which readers can consider things by their own brain.--] (]) 14:13, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
			:Let us know when you start.--<span style="background:#C2C2C2">]]]</span> 14:24, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
			::The title of this section is a personal attack. I do not adhere to the made-up political ideologies of deletation OR deletationism, and even if I did what would my political views have to do with this article's content?? </joking> Anyway, it doesn't matter if you have a "source". WP:V is not the only policy on Misplaced Pages. You are ignoring ], ] and ]. Please do not insert any more off-topic content to this or other articles. Your personal views on the American military, prostitution and the South Korean government are perfectly clear to everyone here, but they have nothing whatsoever to do with the Allied invasion of Normandy. ] (]) 14:39, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Revision as of 14:39, 8 June 2013

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Invasion of Normandy redirect.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4Auto-archiving period: 3 months

Invasion of Normandy is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.

[REDACTED]

This article appeared on Misplaced Pages's Main Page as Today's featured article on October 1, 2004.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
June 17, 2004	Featured article candidate	Promoted
September 24, 2007	Featured article review	Demoted

Current status: Former featured article

This redirect does not require a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Military history: South Pacific / British / Canadian / Dutch / European / French / German / North America / Polish / United States / World War II

This redirect 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

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Australia, New Zealand and South Pacific military history task force
	British military history task force
	Canadian military history task force
	Dutch military history task force
	European military history task force
	French military history task force
	German military history task force
	North American military history task force
	Polish military history task force
	United States military history task force
	World War II task force

Normandy Mid‑importance

	This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Normandy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Normandy on Misplaced Pages. 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
Mid	This redirect has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

A fact from this article was featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the On this day section on June 6, 2004, June 6, 2005, June 6, 2006, June 6, 2007, June 6, 2008, and June 6, 2012.

This article has been mentioned by a media organization:

"The truth about the Second World War: Part One". In Defence of Marxism. July 21, 2004.

Template:V0.5

Archives

Archive Index

/Archive 1 2003 - February 2006
/Archive 2 March 2006 - December 2006
/Archive 3 January 2007 - September 2007
/Archive 4 October 2007 -
/Archive 5

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Invasion of Normandy redirect.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4Auto-archiving period: 3 months

Looking Good

Nice to see the USA as first in the order of precedence for units involved and commanders. Makes sense after all. I never, ever liked that "alphabetical order is the most fair" argument, especially considering most the people arguing that were UK contributers (what a surprise). I'm glad it was decided to set the order of precedence based on numbers, in which case it truly would be USA first, UK second. So kudos to the people who got this accomplished.

OH WAIT A MINUTE! I get it now! It's a concession made for 6 June, so you avoid a mass of American readers whom you are oh-so-certain would flood the edits and vandalize the page if it weren't the way it is right now. I'm going to assume that if I check back tomorrow at the earliest, next week at the latest, that it will be back to the UK first format. Jersey John (talk) 22:51, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Coverage and Accuracy?

The purpose of this page is to give an overview of the invasion, so if anyone can think of anything that needs to be added or is able to check the validity of the references, then we will be able to change this to C-Class, and be one step closer to B-Class. I will continue copyediting to make sure that it stays to high grammatical standards and hopefully we will be able to get this to Featured status. Akjar13 (talk) 08:58, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Home front media coverage

This article could use a good description of how home-front media covered the invasion: preparations, use of technology, radio and wire reports, false alarms, and so on. A good description for the U.S. broadcast media can be found in Broadcasting for 1944-06-12. Notably, it says that SHAEF's "Invasion Communique No. 1" was written by the Radio Chief, Psychological Warfare branch of SHAEF, who was none other than CBS President (on leave) William S. Paley (p. 40). The article also notes a false alarm that was flashed over the newswires a few hours before the official announcement came, and discusses a televised panel program with analysts on WABD. 121a0012 (talk) 06:18, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

UK above United States

why should the US be first on the belligerents list? The UK provided the most ships and aircraft for the whole operation. Also the whole campaign was basically under British command. British and Canadian troops also did most of the fighting after the landings, which allowed a breakout to take place.PyrrhusEP (talk) 00:57, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

The Battle of Normandy leaders

Looking through orphaned articles I came across The Battle of Normandy leaders. Should the contents of that page be entered in the infobox here and then deleted? --Traveler100 (talk) 17:13, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Deletation by Eh doesn't afraid of anyone

Eh doesn't afraid of anyone, SPA deletated sourced contents. The contents should be writen, cos[REDACTED] should not drop one side view. Misplaced Pages should provide the neutral contents which readers can consider things by their own brain.--Syngmung (talk) 14:13, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Let us know when you start.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 14:24, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

The title of this section is a personal attack. I do not adhere to the made-up political ideologies of deletation OR deletationism, and even if I did what would my political views have to do with this article's content?? </joking> Anyway, it doesn't matter if you have a "source". WP:V is not the only policy on Misplaced Pages. You are ignoring WP:NPOV, WP:WEIGHT and WP:SOAP. Please do not insert any more off-topic content to this or other articles. Your personal views on the American military, prostitution and the South Korean government are perfectly clear to everyone here, but they have nothing whatsoever to do with the Allied invasion of Normandy. Eh doesn't afraid of anyone (talk) 14:39, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Categories: