Jackyd101

Hey, I write this in answer to your question on my talkpage about where my data came from when I upgraded the (in comparison shamefully scarce) Spanish OoB of said battle. The answer is simple: I ported/translated it from the respective section from Batalla del Cabo de San Vicente (1797), which is the equivalent article about the battle on the Spanish-speaking wikipedia. Interestingly, in turn I had to port/translate the English OoB from here to the Spanish wiki as it didn´t have any British OoB at all. As for the, likewise ported, divisions instead of no sign or grouping at all please keep in mind that divisions are a form of organisation that could (could) be completely independent of the battle, are not equal to stations and don´t neccessarily need to correlate with any of the actual stations or positions during the battle. I´m not much into the topic so I can´t tell you if those division were permanent or temporary. As far as the sources are concerned you´ll find them in the article but I myself have no full access to them. Anyway good luck with your work ...GELongstreet (talk) 00:19, 16 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

Thank you, this was helpful - I found an excellent source, which has been useful for a number of other things too!--Jackyd101 (talk) 22:59, 20 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

The article Action of 22 October 1793 you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold  . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Action of 22 October 1793 for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Krishna Chaitanya Velaga -- Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk) 13:41, 18 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hello.. Jackyd101 (talk) You sent a message on my User Page regarding a request I made to make Silent_Parade a GA Good Article. In fact, you sent several. I apologize for not responding, I did not see them until now. If it is not too late, I am at your disposal, and will be watching my talk page for your response. Thanks! Haxwell (talk) 04:17, 23 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

The article Action of 22 October 1793 you nominated as a good article has passed  ; see Talk:Action of 22 October 1793 for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Krishna Chaitanya Velaga -- Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk) 08:21, 26 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Court-martial of James, Lord Gambier you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria.   This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Hawkeye7 -- Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:02, 29 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

The article Court-martial of James, Lord Gambier you nominated as a good article has passed  ; see Talk:Court-martial of James, Lord Gambier for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Hawkeye7 -- Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:41, 29 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Battle of Mykonos you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria.   This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Krishna Chaitanya Velaga -- Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk) 15:21, 2 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Action of 24 June 1795 you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria.   This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Parsecboy -- Parsecboy (talk) 20:41, 4 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

The article Battle of Mykonos you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold  . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Battle of Mykonos for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Krishna Chaitanya Velaga -- Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk) 15:01, 8 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

The article Action of 24 June 1795 you nominated as a good article has passed  ; see Talk:Action of 24 June 1795 for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Parsecboy -- Parsecboy (talk) 02:22, 19 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

The article Battle of Mykonos you nominated as a good article has passed  ; see Talk:Battle of Mykonos for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Krishna Chaitanya Velaga -- Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk) 11:02, 19 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Martin's cruise of 1794 you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria.   This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Sturmvogel 66 -- Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:22, 20 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

Ping.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:20, 4 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

On the Talk-page of Action of 22 August 1795 you asked me to have a look at your GA article Battle of Camperdown with a view to introduce some Dutch material. First of all, I do not pretend to be an expert on the subject, but I can Google like anyone, so I had a look at Google books and found some links that might interest you. I have put those in a new section on the Talk-page of Battle of Camperdown for your perusal. The harvest is meagre, because the subject is (understandably) slightly distasteful to Dutch historians. The reason for that you'll find in my own GA article Batavian Republic, in the Historiography segment at the very end. As you know, the period between 1784 (the humiliating end of the Fourth Anglo-Dutch War) and 1813 (when Dutch independence was restored) was one of great partisanship between the Orangist and Patriot factions in the Dutch Republic. The Orangists ultimately won, and proceeded to rewrite history in their image. When I was a boy this whole period of the Patriot revolution of 1785; followed by its Anglo-Prussian repression in 1787 (putting up stadtholder William V as puppet-dictator); followed by the defeat of the Coalition by the French revolutionary forces in 1795; followed by the Batavian Revolution and the founding of the Batavian Republic; which was then forced to accept Napoleon's brother as king in 1806; followed by the annexation to the French Empire in 1810; and finally ended by the French defeat in 1813, followed by the usurpation of the (new) throne by the son of William V (whom nobody calls "William VI" for some reason); is referred to by the deprecatory moniker "the French time", as if the Dutch themselves had nothing to do with it. The Patriots received a very bad press in all this as the "bad guys" (in my time often smeared with the brush of the Nazi quislings in the second world war) and no doubt, they deserved some of it due to their collaboration with the Bonapartist French up to the bitter end. But "post hoc" is not "propter hoc" and the Patriots started out as the "good guys" in 1795 and kept that up for a remarkable number of years. In any case, the discussion between Dutch historians about the subject (and its ancillaries, like the Batavian navy and its exploits) is still heated. So the best source for a balanced and emotionally neutral view of the matter is a British one: Simon Schama's Patriots and Liberators. Revolution in the Netherlands 1780-1813, New York 1977 , Vintage books, ISBN 0-679-72949-6. The book seems to be out of print, but may be available in your local library. Highly recommended reading, if you don't know it. Because (reading between the lines of your article) you seem to be rather strongly influenced by a biased view of the background of the conflict in your Anglophone military-history sources. This was to be expected: military historians are not specialized in political history of foreign countries, and so tend to adopt the view of their betters, the generalists. And those generalists tend to have a dog in this fight, influenced as they are by the Official View of the contemporary British government, who saw the whole matter in terms of the Violation of the (pretended) Rights of the Stadtholder, which they were Duty Bound (as guarantors of the 1788 Act of Guarantee) to put right. So, if the Orangists were not skewing the perspective, the British propagandists of the day would do it. If I may be allowed to vent a grievance about British military history, it is that (especially in the 19th century) it may be reduced to the following caricature: when British forces were allied with foreign forces (be they Dutch or Russian, for instance) during a battle, the allies (especially the Dutch) "ran away" and it was left to the "thin red line" to carry the day and gallantly defeat the Foe (keeping a stiff upper lip in the process). One won't find a similar bias in Dutch histories of the same events. At most it would be remarked that the Brits arrived late at the battle scene and had an easy time mopping up the enemy forces, already bloodied and wearied by the exhausted Dutch :-) And this explains the difference between the accounts: British historians only read British accounts and what participants in the event don't witness they tend not to report about.

However this may be, I think you did a remarkable job with this article, but some passages unpleasantly hit my eye, like this sentence at the end of the introductory paragraph: "When British forces confronted the Dutch Navy again two years later in the Vlieter Incident, the Dutch sailors, confronted with superior British fire power as they had been at Camperdown and in the face of pro Orangist insurrection, abandoned their ships and surrendered en masse." Here cause and effect are confused, as should be clear from the Vlieter Incident article. The mutineers did not surrender because they were impressed by British firepower and demoralized by a pro-Orangist insurrection (Simon Schama shows how little support that "insurrection" really had), as the sentence suggests, but they were just a bunch of Orangist mercenaries (most not even Dutch, as the Batavians had difficulty interesting Dutchmen in serving in the fleet) that did what they had done at countless previous occasions (Saldanha Bay comes to mind): threaten to throw their officers overboard and force them to capitulate without a fight. This is admittedly embarrassing, but it should be acknowledged. What should be even more embarrassing was that the son of the stadtholder conspired with a foreign power to undermine the government of his country and helped deliver its warships in the hands of that power (while his father later financially profited from the sale of those warships; cf. James, W.M. (2002). The Naval History of Great Britain: During the French Revolutionary and Napoleonic Wars. Vol. 2 1797-1799. Stackpole books. pp. 309–310.) Some would call this treason.

Another passage, further down that I think is questionable (in view of the text of the Batavian Republic article) is the following: " The French then reorganised the country as a client state named the Batavian Republic ..." which seems wholly in the style of the historiography that I objected against above. But these are only a few random remarks.

More importantly, I would like to offer a more subtle general objection. At first glance you (following your sources) appear to be very generous, lauding the bravery against the odds of the Dutch foes, and presenting them as formidable opponents (even more formidable than the French and the Spaniards, one might infer), who managed to exact a bloody toll on the British. But was the Dutch fleet at Camperdown really that formidable? Not according to the few Dutch sources I perused. It is generally admitted that the Dutch fleet was no shadow of its 17th-century forebears; that the Dutch commanders were no military geniuses (the three main commanders, De Winter, Story and Beelaaerts were clearly political appointments, who barely had commanded ships themselves before the revolution); and that at least parts of the crews showed questionable fortitude (like that of the Wassenaer that had to be persuaded by fire from a Dutch brig to rehoist its colors, after it had prematurely struck them, only to strike them again as soon as possible). In other words, the picture painted by British historians appears to be overly generous: was the victory really as great as depicted (and does it warrant its own great hall in the National Maritime Museum in Greenwich)? I may be overly cynical, but I think this generosity may be explained by the need of the British government after the mutinies earlier in 1797, to raise the morale of the British public, with a resounding victory over an inflated enemy. Propaganda, in other words. But maybe I am overly suspicious :-)

I hope these remarks are of some use to you--Ereunetes (talk) 00:12, 21 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

I have spent my Christmas week on comparing Johannes Cornelis de Jonge's chapter on the Battle of Camperdown in Geschiedenis van het Nederlandsche Zeewezen (vol. 5) with the article and the result is on the talk page of the article. (But I was snowed in anyway :-) I hope you'll take the time to read the suggestions for edits, though it is a lengthy piece. The suggested edits mostly are minor deletes and possibly a footnote here and there. But I had to formulate an argument for each suggestion (which initially is probably unwelcome, as it contradicts the English historians you used), and provide documentary justification. I provided a link to the book in Google books, so you may check each reference yourself (or have a trusted Dutch reader check it for you). I think all edits are serious enough to warrant consideration. I also made a few suggestions for clarifications in the text on subjects like sailing of square-rigged vessels, naval tactics of the day, and naval strategy that may make it easier for the reader to visualize the way the battle developed. I will not make the edits myself, because I know from experience how annoying it is to have someone mess up one's article. Besides, you would have to correct my grammar anyway, so you'd better do it right the first time :-)--Ereunetes (talk) 22:41, 2 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

Thank you very much for this detailed analysis, I have been watching it build over the last few days and it is very impressive. I'm a bit snowed under work wise at the moment, but I will take a look at this in the near future and add your excellent research into the article. Thanks again, and Happy New Year!--Jackyd101 (talk) 22:50, 2 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

De nada :-) Glad to be of assistance. I enjoyed doing it, as I learned a lot myself.--Ereunetes (talk) 23:54, 3 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

Greetings,

"Military history" is one of the most important subjects when speak of sum of all human knowledge. To support contributors interested in the area over various language Wikipedias, we intend to form a user group. It also provides a platform to share the best practices between military historians, and various military related projects on Wikipedias. An initial discussion was has been done between the coordinators and members of WikiProject Military History on English Wikipedia. Now this discussion has been taken to Meta-Wiki. Contributors intrested in the area of military history are requested to share their feedback and give suggestions at Talk:Discussion to incubate a user group for Wikipedia Military Historians.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:29, 21 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

Just a quick word of thanks for your contributions to Milhist Good Article Nomination reviewing over the last three months. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:06, 3 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

You are welcome, thank you!--Jackyd101 (talk) 00:33, 7 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

The article Martin's cruise of 1794 you nominated as a good article has passed  ; see Talk:Martin's cruise of 1794 for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Sturmvogel 66 -- Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:02, 18 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

Texan schooner Independence, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for an individual good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. AIRcorn (talk) 22:15, 26 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

G'day all, please be advised that throughout April 2018 the Military history Wikiproject is running its annual backlog elimination drive. This will focus on several key areas:

• tagging and assessing articles that fall within the project's scope
• adding or improving listed resources on Milhist's task force pages
• updating the open tasks template on Milhist's task force pages
• creating articles that are listed as "requested" on the project's various lists of missing articles.

As with past Milhist drives, there are points awarded for working on articles in the targeted areas, with barnstars being awarded at the end for different levels of achievement.

The drive is open to all Wikipedians, not just members of the Military history project, although only work on articles that fall (broadly) within the scope of military history will be considered eligible. This year, the Military history project would like to extend a specific welcome to members of Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red, and we would like to encourage all participants to consider working on helping to improve our coverage of women in the military. This is not the sole focus of the edit-a-thon, though, and there are aspects that hopefully will appeal to pretty much everyone.

The drive starts at 00:01 UTC on 1 April and runs until 23:59 UTC on 30 April 2018. Those interested in participating can sign up here.

For the Milhist co-ordinators, AustralianRupert and MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:53, 27 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hey there Jackyd101, just letting you know that I've recently taken an article you reviewed at GA, Gevninge helmet fragment, to FAC. It's been expanded and polished since your review last year. If you'd like to weigh in again I'd obviously appreciate it, but regardless, thanks again for your input last time around! --Usernameunique (talk) 14:00, 28 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

Nominations for the upcoming project coordinator election are now open. A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next year. The project coordinators are the designated points of contact for issues concerning the project, and are responsible for maintaining our internal structure and processes. They do not, however, have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers. More information on being a coordinator is available here. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 UTC on 14 September! Voting doesn't commence until 15 September. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the coord team. Cheers, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:53, 1 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

G'day everyone, voting for the 2018 Wikiproject Military history coordinator tranche is now open. This is a simple approval vote; only "support" votes should be made. Project members should vote for any candidates they support by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September 2018. Thanks, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:35, 15 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

G'day everyone, voting for the 2018 Wikiproject Military history coordinator tranche is now open. This is a simple approval vote; only "support" votes should be made. Project members should vote for any candidates they support by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September 2018. Thanks, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:22, 15 September 2018 (UTC) Note: the previous version omitted a link to the election page, therefore you are receiving this follow up message with a link to the election page to correct the previous version. We apologies for any inconvenience that this may have caused.Reply

Hi everyone, just a quick reminder that voting for the WikiProject Military history coordinator election closes soon. You only have a day or so left to have your say about who should make up the coordination team for the next year. If you have already voted, thanks for participating! If you haven't and would like to, vote here before 23:59 UTC on 28 September. Thanks, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:29, 26 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

Precious

Five years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:57, 21 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for today's Thomas Crisp, a "British First World War VC recipient"! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:17, 28 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

Six years now! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:03, 21 October 2019 (UTC)Reply

Nominations for our annual Military historian of the year and Military history newcomer of the year awards are open until 23:59 (GMT) on 15 December 2018. Why don't you nominate the editors who you believe have made a real difference to the project in 2018? MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:26, 3 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

Voting for our annual Military historian of the year and Military history newcomer of the year awards is open until 23:59 (GMT) on 30 December 2018. Why don't you vote for the editors who you believe have made a real difference to Wikipedia's coverage of military history in 2018? MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:17, 16 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

See above.....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:09, 20 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

This is to let you know that the Thomas Crisp article has been scheduled as today's featured article for April 18, 2019. Please check the article needs no amendments. If you're interested in editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/April 28, 2019, but note that a coordinator will trim the lead to around 1000 characters anyway, so you aren't obliged to do so.

We also suggest that you watchlist Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors on the day before and the day of this TFA. Thanks! Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:34, 29 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

In the month of September, Wikiproject Military history is running a project-wide edit-a-thon, Backlog Banzai. There are heaps of different areas you can work on, for which you claim points, and at the end of the month all sorts of whiz-bang awards will be handed out. Every player wins a prize! There is even a bit of friendly competition built in for those that like that sort of thing. Sign up now at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/September 2019 Backlog Banzai to take part. For the coordinators, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:18, 22 August 2019 (UTC)Reply

Nominations for the upcoming project coordinator election are now open. A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next year. The project coordinators are the designated points of contact for issues concerning the project, and are responsible for maintaining our internal structure and processes. They do not, however, have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers. More information on being a coordinator is available here. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 UTC on 14 September! Voting doesn't commence until 15 September. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the coord team. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:38, 1 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

G'day everyone, voting for the 2019 Wikiproject Military history coordinator tranche is now open. This is a simple approval vote; only "support" votes should be made. Project members should vote for any candidates they support by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September 2018. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:37, 15 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

G'day everyone, the voting for the XIX Coordinator Tranche is at the halfway mark. The candidates have answered various questions, and you can check them out to see why they are running and decide whether you support them. Project members should vote for any candidates they support by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September 2018. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:36, 22 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

G'day all, March Madness 2020 is about to get underway, and there is bling aplenty for those who want to get stuck into the backlog by way of tagging, assessing, updating, adding or improving resources and creating articles. If you haven't already signed up to participate, why not? The more the merrier! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:19, 29 February 2020 (UTC) for the coord teamReply

Nominations for the upcoming project coordinator election are now open. A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next year. The project coordinators are the designated points of contact for issues concerning the project, and are responsible for maintaining our internal structure and processes. They do not, however, have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers. More information on being a coordinator is available here. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 UTC on 14 September! Voting doesn't commence until 15 September. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the coord team. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:05, 1 September 2020 (UTC)Reply

G'day everyone, voting for the 2020 Wikiproject Military history coordinator tranche is now open. This is a simple approval vote; only "support" votes should be made. Project members should vote for any candidates they support by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September 2020. Thanks from the outgoing coord team, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:17, 15 September 2020 (UTC)Reply

 

A tag has been placed on Category:817 births requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:42, 18 September 2020 (UTC)Reply

Precious

Seven years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:56, 21 October 2020 (UTC)Reply

 

Category:Shipwrecks of the Biscay coast has been nominated for renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 03:17, 26 October 2020 (UTC)Reply

Awesome

Ten years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:25, 30 October 2020 (UTC)Reply

G'day all, the nominations for the 2020 Military history WikiProject newcomer and Historian of the Year are open, all editors are encouraged to nominate candidates for the awards before until 23:59 (GMT) on 15 December 2020, after which voting will occur for 14 days. There is not much time left to nominate worthy recipients, so get to it! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:45, 10 December 2020 (UTC)Reply

G'day all, voting for the WikiProject Military history "Military Historian of the Year" and "Military history newcomer of the year" is about to close, so if you haven't already, click on the links and have your say before 23:59 (GMT) on 30 December! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:34, 28 December 2020 (UTC) for the coord teamReply

Good Article Nomination Backlog Drive The March 2021 GAN Backlog Drive begins on March 1, and will continue until the end of the month. Please sign up to review articles and help reduce the backlog of nominations!

-- For the drive co-ordinators, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:27, 21 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

Hey y'all, the April 2021 WikiProject Military History Reviewing Drive begins at 00:01 UTC on April 1, 2021 and runs through 23:59 UTC on April 31, 2021. Points can be earned through reviewing articles on the AutoCheck report, reviewing articles listed at WP:MILHIST/ASSESS, reviewing MILHIST-tagged articles at WP:GAN or WP:FAC, and reviewing articles submitted at WP:MILHIST/ACR. Service awards and barnstars are given for set points thresholds, and the top three finishers will receive further awards. To participate, sign up at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_History/April 2021 Reviewing Drive#Participants and create a worklist at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/April 2021 Reviewing Drive/Worklists (examples are given). Further details can be found at the drive page. Questions can be asked at the drive talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:24, 31 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

Good article nominations | July 2021 Backlog Drive
July 2021 Backlog Drive: This Thursday, July 1, a one-month backlog drive for good article nominations will begin. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number, length, and age, of articles reviewed. Interested in taking part? You can sign up here.
Other ways to participate: Join the conversations on our talkpage
You're receiving this message because you have conducted 10+ good article reviews or participated in the March backlog drive. Click here to opt out of any future messages. --Usernameunique

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:31, 29 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

Nominations for the upcoming project coordinator election are now open. A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next year. The project coordinators are the designated points of contact for issues concerning the project, and are responsible for maintaining our internal structure and processes. They do not, however, have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers. More information on being a coordinator is available here. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 UTC on 14 September! Voting doesn't commence until 15 September. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the coord team. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:58, 1 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

Nominations for the upcoming project coordinator election are still open, but not for long. A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next year. The project coordinators are the designated points of contact for issues concerning the project, and are responsible for maintaining our internal structure and processes. They do not, however, have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers. More information on being a coordinator is available here. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 UTC on 14 September! No further nominations will be accepted after that time. Voting will commence on 15 September. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the current coord team. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:43, 10 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

Hey y'all, voting for the 2021 Wikiproject Military history coordinator tranche is now open. This is a simple approval vote; only "support" votes should be made. Project members should vote for any candidates they support by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September 2021. Voting will be conducted at the 2021 tranche page itself. Appropriate questions for the candidates can also be asked. Thanks, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:39, 15 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

Hey y'all, voting for the 2021 Wikiproject Military history coordinator tranche will be closing soon. This is a simple approval vote; only "support" votes should be made. Project members should vote for any candidates they support by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September 2021. Voting will be conducted at the 2021 tranche page itself. Thanks, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:32, 26 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

 

Category:Victims of the RMS Titanic has been nominated for renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Elli (talk | contribs) 04:17, 4 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

I am Petros Apostolopoulos, a Ph.D. candidate in Public History at North Carolina State University. My Ph.D. project examines how historical knowledge is produced on Wikipedia. You must be 18 years of age or older, reside in the United States to participate in this study. If you are interested in participating in my research study by offering your own experience of writing about history on Wikipedia, you can click on this link https://ncsu.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_9z4wmR1cIp0qBH8. There are minimal risks involved in this research.

If you have any questions, please let me know. Petros Apostolopoulos, paposto@ncsu.edu Apolo1991 (talk) 14:46, 15 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

 

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article German submarine U-2321 is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/German submarine U-2321 until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

Chumpih. (talk) 17:37, 20 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

Good article nominations | January 2022 Backlog Drive
January 2022 Backlog Drive: On New Year's Day, a one-month backlog drive for good article nominations will begin. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number and age of articles reviewed. Interested in taking part? You can sign up here.
Other ways to participate: Join the conversations on our talkpage.
You're receiving this message because you have conducted 10+ good article reviews or participated in the March backlog drive. Click here and remove your username from the mailing list to opt out of any future messages. --Usernameunique

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles at 21:18, 31 December 2021 (UTC).Reply

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Nick-D on Hitler as a military leader

Battle of Tellicherry has been nominated for an individual good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. TrangaBellam (talk) 18:40, 8 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

Hi, while I see you don't really edit anymore, just thought I'd thank you for the work you put in over the years here. I come across your articles quite (very?) often; you've made a large impact in what is a rather niche field. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 11:47, 4 May 2022 (UTC)Reply

That is very kind of you, thank you. It was a real pleasure to work on these articles, and I do miss doing it - its been five years since I had the time properly. I became a professional historian (in another field), and my writing time is taken up with publications these days, but I learned my trade here. Few harsher critics than a wikipedia reviewer. Jackyd101 (talk) 22:23, 5 May 2022 (UTC)Reply

 

Thanks for uploading File:Henry Blagrove.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. —howcheng {chat} 21:45, 22 August 2022 (UTC)Reply

Nominations for the upcoming project coordinator election are opening in a few hours (00:01 UTC on 1 September). A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next coordination year. The project coordinators are the designated points of contact for issues concerning the project, and are responsible for maintaining our internal structure and processes. They do not, however, have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers. More information on being a coordinator is available here. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 UTC on 14 September! Voting doesn't commence until 15 September. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the current coord team. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:51, 31 August 2022 (UTC)Reply

Voting for the upcoming project coordinator election opens in a few hours (00:01 UTC on 15 September) and will last through 23:59 on 28 September. A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next coordination year. The project coordinators are the designated points of contact for issues concerning the project, and are responsible for maintaining our internal structure and processes. They do not, however, have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers. More information on being a coordinator is available here. Voting is conducted using simple approval voting and questions for the candidates are welcome. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the current coord team. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:26, 14 September 2022 (UTC)Reply

Just a quick correction to the prior message about the 2022 MILHIST coordinator election! I (Hog Farm) didn't proofread the message well enough and left out a link to the election page itself in this message. The voting will occur here; sorry about the need for a second message and the inadvertent omission from the prior one. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:41, 15 September 2022 (UTC)Reply

Voting for the upcoming project coordinator election closes soon, at 23:59 on 28 September. A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next coordination year. The project coordinators are the designated points of contact for issues concerning the project, and are responsible for maintaining our internal structure and processes. They do not, however, have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers. More information on being a coordinator is available here. Voting is conducted using simple approval voting and questions for the candidates are welcome. The voting itself is occurring here If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the current coord team. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:13, 26 September 2022 (UTC)Reply

Precious

Nine years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:04, 21 October 2022 (UTC)Reply

Hi Jackyd101, in trying to fix a cite to The Victory of Seapower in that article, I believe I found an error. The ref in the article gives the editor as Gardner, and I believe the author should be Woodman. Cheers, Acad Ronin (talk) 12:46, 14 December 2022 (UTC)Reply

Not actively editing these days, but from memory the editor of the volume is Robert Gardner, but the writer of that section is Woodman as you suggest. Was probably a copy/paste error. Jackyd101 (talk) 13:11, 14 December 2022 (UTC)Reply

152 mm howitzer M1943 (D-1) has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Onegreatjoke (talk) 00:50, 19 March 2023 (UTC)Reply