This Military history WikiProject page is an archive, log collection, or currently inactive page; it is kept primarily for historical interest.

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Per some discussion on the Canadian task force, I've created an auxiliary notice, {{ WPMILHIST Napoleonic Era task force}}, that can be inserted after the regular project notice; this might help with recruitment somewhat. Comments? — Kirill Lok s hin 04:51, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

The grand maestro strikes again:> I'm going to try it out now. Encore, bein fait! Vive L'Empereur!-- R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 22:29, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

I've added it to around 150 articles (mostly battles/wars). The multiple categories of Napoleonic commanders still need it added (probably together with the main project notice, since that hasn't gotten to many biographies yet). — Kirill Lokshin 03:21, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Need some help with this project? I'm willing to lend a hand and share my knowledge if necessary... -- fdewaele 13:40 15 February 2006 (CET)

We're always grateful for any help we can get :-) — Kirill Lokshin 14:07, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

There is a slot # 6 under participants where it says Add your name here!, please do so and welcome.-- R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 17:11, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Is there any stuff to do for someone not well-versed in the actual facts of this particular segment of history? I'd love to copy-edit something and learn some facts in the process. The Minist e r of War ^(Peace) 23:46, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Some of the larger articles ( Napoleonic Wars, Napoleon I of France, etc.) are in need of copyediting; some of them should be listed on the worklist (anything A- or B-Class is probably more in need of cleanup than content addition). Other than that, I'm not quite sure what we have that's in good enough shape to require copyediting (rather than wholescale rewriting); you may want to look around in the related categories. — Kirill Lokshin 23:53, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

I've been working on French Revolutionary Army, which will hopefully become a companion article to La Grande Armée, covering the period 1792-1804.-- ansbachdragoner 02:29, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Another article is up. I've just completed the 13 Vendémiaire. I hadn't meant to create this article, but when attempting to link to something on this 'battle' to the French Revolutionary Army page and failing fo find anything but the short paragraph in Nappy's bio, I created this. I'm now going back to working on the French Revolutionary Army, going to add in a bit about the reforms and influence of Carnot, early/late tactics etc.-- ansbachdragoner 23:24, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm currently building up userbox templates conforming to the the style found on the Military history WikiProject. I'll be building one for this task force if its members dont mind. What would be a defining image representing the Napoleonic Era? Your help is appreacited. Dryzen 13:42, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I won't bother replying on all the pages, but my suggestion about the images in the task force notice applies project-wide ;-) Kirill Lok s h in 13:48, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

As you'll see on the other pages I've taken that to heart for consistency. Dryzen 14:58, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

This user is a member of the Napoleonic era task force of WikiProject Military history.

I've just made a major edit of ansbachdragoner's article on the Battle of Eckmuhl. The leading sources on this period, such as Chandler's Campaigns of Napoleon and Rottenberg's Napoleon's Great Adversary and Emperor's Last Victory, treat the fighting from April 19 - 24, 1809, as a single, continuous series of engagements, all of which comprise the "Battle of Eckmuhl". Given the existing structure of the "War of the Fifth Coalition" articles, adopting that position is perhaps too radical a change, but at a minimum the article on Eckmuhl needs to be expanded to incorporate the 21st.

I also completely revised ansbachdragoner's "Strategic Situation." The original article summary focused solely on the fact that the battle led to the evacuation of Bavaria by the Austrians. Though a positive outcome from the French perspective, it was of purely secondary importance. The Austrians had caught the French with their pants down around their ankles when they began the war on April 9. Moreover, the initially weak French position was further eroded by significant misteps on both the German and Italian fronts. The net effect was that for the first time in his career Napoleon was placed on the defensive, reacting to his opponent's initiatives. The crucial importance of Eck was that, thereafter, Napoleon regained the strategic initiative. The war was far from over, but after Eckmuhl the battles occurred where and when Napoleon chose, on grounds of HIS choosing.

-- Paco Palomo 22:48, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

No one has been attending the comments that have accumulated at this FAC. I think the article could succeed if the objections were addressed. Regards, Durova 07:09, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure who put that nomination up there (it's not properly formatted, in any case), but the article is in a rather poor state at the moment, and probably isn't ready for a real FAC run. — Kirill Lok s hin 17:10, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Hey guys, I've removed myself from the list. I've been so busy in real life lately (finishing up my MA thesis), I noticed there is a great chasm between what I would like to do here on the pedia, and what I actually have the time for! Nonetheless, I'll be more than happy to help with direct requests or reviews of any kind. I'd love to stay involved, but working on a project is just too much of a commitment right now. Hell, I hardly have the time to do any of the MILHIST stuff i've been planning for ages!

Though I have to say, wasnt sure what I could contribute anyway with all these knowledgeable people around! Cheers, The Minist e r of War ^(Peace) 13:08, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

What type of infantry is it and what type of firearm is it? Is it possible to determine such infantry according to uniforms? Note that the years 1787-1825 maybe (I do not know) show something according to the history of the building, because there is similar relief with years when there there was an hospital founded in 14th century and I found on page in Czech language that there was an bridewell founded in 1843. I found nothing about the infantry. Thank you for your help. -- Snek01 19:06, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, according to this tourism site, the two reliefs on the museum symbolize its roles as a hospital and as a prison. Since the other one is clearly the hospital, I would assume that the troops here are Austrian prison guards, given the period in question. I have no idea what unit they may have belonged to, though. Kirill Lokshin 19:35, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Probably yes! It looks like plastic figures of Austrian infantry. Maybe from Seven Years War (1756–1763) or later? Is the gun musket? -- Snek01 22:27, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Going by the dates, it would probably have been from sometime between 1787 and 1825; they're wearing bicornes, which (as far as I recall) didn't come into widespread use until the Napoleonic Wars, so it would probably be from the second half of that period. And yes, that would suggest that the guns are smoothbore muskets (I doubt prison guards would have been issued rifles at this time). Kirill Lokshin 22:43, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I have added the information to the desription of image at commons. -- Snek01 10:42, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

The infantry depicted are wearing 18th Century bicornes and jackets of the type used 1740- 1780's. In the 1790's the Austrian infantry began to be issued shorter jackets and a variety of different headgear. Beyond that, it's hard to be more precise since regimental markings depended on the color of the uniform "facings", e.g., the color of the coat lapels, sleeves, etc. Similarly, the differences between the flintlocks introduced in the 1750's vs. those used during the Napoleonic Wars could not be distinguished from the details of the relief. -- Paco Palomo16:49, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Very interesting. I didn't know that Austrian infantry had bicornes that early; I had assumed that they wore tricornes at least through the Seven Years' War. Kirill Lokshin 16:54, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

My bad, I overgeneralized! I can speak to what the Austrian army used from 1792 onwards, the point at which they shortened the jackets and introduced new headgear for the infantry. Hence I am certain that the soldiers depicted are using pre-1792 equipment. I am NOT conversant with the uniforms/equipment used prior to that. --Paco Palomo 17:06, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, since the building was only used as a prison from 1787 onwards, my guess would be that these are uniforms from some point in the 1787 to 1792 period. (Or perhaps the sculptor took some liberties with his depictions of the uniforms, in which case we may not be able to find anything that matches.) Kirill Lokshin 17:24, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

The Nivelle page is now finished and I have removed it from the To Do list.

Eth er s ^[talk]

The Napoloenic Fiction WikiProject is looking for contributors. If you are interested, click on the link and sign up. Thanks.

Two things...

Firstly, are there any pages on weapons, types of unit and tactics and if there arn't then should we add that to the To Do list.

Secondly, on the War of the 6th Coalition, there is a long article featuring that and a stub. However, the long article is not the main page for that topic - it says that it the stub is the main page. Surely it would be better to delete the stub and make the article the main topic page.

Thanks Eth er s ^[talk]

Not really sure about the first one. A general Warfare in the Napoleonic Wars article might be worthwhile here, if we're to discuss units and tactics.

For the second point, which is the long article? Kirill Lokshin 15:10, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

On the main Napoleonic Wars page, there is quite a long set of information about the Sixth Coalition but the main page is the stub. If we were just to copy paste the info. on the main page to the stub or delete the stub and redirect it to the main page then we might have a solution. Any ideas?

Eth er s ^[talk]

We should definitely try to make the stub loger than the corresponding section in the main article (which is only supposed to be a summary!); copying the info over might be a good approach for the time being, but it will still need more work after that. Kirill Lokshin 15:31, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I will copy the info. on the main page and then see if I can add more information.

Eth er s ^[talk]

Who has been contributing articles on Napoleon's 1812 Invasion of Russia? I would like to collaborate with you. I'm Kenmore, and you can contact me here at Wikipedia or my home email: kenmore3233@verizon.net. Thanks.unsigned comment by User:Kenmore

Could you determine these military uniforms or dress uniforms of Austrian command from 19 century ( Military history of Austria), please? -- Snek01 19:29, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Hello. The WikiProject Council has recently updated the Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory. This new directory includes a variety of categories and subcategories which will, with luck, potentially draw new members to the projects who are interested in those specific subjects. Please review the directory and make any changes to the entries for your project that you see fit. There is also a directory of portals, at User:B2T2/Portal, listing all the existing portals. Feel free to add any of them to the portals or comments section of your entries in the directory. The three columns regarding assessment, peer review, and collaboration are included in the directory for both the use of the projects themselves and for that of others. Having such departments will allow a project to more quickly and easily identify its most important articles and its articles in greatest need of improvement. If you have not already done so, please consider whether your project would benefit from having departments which deal in these matters. It is my hope that all the changes to the directory can be finished by the first of next month. Please feel free to make any changes you see fit to the entries for your project before then. If you should have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you. B2T2 21:38, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Are there any sutible images which we can use to liven up this article - I am not sure about uploading one due to copyright. Your thoughts would be appriciated.
Eth er s ^[talk]

I have created the page on the Second Battle of Stockach. However, I do not understand why it is listed as the Second Battle of Stockach. The Battle of Stockash (1800) happend after the second. -- Ineffable3000 04:49, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

We need to change the naming around here. It is too confusing. We might also need a disamb. page. -- Ineffable3000 04:51, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I have added a disamb. page: Battle of Stockach. We still however need to fix the Campaignbox. -- Ineffable3000 04:59, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I fixed it up a little more. Can someone please look at the Template:Campaignbox Second Coalition in general. I think it still has errors in it. (sorting, links, etc..) Thanks. -- Ineffable3000 05:12, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Can you please help me find a good campaignbox for the Battle of Suriname article? -- Ineffable3000 06:07, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure how it ties into the overall Napoleonic Wars; 1804 is between the Second and Third Coalitions, and France is at peace. Presumably there was some ongoing Anglo-Dutch conflict, but I have no idea what it might be.

In any case, there's no requirement to have a campaignbox listing the battle; and, if it was an isolated engagement, it's generally better not to try and force it to appear in one. Kirill Lokshin 07:49, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I have removed all the references to the Napoleonic wars. But I also do not know which Commander Hood commanded the British forces. There were many Commander Hoods. Can someone please determine which one participated in the battle? -- Ineffable3000 14:42, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

This is a good page summarazing Napoleonic battles. [1] -- Ineffable3000 16:51, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I am a bit confused on the Battle of Montevideo (1807). Is it officially considered to be part of the War of the Fourth Coalition or is it unrelated? If it is unrelated, what war is it part of? -- Ineffable3000 22:39, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I ran into the same problem some time ago and created, pro tempore, Template:Campaignbox French Revolutionary Wars: Anglo-Spanish War (1796) (actually intended to represent two Anglo-Spanish wars, San Ildefonso to Amiens (1797-1802) and 1803-1808). I'm not sure if this is an effective way to group these battles, but I could think of nothing better. Albrecht 23:00, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Most battle won by the coalitions against France is labelled "Allied victory", I want to change that to "Coalition victory", like on the Battle of Waterloo article. Any thoughts? Carl Logan 17:36, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Seems like a good idea, at least for the battles that took place while a coalition was active. Kirill Lokshin 18:08, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I see myself two areas where it shouldn't be used: when there was only one or two nation against the French (for example: Battle of Aspern-Essling) or in the Peninsular War. Carl Logan 18:58, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Something I've noticed reading Napoleonic War articles is that frequently names of generals aren't linked and full names aren't given. It might just say General Davout or what have you, with no link. I've been adding links, but this is something people need to be on the lookout for, especially for less well known generals. -- AW 18:40, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I would like to get a central decision on standardizing the combatants in Napoleonic infoboxes to avoide edits like MGRILLO's on War of the Sixth Coalition a while back. Any thoughts? Carl Logan

As no one is taking the bait, I will have to do it myself. I feel that we could solve a lot of problems if we decided which names to use in the infobox and where they should link. There by stopping all changing back and forth, here are a suggestion for most combatants in the Napoleonic Wars.

Primary Players

• French First Republic, shorten to French Republic
• First French Empire, shorten to French Empire
• Holy Roman Empire before 1806.
• Austrian Empire after 1804, shorten to Austria
• Kingdom of Prussia, shorten to Prussia
• Kingdom of Great Britain before 1801, shorten to Great Britain
• United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland after 1801, shorten to United Kingdom.
• Russian Empire, shorten to Russia

Smaller Players

• Dutch Republic before 1795.
• Batavian Republic (1795-1806).
• Kingdom of Holland (1806-1810), shorten to Holland.
• United Kingdom of the Netherlands after 1814, shorten to Netherlands.
• Kingdom of Italy (Napoleonic) 1805-1814, shorten to Kingdom of Italy.
• Bavaria for both Electorate and Kingdom of Bavaria.
• Kingdom of Etruria (1801-1807), shorten Etruria
• Helvetic Republic (1798-1803)
• Switzerland (1803-1814)
• Electorate of Saxony before 1806, shorten to Saxony.
• Kingdom of Saxony after 1806, shorten to Saxony.
• Sweden, not Kingdom of Sweden as that is just a redirect.
• Spain, not Kingdom of Spain, same reason as Sweden and Kingdom of Sweden.
• Kingdom of Portugal, shorten do Portugal.
• Denmark–Norway, shorten to just Denmark.

Any thoughts? Carl Logan 15:34, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Looks good. Beyond that, I would suggest that what you term "Smaller Players" be used sparingly & only where appropriate. A thorough round of reverting on every article touched by User:The Anonymous One is also in order. Albrecht 15:45, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Looks generally good. One minor quibble, though: while the HRE was technically still in existence at the time, I haven't really seen the term used for this period; most historians, in my experience, seem to use "Austrian" as the preferred shorthand even before 1804. I don't think it's a particularly good idea to use the HRE as a label in that sense; the forces comitted were clearly not the truly Imperial armies of the type seen in the Thirty Years War, and while the term is technically accurate, it'll likely impair the reader's understanding rather than improving it. Kirill Lokshin 17:12, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Well some prefer the to write Austria and link to the Habsburg Monarchy, in any case Austria is a tricky country before 1804. I added the Holy Roman Empire to the list because I thought that it as a whole took part in the first coalition? Carl Logan 17:23, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I see that the task force has decided to use 'Napoleonic era' for the entire Great French War, as is a relatively common shorthand convention. Is that considered to be an adequate definition for the purpose of naming articles? I wish to create an article dedicated to Luxembourg under French occupation, but don't quite know what to call it. 'French occupation of Luxembourg during [something]' follows the rule of the World War I and World War II articles, but what [something] is is open to debate. Any advice? Bastin 16:30, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I can see a couple of decent ideas:

• French occupation of Luxembourg during [the Great French War|the French Revolutionary and Napoleonic Wars|the Napoleonic era] - follows the existing pattern, but produces a long and convoluted title
• French occupation of Luxembourg (dates) - shorter, and perhaps more precise

Which one to use is entirely up to you, though. Kirill Lokshin 19:37, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Not entirely unrelatedly, stub categories Category:Napoleonic-stubs and Category:French Revolutionary Wars-stubs have been created recently, effectively duplicating the existing the Category:Napoleonic Wars (1792-1815) stubs. Can we work out the preferred terminology, so that these can be smooshed together to make one good one? Alai 03:25, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Have we misnamed this article? Although the overlap is significant, these terms surely refer to fundamentally distinct topics. We seem to be equating Bonaparte's Imperial restoration with the military effort he pursued against the Coalition powers. An article on the Hundred Days should describe in more detail the Empire's diplomacy, ministries (Carnot, Bigonnet, Fouché) constitution (l'acte additionel), etc., instead of treating social and political themes as preludes to the Waterloo campaign. The War of the Seventh Coalition article, in turn, could take a broader look at military operations. Albrecht 17:05, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

A question on the British siege(s) of Badajoz in 1811: in {{ Campaignbox Peninsular War (1811-1812)}}, we have two 1811 sieges listed (both redlinks at the moment) - the first (the successful French siege) and the second siege. I have sort of started (offline) on the 2nd siege, but am struggling a little for the simple reason that most historians consider that the British staged two sieges on the fortress in 1811. The first British siege was Beresford's, and was curtailed by the Battle of Albuera; the second was Wellington's, after Albuera. Are there opinions on whether we should keep it as is, or should change the campaignbox and have two articles for the two British sieges of that year?

An article on Beresford's siege would probably be pretty short, since the investment only lasted a two or three weeks at best, and didn't really achieve much (other than 700-odd allied casualties), but it would make the writing of the articles a lot simpler. On the other hand, combining the two sieges in one article makes it easier to document and explain Wellington's bad planning for both of the British aborted attempts on the town.

I'm at a loss as to how to proceed with this - I'm really not enjoying researching the details, partly because of this separation of the actions in sources, but the articles are needed, and indeed there's enough information around to get an FA out of it. Does anyone (if anyone is watching this page) have an opinion, or suggestion? Cheers. Carre ( talk) 22:59, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Prima facie, I would operate on the principle that both British sieges warrant articles, (Of course, I made the campaignbox in question, so it's easy for me to say!) unless the contrary immensely helps your narrative. Albrecht ( talk) 23:46, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Albrecht - I agree that, on reflection, it would be best to separate the two allied sieges, so I think the campaignbox should look something like: First French siege, Gebora, First British siege, Albuera, Second British siege. Carre ( talk) 08:05, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I've recently created an article about Sgt James Graham (of the Coldstream Guards) having discovered it was missing! He, of course, was the man rewarded for closing the gate at Hougoumont, and was recognised by Wellington as the "bravest man at Waterloo". A lot of the contemporary writings mention him: seems to have been a bit of a popular hero. I've got pretty much as far as I can with the resources available to me, so I was wondering if any of you guys had anything more to add; I think with a bit of polishing it could make GA. I'm lacking images, too. What I would like is Robert Gibb's famous painting of the gates being shut. I've seen it replicated on dozens of sites, but am not sure how to discover the copyright status. But anything showing the gates/battle at Hougoumont would perhaps be ok. Graham also, apparently, was awarded a special gallantry medal (which one source speculated would have been a VC if they'd been invented). Any ideas what that would be, and whether it's anything official? Also, if any of you happen to be in Ireland, there's a few other photos/details I need (such as graves, memorial plaque); see Talk:James Graham (soldier)#Pictures/Details wanted. If you can't help with specifics, but have any comments to make about the article more generally, then that's great too. Many thanks! Gwinva ( talk) 04:17, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

We lack articles on the British, Austrian, Conf. of the Rhine, Saxony etc. armies. Like We can look up like Millitary History of Germany or like Millitary History of British but they aren't very specific as far as the details of the Napoleonic age. And their navies! Espeacially the navies!! We need articles Like the French Imperial Navy or the British Royal Navy of the 19th cen. Im aiming for SPECIFICITY. Philippe Auguste ( talk) 03:46, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Could anyone help with this translation please? Thanks. Neddyseagoon - talk 13:45, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Isaac Brock has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. Ultra! 19:24, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

As you may have heard, we at the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial Team recently made some changes to the assessment scale, including the addition of a new level. The new description is available at WP:ASSESS.

• The new C-Class represents articles that are beyond the basic Start-Class, but which need additional references or cleanup to meet the standards for B-Class.
• The criteria for B-Class have been tightened up with the addition of a rubric, and are now more in line with the stricter standards already used at some projects.
• A-Class article reviews will now need more than one person, as described here.

Each WikiProject should already have a new C-Class category at Category:C-Class_articles. If your project elects not to use the new level, you can simply delete your WikiProject's C-Class category and clarify any amendments on your project's assessment/discussion pages. The bot is already finding and listing C-Class articles.

Please leave a message with us if you have any queries regarding the introduction of the revised scheme. This scheme should allow the team to start producing offline selections for your project and the wider community within the next year. Thanks for using the Wikipedia 1.0 scheme! For the 1.0 Editorial Team, §hepBot ( Disable) 21:05, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Up for renaming, either to en-dashify the hyphen, or to make consistent with Category:Great French War, depending on which rationale you go for. Alai ( talk) 02:12, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia 0.7 is a collection of English Wikipedia articles due to be released on DVD, and available for free download, later this year. The Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team has made an automated selection of articles for Version 0.7.

We would like to ask you to review the articles selected from this project. These were chosen from the articles with this project's talk page tag, based on the rated importance and quality. If there are any specific articles that should be removed, please let us know at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.7. You can also nominate additional articles for release, following the procedure at Wikipedia:Release Version Nominations.

A list of selected articles with cleanup tags, sorted by project, is available. The list is automatically updated each hour when it is loaded. Please try to fix any urgent problems in the selected articles. A team of copyeditors has agreed to help with copyediting requests, although you should try to fix simple issues on your own if possible.

We would also appreciate your help in identifying the version of each article that you think we should use, to help avoid vandalism or POV issues. These versions can be recorded at this project's subpage of User:SelectionBot/0.7. We are planning to release the selection for the holiday season, so we ask you to select the revisions before October 20. At that time, we will use an automatic process to identify which version of each article to release, if no version has been manually selected. Thanks! For the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial team, SelectionBot 23:09, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Is WP: WikiProject Napoleonic Fiction associated with this task force? From what I can see it's only about Napoleonic military fiction... but the Project description isn't clear. Though the Project template is only on military fiction 76.66.196.229 ( talk) 13:34, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Not as far as I'm aware. Other than the War Films task force, Milhist as a whole doesn't tend to deal with fiction - perhaps (and I'm guessing!) because although the broad subject areas are indeed related, the specifics of working on such articles are very different to our usual fare. However, if you have any suggestions for us, we'd like to hear them ;) EyeSerene ^talk 13:58, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Well... the Napoleonic fiction wikiproject seems dead for all practical purposes... having existed for so many years, and with only a handfull of articles tagged, and very little happening. Perhaps a WP: WikiProject Military fiction needs to be created. There seems to be several MILHIST stub templates for military fiction in various eras. Napoleonic military fiction is a large and popular subgenre... Sprucing up the factual accuracy sections would be good idea to improve those articles, and linkages to actual event/person articles.. 76.66.196.229 ( talk) 07:49, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

The problem there is that we are very particular about what gets added to the fiction train in so far as our project is concerned. A fiction task force here, so named anyway, would be dead almost before it left the ground. TomStar81 ( Talk) 07:55, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

There is some related discussion here. I agree with Roger's post there - we could certainly create a task-force for, say "War novels", but unless we were very strict about the inclusion criteria we'd soon be overwhelmed. The input of WikiProject Novels would also be useful, though I'm not sure how active they are. However, if we start off small we could certainly trial the idea, and maybe Napoleonic fiction would be a good place to start. If you're keen to get something going 76.66.196.229, perhaps you should contact WP: WikiProject Napoleonic Fiction to see if they would be open to partnering up with this Milhist Napoleonic era task force, and we could spam the idea around the project and see if we can raise some interest. Normally a minimum of 5 editors is required to create a new task-force (to try to prevent it becoming moribund). EyeSerene ^talk 10:10, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I've left a note on their talk page, and am awaiting a response. The last time the talk page was active was in 2006 however... 76.66.196.229 ( talk) 00:38, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I will note that user:Ethers, a member of this task force seems to be the founder of that wikiproject. 76.66.196.229 ( talk) 00:46, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

The only active member, according to user edit history, is User:BrokenSphere, everyone else has not edited since atleast October 2008, some not since to 2006. 76.66.196.229 ( talk) 06:13, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Thinking about the scope of Napoleonic fiction, this is basically going to rely on Richard Sharpe, plus of Horatio Hornblower and the Aubrey–Maturin series. Probably too small and specialist for Milhist. -- ROGER DAVIES  ^talk 11:08, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, given that the topics are technically in-scope for us, we could simply merge it into the Napoleonic era task force and let things get sorted out internally. Kirill  ^[pf] 15:38, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Good idea. On a related note, we should probably add a note somewhere explicitly mentioning that cultural depictions belong in the task forces they depict. -- ROGER DAVIES  ^talk 16:17, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

That was my first thought, but I didn't want to steal WP: WikiProject Napoleonic Fiction's turf. If they are inactive, however... EyeSerene ^talk 20:09, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Another fictional character would be Richard Bolitho by Douglas Reeman a Hornblower type always enjoyed reading about him. Jim Sweeney ( talk) 18:10, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

• OK, so it looks like we can pick something up within the Napoleonic era task force. As Kirill suggests, we can probably just sort this out internally - I too prefer that idea to setting up a separate task-force. It might be wise to regard this as a limited trial for the present, and I also think we'll need to be fairly strict about the sort of novels we accept; "Napoleonic era" covers an awful lot of literature. I'd suggest we adopt only those that deal with Napoleonic warfare as their major theme (ie Sharpe, Hornblower etc), and those on an ad-hoc basis (ie not War and Peace just yet!). If we think this is doable, and there's some interest in working on these articles (and some suggestions on what to do first), I'll be happy to set up a sub-page of the task-force so we can organise our efforts. EyeSerene ^talk 09:48, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Kirill  ^[pf] 03:10, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Apologies for the slow progress, my internet connection has been hopeless for the last week or so :P Anyway, I've started pottering about here. Any suggestions etc are very welcome ;) EyeSerene ^talk 15:58, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure that it's worth setting up a separate group with its own membership list, per se; I would suggest simply using the page as a work area, but without the added infrastructure of a distinct sub-task force. Kirill  ^[pf] 18:14, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, I've made some further tweaks. Please (anyone!) feel free to add suggestions and subject areas to the page. EyeSerene ^talk 11:17, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Is the {{ WPMILHIST}} template tweaked to show this work group? If so I can replace the non-standard non-hidable Napoleonic fiction WP banner with the optioned MILHIST banner. 76.66.193.90 ( talk) 06:11, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

As far as I know, there's no plan to introduce distinct tagging parameters for the working group, since it's completely internal to the task force, and doesn't need to be visible from the assessment level; the articles should just be re-tagged with {{WPMILHIST|Napoleonic=yes}} instead. Kirill  ^[pf] 10:46, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Kirill - yes 76.66.193.90, I don't think there's a need for specific parameters as we're keeping things within this task-force. If you're planning on doing a spot of tagging, it might be diplomatic to leave the WikiProject Napoleonic Fiction banner in place for now (at least, until we get confirmation that it's defunct). I notice that you've had no replies on the project talk-page though, so your call ;) EyeSerene ^talk 17:30, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, we can probably just add our tags for now, and simply remove the other banner if/when that project is formally dealt with. Kirill  ^[pf] 23:29, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, it's been about two months, and no activity from them, no responses on the project talk page. 76.66.193.69 ( talk) 11:41, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

May God Bless You Always!

I am looking to form a work group to focused on the War of 1812. A lot of the articles dealing with the War of 1812 are lack citations and references, some need some serious editing, and many need to be expanded. I would like for the articles dealing with the War of 1812 to be "A"-Level or better. The War of 1812 is one of the most neglected American wars, but this need not be the case here. I have been working HLGallon on the Battle of Chippawa, but much work is left to do. Anyone interested in helpping? ( Steve ( talk) 19:05, 9 March 2009 (UTC))

You should also ask at: WP:USA, WP:CANADA, WP:UK, Canadian military history task force, United States military history task force, British military history task force. 76.66.201.179 ( talk) 05:56, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Good suggestions, thanks 76 ;) EyeSerene ^talk 12:04, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion. I think I still want the work group under this task force, but those other groups might contribute editors as well. ( Steve ( talk) 19:26, 11 March 2009 (UTC))

This is a notice to let you know about Article alerts, a fully-automated subscription-based news delivery system designed to notify WikiProjects and Taskforces when articles are entering Articles for deletion, Requests for comment, Peer review and other workflows ( full list). The reports are updated on a daily basis, and provide brief summaries of what happened, with relevant links to discussion or results when possible. A certain degree of customization is available; WikiProjects and Taskforces can choose which workflows to include, have individual reports generated for each workflow, have deletion discussion transcluded on the reports, and so on. An example of a customized report can be found here.

If you are already subscribed to Article Alerts, it is now easier to report bugs and request new features. We are also in the process of implementing a "news system", which would let projects know about ongoing discussions on a wikipedia-wide level, and other things of interest. The developers also note that some subscribing WikiProjects and Taskforces use the display=none parameter, but forget to give a link to their alert page. Your alert page should be located at "Wikipedia:PROJECT-OR-TASKFORCE-HOMEPAGE/Article alerts". Questions and feedback should be left at Wikipedia talk:Article alerts.

Message sent by User:Addbot to all active wiki projects per request, Comments on the message and bot are welcome here.

Thanks. — Headbomb { ^ταλκ _{κοντριβς} –  WP Physics} 09:27, 15 March, 2009 (UTC)

Napoleon is being reassessed as a good article, all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated. Thanks. Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Napoleon I of France/1, Tom B ( talk) 01:06, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

There is a long running debate about how to present some information in the Battle of Waterloo. The battle has extremely strong national POVs in many of the secondary sources. Some Dutch editors would like to replace some British slanders with the facts as presented in Dutch histories. It would help if more editors would get involved in the debate.Please see the sections:

• Talk:Battle of Waterloo#Bijlandt's brigade; let us re-write this paragraph in a proper way and the following section
• New Bijlandt paragraph text; for your remarks

-- PBS ( talk) 22:42, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

There are a few important changes to the popular pages system. A quick summary:

• The "importance" ranking (for projects that use it) will be included in the lists along with assessment.
• The default list size has been lowered to 500 entries (from 1000)
• I've set up a project on the Toolserver for the popular pages - tools:~alexz/pop/.
  • This includes a page to view the results for projects, including the in-progress results from the current month. Currently this can only show the results from a single project in one month. Features to see multiple projects or multiple months may be added later.
  • This includes a new interface for making requests to add a new project to the list.
  • There is also a form to request a change to the configuration for a project. Currently the configurable options are the size of the on-wiki list and the project subpage used for the list.
• The on-wiki list should be generated and posted in a more timely and consistent manner than before.
• The data is now retained indefinitely.
• The script used to generate the pages has changed. The output should be the same. Please report any apparent inconsistencies (see below).
• Bugs and feature requests should be reported using the Toolserver's bug tracker for "alexz's tools" - [2]

-- Mr. Z-man 00:21, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process has started; to elect the coordinators to serve for the next six months. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 (UTC) on 12 September!

Many thanks,   Roger Davies ^talk 04:23, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Just a reminder but, with less than 18 hours to go until nominations close, you'll need to get your skates on if you're thinking of standing as a coordinator. The election is based on self-nominations, so please don't be shy in putting your name forward. The last elections will give you an idea of what to expect.

Otherwise, voting starts tonight at 00:01 (UTC). Any member of the project may support as many of the candidates as they wish. You should cast your votes here.

  Roger Davies ^talk 06:51, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

As a member of the Military history WikiProject or World War I task force, you may be interested in competing in the Henry Allingham International Contest! The contest aims to improve article quality and member participation within the World War I task force. It will also be a step in preparing for Operation Great War Centennial, the project's commemorative effort for the World War I centenary.

If you would like to participate, please sign up by 11 November 2009, 00:00, when the first round is scheduled to begin! You can sign up here, read up on the rules here, and discuss the contest here! Abraham, B.S. ( talk) 13:38, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

This message is being sent to each WikiProject that participates in the WP 1.0 assessment system. On Saturday, January 23, 2010, the WP 1.0 bot will be upgraded. Your project does not need to take any action, but the appearance of your project's summary table will change. The upgrade will make many new, optional features available to all WikiProjects. Additional information is available at the WP 1.0 project homepage. — Carl ( CBM ·  talk) 03:40, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Well I've just signed on to help with the Task Force of the Napoleonic Era and Noticed that Aspern-Esseling has no Order of Battle. I can Provide a Order of Battle, but It only goes by Corps and Who Led the corps.

Here is what I would Post (I'm not sure this is where I should be posting this.)

French Army

Army Commander - Napoleon I

II Corps - Lannes

III Corps - Davout

IV Corps - Massena

Austrian Army

Army Commander - Archduke Charles

I Corps - Bellegarde

II Corps - Mohen Zolleren

IV Corps - Rosenberg

V Corps - Reuss

Reserve Infantry - Kienmaier

Reserve Cavalry - Lichtenstein

This source is from Gunther E. Rothenberg's book "The Napoleonic Wars" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Samurai262 ( talk • contribs) 14:51, 11 June 2010 (UTC) -- Samurai262 ( talk) 14:56, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi Guys,

I'm new to editing here, and I'm currently working on a page detailing Bonaparte's first Italian campaign, the work-in-progress can be viewed at my userpage. I would love you guys to give comments and stuff, maybe help with formatting and integrating it with currently existing articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Quarkonium ( talk • contribs) 05:58, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

218.186.9.230 ( talk) 06:03, 20 July 2010 (UTC)Quarkonium

The A-Class review for HMS Speedy (1782) is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! - MBK ₀₀₄ 10:48, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

The A-Class review for Action of 1 January 1800 is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! - MBK ₀₀₄ 05:50, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

The featured article candidacy for Action of 9 February 1799 is now open. Comments from reviewers are needed to help determine whether the article meets the criteria for featured articles; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! - MBK ₀₀₄ 01:49, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

The featured article candidacy for HMS Speedy (1782) is now open. Comments from reviewers are needed to help determine whether the article meets the criteria for featured articles; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! - MBK ₀₀₄ 03:46, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

The A-Class review for Battle of Marengo is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! - MBK ₀₀₄ 21:47, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I feel some doubts about this article, see my remarks on its discussion page. Could any one please have a look?

TeunSpaans ( talk) 20:22, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Commented there. EyeSerene ^talk 08:59, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

The peer review for USS Chesapeake (1799) is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! - MBK ₀₀₄ 05:52, 14 October 2010 (UTC)