Home Talk Contribs Menu Archivebox

Hi - Just to let you know, I am really struggling to find anything on Lieutenant Colonel T. E. F. Vogel who Joslen says was acting commander of the 1st Armoured Division from 24 November 1944 to it being disbanded on 11 January 1945. If you have anything on him at all, particularly his full name, that would be helpful. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 17:55, 5 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Unfortunately, Joslen does not provide any other information. I took a look through the Gazette and I found a J. E. F. Vogel, so it is potentially a typo in Joslen (wouldn't be the first one). That is Major (temporary Lieutenant-Colonel) James Edward Fitzgerald Vogel. Service number 5086, and of the New Zealand Army. The Gazette didn't hold much info on the guy, from my initial look. The New Zealand division was based in Italy, where the 1st Armoured Division ended the war, so it is possible they are one and the same. Joslen, generally, does not mention non-British units that were attached to the division. I have not got around to researching the division during the Italian campaign, so I do not know if there were any NZ units attached at any point.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 18:13, 5 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Many thanks for that. Yes, it must be J. E. F. Vogel. The name, Vogel, seems to be quite an illustrious one in New Zealand e.g. Julius Vogel. Many thanks. Dormskirk (talk) 18:40, 5 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Now done. Much appreciated. Dormskirk (talk) 19:42, 5 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, was attempting to have a look re your query on XI Corps, and got caught on the "British Army lists" template on List of British corps in World War II. Noted that it starts at the First World War for lists, and wondered whether thought/work has or could be put in to create lists for earlier wars? French Revolutionary/Napoleonic Wars would certainly be lists on the smaller side. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 04:29, 24 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Off the top of my head, the first corps were formed for the Napoleonic Wars, then again for the Crimean War. In the late 1800s, the British Army tried to implement a Prussian model of having multiple corps ready to go but that was just on paper, and they were formed from scratch again for the Boer War. I think the list would be something like three to six tops. Maybe a single list to cover all those conflicts, with separate sections for each war? It would probably be a bugger to source though lolEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 12:38, 24 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Probably! I was thinking it might be a nice way to portray the creation of the first divisions in 1809 (I think?), and the expansion through the wars. E.g. the creation of a second Cavalry Division and the like, and then as you say there were also corps later on. For the Napoleonic Wars at least the most useful list to create might be an army-level one, considering that I believe there were quite a few armies created, used, disbanded. Take for example Sir John Moore's Corunna army, Wellesley's Peninsular, Cathcart's Hanover, Cathcart's Copenhagen, the various Buenos Aires fiascos, Abercromby in Holland and then Egypt? The ad hoc nature of many units and the lack of concrete divisions/brigades etc does make it a little more awkward than for WWI or WWII, though. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 13:20, 24 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I knocked up a quick, barely sourced and i am not sure complete, corp list here: User:EnigmaMcmxc/sandbox. I did previously expand the Template:British Army Divisions to include the three major conflicts prior to the First World War. But a whole division list for each conflict or for the whole of the 19th Century would be good to see to highlight exactly what you describe. I think we could do just one list though, based off the size and sections of the List of British divisions in World War II. The 1st and 2nd Divisions kept getting raised and re-raised, with some apparently not considered to be part of the lineage of the modern formations or sidenoted. Not just in Egypt, but the Xhosa/Zulu conflicts and the Opium Wars (the latter being Indian Army). They all range in size to from a few thousand to something resembling an actual division. I outlined a few here 2nd Infantry Division (United_Kingdom)#Victorian Era.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 14:22, 24 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I just expanded my template to include a division list, its bare knuckle and not sourced. Not sure if its complete outside of Wellington's main force, and the Crimean and Second Boer War. I have limited knowledge about the Army on the Tarragona, so I am not sure if that was a British force or a Anglo-Spanish one.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 14:40, 24 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I wonder if we could get away with just a single list? While it is not filled out and sourced, the list is kind of small. Potentially List of British Army formations during the 19th century?

How do you think that might work organisation-wise? Also not sure whether an over-all list of formations during a century would be considered notable like those of particular wars would be? Have made a small start of filling out some of the Napoleonic stuff, feel free to change at will! Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 15:56, 24 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Putting some notes here. Burnham & McGuigan 2017 p. 2 has there being at least two extant divisions in the army of Sir Hew Dalrymple (of Convention of Cintra fame), with the second of these being commanded by Sir John Hope. The army was reorganised on 8 October 1808 with a force sent to garrison Portugal and the rest of the army now under Sir John Moore sent on its eventual path to Corunna. The 2nd Division stayed under Hope's commanded during this period, and stayed with Moore's army, albeit with different battalions in its brigades than when it had been under Dalrymple. (Battle of Corunna order of battle)Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 16:07, 24 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Also not sure whether the mishmash of troops sent out to the West Indies in the 1790s to mostly die of fever should be considered an army or not. Similarly unsure about the position of the 'East Coast' Army in Spain in 1813, possibly commanded by William Clinton? (Oman vol. 7 pp. 532–533) Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 17:13, 24 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think there is some broad latitude to work with. If they were called such, then that works. We can add some sort of context in either the notes section or above to indicate that they were armies in name only and not what a modern reader would understand them to be etc.

When I have time later today, I think I will move the template over to an actual article and let it go live as a basic shell that can be added to. List of British formations during the Napoleonic Wars? I will be able to source most of the division formation and disbanding dates (for Wellington's Army at least).EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 20:43, 24 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Think you'd have to stipulate that it's British Army formations. What exactly will you be moving over to that article? Note as well that if we're sticking to just the Napoleonic Wars for it, then that's 1803+. Might be useful to limit it like that though, so that it doesn't get too complicated. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 20:49, 24 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nice catch, yes Army should be in there. I am not sure on the terminology or when the divisions outside of Wellington's were formed. If they were created before hand (I guess the big deal being made about the 1-4 June 1809 creation dates being the first main 'permanent' formations?), then I guess "French Revolutionary and Napoleonic Wars" instead?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:00, 24 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'll be able to add some dates for some of the earlier divisions, such as those on the Hanover Expedition (despite not knowing what units were actually in those divisions, I know they existed!). There will be some difficulties, like I'm not sure whether the Hanover and Copenhagen units were actually the same to an extent; they might both be the same "Disposable Force" created by Castlereagh in 1805. There's certainly some more to add too, e.g. the aforementioned "East Coast" army. There are some other expeditions/armies from 1809 onwards that could be added too. I'm a little wary about adding anything and everything though; are six brigades under a major-general being sent to the Bay of Naples in 1809 an army? Other examples like that include four brigades under a lieutenant-colonel that captured Reunion in 1810, a division under a major-general sent to capture Java in 1811, and various forces stationed in the Netherlands between 1813 and 1815. I would also assume we're leaving out the War of 1812 for being technically a different conflict. (There are two more definites that need to be added/expanded too, which are Genoa 1814 and the army of occupation 1815). Would you be splitting up the extant tables for just a Napoleonic/French Rev. + Napoleonic article? Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 21:19, 24 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Good points, yeah I think the War of 1812 should be left out. If it was called an army during that period or by historians, I would say list it regardless of size. We can use the notes to highlight that X Army was an army in name only with one regiment and 1,000 men compared to another that has multiple corps etc. List organization wise, I was thinking just three main sections: Armies, Corps, and Divisions - basically how it is laid out on my sandbox. Open to suggestions on that though. That is how I have done other articles that have covered various types of formations, although never over a 20-year period like this conflict. I would argue that is where the dates come in?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:30, 24 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think it would be useful to split up the different wars, if anything to make content easier to understand. Also considering one of the main points of this list is to illustrate the development of divisions and corps in the British Army, I suggest that we separate lists of 'ad hoc' divisions that were created for certain campaigns/expeditions (as most were), from the more permanent divisions of the peninsular war/hundred days that it might be argued have a connection to the modern divisions of the same names. Otherwise it might be confusing to the reader to see so many "1st Division"s - need to make clear that there is no clear continuation between the large majority of these units despite the often similar names/numbers. On a different note, is it useful to list armies that didn't have any divisions or corps? Should they be in the same list as the other armies or should there be a separate table for those organised in the earlier brigade-focused manner? Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 14:51, 25 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You just hit the nail on the head of a point I was pondering. I checked out Burnham & McGuigan and compared it to what was said in older sources cited on the Hanover Expedition article. The older sources detail Cathcart's army as a collection of battalions or brigades, whereas Burnham & McGuigan appear to have pinpointed there was division commanders appointed. It seems like they are proto-divisions, or as you highlighted, ad hoc formations and not the permanent ones that were later formed. I think that would definitely be worth splitting into two sections: ad hoc divisions and permanent.

Personally, I think any army created - even if it did not have any forces attached - should be listed. I have done that for the Second World War lists I have been working on. I have included deception formations and even a few that the Germans thought existed, but were never created in actuality even for deception purposes. So, X's Army, being a random headquarters with no troops, I would include and note it as such.

As for splitting the list, do you mean a list for the Hanover Expedition/Third Coalition war, or a section dedicated to just that particular part of the conflict? I would say go at reorganizing the list as you see fit. I already have lol.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 14:59, 25 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I should note, just in case we are misunderstanding each other, I am thinking at least four different list articles (WIP titles) at the moment (I have just kept them all one page so I don't need to create multiple sandboxes):

• List of British Army formations during the French Revolutionary and Napoleonic Wars
• List of British Army formations during the Victorian-era (which would include blank sections, with links to the below two)
• List of British Army divisions during the Crimean War
• List of British Army formations during the Second Boer WarEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 15:07, 25 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've made an attempt to split up the tables in a hopefully useful manner, although with the new division format your summary paragraph likely needs adjusting. As well as such summaries, would short introductions before each table be appropriate for a list article? E.g. explaining for the Egypt army that units were brought together from around the Mediterranean garrisons, as well as from an extant expeditionary force that had made an aborted attempt to land at Cadiz beforehand. Also for the army of occupation post Waterloo, are these the same 1st, 2nd, and 3rd divisions that fought there, or are these different amalgamations or something of the like? Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 16:26, 25 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think were possible, yes an introduction paragraph would be very useful. I have done similar on other list articles. Failing that, some sort of background or context paragraph.

I am going to go ahead and start creating the actual list articles (minus the summary para for the moment, until I do some more reading) so that they are out there and live. I will also update the British Army template to reflect their creation.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 19:24, 1 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have updated Template:British Army lists, created List of British Army formations during the Victorian-era, List of British divisions during the Crimean War, List of British Army formations during the Second Boer War, and List of British Army formations during the French Revolutionary and Napoleonic Wars. If you think up any better names, feel free to change.

The latter I have excluded the summary para I wrote on the sandbox, made a few editorial tweaks, and added in the references you used (I think, I suggest double checking to make sure). I left all that info on the sandbox, but I have deleted the Victorian-era stuff that I took live.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 19:52, 1 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, I've just come back from a short break and will attempt to add more to the aforementioned lists soonish. On a different note, McGuigan and Burnham (2017) record that Major-General Frederick Philipse Robinson commanded 5th Division in a very short period starting on 14 April 1814. Quote from p. 249 as follows:

General Robinson was given temporary command of the 5th Division on 14 April, when General Charles Colville took command of General John Hope's corps after he was wounded and captured during the French sortie that day. Normally General Hay, the senior brigade commander, would have taken command, but he was killed during the sortie. General Robinson's command of the division was not long and since hostilities had ceased the command mostly entailed administrative duties.

Burnham and McGuigan suggest that the command ended in the same month. This could be useful for list of commanders of the British 5th Division, but I'll leave it up to you on how you think it might be implemented. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 00:37, 9 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I suppose I'll note more here as I find them, not wanting to implement them myself for a lack of expertise - I'm not even totally sure these are the same divisions as your lists are for!

• Major-General John Sontag (John Salomon Balthasar Sontag) temporarily commanded 7th Division 1 August–October 1811 after Houston was invalided home. He was himself invalided home with Guadiana Fever in October. (Burnham and McGuigan pp. 274–275)
• Major-General John de Bernewitz (Johann Heinrich Karl von Bernewitz) temporarily commanded 7th Division 23 September–28 October 1812 after Hope fell ill, later handing over to Dalhousie. (Burnham and McGuigan, p. 48)
• Major-General Sir Thomas Bradford temporarily commanded 3rd Division 18 July–30 November 1815 after Alten was injured at Waterloo, giving up command at reorganisation in November. (Burnham and McGuigan, pp. 59–60)

  This makes sense. I based Alten's continuation of command off Welington's dispatches and the sources I had access to did not suggest any other change in command. I have updated the list to reflect his temporary command. I have based the wording off the above, so should reflect the sources if you want to double check.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 18:30, 9 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Major-General Sir Thomas Brisbane temporarily commanded 7th Division 24 August–30 November 1815; originally meant to command 14th Brigade of the division but there was no senior officer so he took command of the division too. Moved to a different brigade command in November. (Burnham and McGuigan, p. 64)

  Are the dates for the correct year? To the best of my knowledge, the 7th was disbanded at the end of the Peninsula campaign and not reformed for the Waterloo campaign.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 18:30, 9 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Major-General Robert Burne temporarily commanded 6th Division 5 November 1811–9 February 1812. Was removed from command by Wellington for not being fit to command large body of troops. (Burnham and McGuigan, p. 71)
• Colonel (later Major-General) James Kemmis temporarily commanded 4th Division July–October 1809 after Campbell was injured until Cole took over. Temporarily commanded 4th Division again 16 May–July 1811 after Cole was injured and until his return. (Burnham and McGuigan, pp. 158–159)
• Major-General Sir John Lambert temporarily commanded 6th Division 18 June–7 July 1815 because Cole was on his honeymoon. (Burnham and McGuigan, p. 164)
• Major-General Manley Power temporarily commanded 3rd Division September–October 1813 after Picton invalided home and replaced by Colville in late October. (Burnham and McGuigan, p. 238)

  Added this one to the article tooEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 13:28, 14 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Thank you for these details, I am going to work through them as I can.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 18:30, 9 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, I see that you've put Hinuber down as a temporary commander in List of commanders of the British 4th Division. I wondered what your non-Mcguigan and Burnham sources say, because the latter seem to state that he was a permanent commander that just...didn't last very long? Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 14:26, 18 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Siborne does not mention him. This looks more like an error on my part after misreading your talkpage comment. I will remove the temporary mark and renumber the list shortly.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 16:13, 18 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks. Not trying to nitpick your honestly excellent work, I just keep coming back to it as I get drawn further into army research. Hoping to write up Sir William Anson, 1st Baronet and James McGrigor soonish, and might have a stab at Hinuber too. Speaking of your lists, have you thought about a list of commanders for the Brigade of Guards/Guards Division? Might be an interesting one. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 16:33, 18 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Mentioned on twitter by Al Murray

GraemeLeggett (talk) 16:33, 21 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for highlighting that!EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 19:35, 21 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The article List of British Army formations during the Victorian-era has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

empty page

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the ((proposed deletion/dated)) notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing ((proposed deletion/dated)) will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. the rat goblin (talk) 02:55, 22 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Congratulations, EnigmaMcmxc! The list you nominated, List of commanders of the British 3rd Division, has been promoted to featured status, recognizing it as one of the best lists on Wikipedia. The nomination discussion has been archived.

This is a rare accomplishment and you should be proud. If you would like, you may nominate it to appear on the Main page as Today's featured list. Keep up the great work! Cheers, PresN (talk) via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 15 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, EnigmaMcmxc. This is a courtesy notice that the copy edit you requested for List of British armies in World War II at the Guild of Copy Editors requests page is now complete. All feedback welcome! Sheers, Baffle☿gab 03:58, 18 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Baffle gab1978:: Thank you for your work on the article and sorry about the belated response.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 12:52, 7 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No problem; good luck with the article and cheers, Baffle☿gab 02:34, 9 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, EnigmaMcmxc. This is a courtesy notice that the copy edit you requested for List of British corps in World War II‎ at the Guild of Copy Editors requests page is now complete. All feedback welcome! Cheers, Baffle☿gab 04:50, 9 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 1st Infantry Division (United Kingdom), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Arapiles.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 08:42, 28 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, EnigmaMcmxc. I'm just posting to let you know that List of British divisions in World War II – a list that you have been heavily involved with – has been chosen to appear on the Main Page as Today's featured list for August 1. The TFL blurb can be seen here. If you have any thoughts on the selection, please post them on my talk page or at TFL talk. Regards, Giants2008 (Talk) 02:32, 12 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks, for the heads-up. I think the blurb covers the article quite nicely.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 03:37, 12 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 1st Infantry Division (United Kingdom), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Paul Methuen.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:14, 26 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Congratulations, EnigmaMcmxc! The list you nominated, List of commanders of the British 1st Armoured Division, has been promoted to featured status, recognizing it as one of the best lists on Wikipedia. The nomination discussion has been archived.

This is a rare accomplishment and you should be proud. If you would like, you may nominate it to appear on the Main page as Today's featured list. Keep up the great work! Cheers, PresN (talk) via FACBot (talk) 00:26, 15 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Kurt Knispel.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. --B-bot (talk) 17:24, 22 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[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[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[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[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[reply]

Hello, EnigmaMcmxc. This is a courtesy notice that the copy edit you requested for 1st Armoured Division (United Kingdom) at the Guild of Copy Editors requests page is now complete. All feedback welcome! Cheers, Baffle☿gab 00:14, 30 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi EnigmaMcmxc, I've found one uncited direct quotation, which is in the fourth paragraph of "Second World War --> Italian campaign". There were many more errors towards the end of the article so I may have made factual errors, though I've tried not to do so. Anyway, good luck with your planned GA and DYK noms. Cheers, Baffle☿gab 00:14, 30 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you highlighting these points, I will review and amend as necessary. Also, thank you for your work on this and the CO article. It is really appreciated.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 14:54, 1 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, was doing a little work on the 7th Division list and noticed that Alten is recorded as a lieutenant general. He's also recorded as such in the Waterloo OOB, but I can't find a reference to him holding such rank. Heathcote and Burnham and McGuigan only record him as a major general, as does his ODNB. Does Reid have anything on this? Thanks, Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 22:48, 30 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Also note that I've added Thomas Brisbane temporarily commanding the division from 24 August 1815, which doesn't quite match up with your description of the division's disbandment? Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 23:20, 30 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Reid has Alten as a Lt-Gen on his OOB for the 7th Div. Then on p. 69 wrote "major-general July 1810; lieutenant-general (Europe) same date; general der infanterie (Hanoverian Army) September 1816".

I note that the Gazette also refers to him as a Major-General during the 1810–1812 period, see here. The first Gazette articles that reference him as a Lt-Gen date to 1815, but there does not appear to be an official record to note the date of his promotion (like you see later in the century and beyond). Was it an acting rank?

As for Brisbane, there is potentially no discrepancy. Oman notes that all divisions were disbanded at the conclusion of the War of the Sixth Coalition. From other sources, we know their reformation took place following the outbreak of the Seventh. If I recall from prior research on this division, which it would seem I got sidetracked from, I believe the 7th Div was raised well after the other six so did not see service at Waterloo and basically gets overlooked? I want to say it was formed from troops returning from America, who were still at sea when Waterloo took place? EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 14:16, 1 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Would make sense. Brisbane does not mention the division in his autobiography, but he does say "we received orders to proceed to Quebec, where we immediately embarked for England. When off the coast of France, I heard of the fate of Napoleon, and the celebrated Battle of Waterloo. On landing at Portsmouth, I found an order for me to take the command of twelve regiments and proceed to Paris, and place myself under the command of the Duke of Wellington." He goes on to say that this was around 10,000 men, certainly division-esqe. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 10:09, 2 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

On a different note entirely, have you delved into the Light Division at all? I've made a vague list of what I can find here but am not sure if what I have is totally correct, and am very much in doubt that the list is complete. Does one count the 14th (Light) Division and 20th (Light) Division as successors of the same division, as the Wikipedia article does? Did the Light Division of 1968–2007 even have commanding officers? I don't think I can find any! Thanks again, Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 11:29, 3 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, EnigmaMcmxc. This is a courtesy notice that the copy edit you requested for List of wartime orders of battle for the British 1st Armoured Division (1939–1945) at the Guild of Copy Editors requests page is now complete. All feedback welcome! Cheers, Baffle☿gab 21:03, 3 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is to let you know that the above article has been scheduled as today's featured article for 26 November 2022. Please check that the article needs no amendments. Feel free to amend the draft blurb, which can be found at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/November 26, 2022, or to make comments on other matters concerning the scheduling of this article at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/November 2022. I suggest that you watchlist Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors from the day before this appears on Main Page. Thanks and congratulations on your work. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:17, 11 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

November songs

Thank you today for the article, introduced: "The British 2nd Division was initially formed in 1809, to serve during the Peninsular War. After the conclusion of fighting, it was stood down. This pattern would follow until the end of the century. New divisions were formed to fight at Waterloo (were it played an important role in the defeat of the final French attack of the day), and again formed to fight in the Crimean War. Several other similarly numbered divisions were formed during the century, but were not acknowledged as being part of the division's lineage by Everard Wyrall who wrote the division's First World War history (passing mention has been made to each of these formations, but there is not detailed campaign history). The final ad hoc division was raised to fight in the Second Boer War, where it fought or was present during most of the major battles in the Relief of Ladysmith. In 1902, it became a permanent formation within the structure of the British Army. It went on to fight in France in the First and the Second World Wars, and also fought in Burma during the latter. During the Cold War, it formed part of the British Army of the Rhine in Germany and became an armoured formation. The final decades of the division's history were based within the United Kingdom as a training formation."! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:00, 26 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Congratulations on yet another Complete article. Saw this on the front page and thought, "hm I might know who wrote this". To many more, I hope. –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 10:57, 27 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add ((NoACEMM)) to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:42, 29 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article 1st Armoured Division (United Kingdom) 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 ChristieBot, on behalf of Sturmvogel 66 -- Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:20, 29 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Have you seen my comments on this nom?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:32, 24 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Sturmvogel 66: I have not. The GA review page is only displaying that you will work on this one shortly. Did they appear somewhere else for me to review and work on?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 17:36, 24 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sorry, I meant the OB article--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:37, 24 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No worries. Turns out I forgot to watch the page after you created it, so I falsely assumed you were still working on it. I will start work on your comments, hopefully, later today.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 17:39, 24 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article List of wartime orders of battle for the British 1st Armoured Division (1939–1945) 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 ChristieBot, on behalf of Sturmvogel 66 -- Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:21, 29 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The article List of wartime orders of battle for the British 1st Armoured Division (1939–1945) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:List of wartime orders of battle for the British 1st Armoured Division (1939–1945) for comments about the article, and Talk:List of wartime orders of battle for the British 1st Armoured Division (1939–1945)/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Sturmvogel 66 -- Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:41, 1 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The article 1st Armoured Division (United Kingdom) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:1st Armoured Division (United Kingdom) for comments about the article, and Talk:1st Armoured Division (United Kingdom)/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Sturmvogel 66 -- Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:00, 16 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think I know what you're asking for with the undo in Article 231, but just for my edification, what is the "GA" standard?

Thanks,

GHStPaulMN (talk) 21:26, 19 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No worries! GA = Good Article (the green symbol in the top right corner). The article passed a peer review, quite a while ago. Part of that process is to ensure all information is clearly cited.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:36, 19 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Unfortunately I can't provide credible citations for what was my own 2 sentence summary of the article. So I will bow out at this point and leave it to you to decide what to do with the 'See also' section. Thanks for alerting me to that green plus sign -- and for the pain-free undo. GHStPaulMN (talk) 18:54, 20 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is to let you know that the 59th (Staffordshire) Infantry Division article has been scheduled as today's featured article for April 20, 2023. Please check the article needs no amendments. If you're interested in editing the main page blurb, you're welcome to do so at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/April 20, 2023, but note that a coordinator will trim the lead to around 1000 characters anyway, so you aren't obliged to do so. If you wish to make comments on other matters concerning the scheduling of this article, you can do so at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/April 2023.

I suggest that you watchlist Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors from the day before this appears on Main Page. Thanks and congratulations Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:05, 13 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thak you today for the article, introduced (in 2019): "This article is about the British 59th (Staffordshire) Infantry Division, which was raised during the Second World War. This was a second-line formation that spent the first few years of the war at home in the UK. It was assigned to the 21st Army Group, and was the last British infantry division to arrive in Normandy. It took part in Operation Charnwood, followed up by a support role for Operation Goodwood, and then in subsequent fighting as the Second Army pushed south in the final stages of the Normandy battle. As a result of overall heavy losses among Second Army, and a lack of trained reserves, the division was broken up towards the end of the battle and the men largely dispersed among the other formations across the 21st Army Group in an effort to bring them up to strength."! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:34, 20 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Congratulations, EnigmaMcmxc! The list you nominated, List of British armies in World War II, has been promoted to featured status, recognizing it as one of the best lists on Wikipedia. The nomination discussion has been archived.

This is a rare accomplishment and you should be proud. If you would like, you may nominate it to appear on the Main page as Today's featured list. Keep up the great work! Cheers, PresN (talk) via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 16 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, EnigmaMcmxc. This is a courtesy notice that the copy edit you requested for History of the British 1st Division between 1809–1909 at the Guild of Copy Editors requests page is now complete. All feedback welcome! Cheers, Baffle☿gab 18:31, 20 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article History of the British 1st Division between 1809–1909 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 ChristieBot, on behalf of Sturmvogel 66 -- Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 11:22, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

On 26 March 2023, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article 1st Armoured Division (United Kingdom), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the 1st Armoured Division of the British Army chose a white rhinoceros on a black oval as their insignia (pictured)? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/1st Armoured Division (United Kingdom). You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, 1st Armoured Division (United Kingdom)), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Aoidh (talk) 00:02, 26 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

		Hook update
		Your hook reached 8,108 views (675.7 per hour), making it one of the most viewed hooks of March 2023 – nice work!

Bruxton (talk) 00:12, 28 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The article History of the British 1st Division 1809–1909 you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:History of the British 1st Division 1809–1909 for comments about the article, and Talk:History of the British 1st Division 1809–1909/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Sturmvogel 66 -- Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:03, 28 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Congratulations, EnigmaMcmxc! The list you nominated, List of commanders of the British 4th Division, has been promoted to featured status, recognizing it as one of the best lists on Wikipedia. The nomination discussion has been archived.

This is a rare accomplishment and you should be proud. If you would like, you may nominate it to appear on the Main page as Today's featured list. Keep up the great work! Cheers, PresN (talk) via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 9 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

On 27 June 2023, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article History of the British 1st Division (1809–1909), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the British 1st Division repulsed numerous French assaults at the Battle of Waterloo including the final main assault? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/History of the British 1st Division 1809–1909. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, History of the British 1st Division (1809–1909)), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

RoySmith (talk) 00:02, 27 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Always precious

Ten years ago, you were found precious. That's what you are, always. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:15, 8 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, EnigmaMcmxc. I'm just posting to let you know that List of British armies in World War II – a list that you have been heavily involved with – has been chosen to appear on the Main Page as Today's featured list for August 4. The TFL blurb can be seen here. If you have any thoughts on the selection, please post them on my talk page or at TFL talk. Regards, Giants2008 (Talk) 01:37, 18 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Good article nominations | August 2023 Backlog Drive
August 2023 Backlog Drive: On 1 August, a one-month backlog drive for good article nominations will begin. Barnstars will be awarded. 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 reviewed or nominated a good article in the last year. (t · c) buidhe 05:15, 30 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, EnigmaMcmxc. This is a courtesy notice that the copy edit you requested for 1st (United Kingdom) Division at the Guild of Copy Editors requests page is now complete. All feedback welcome! Cheers, Baffle☿gab 01:19, 27 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, EnigmaMcmxc. This is a courtesy notice that the copy edit you requested for List of commanders of the British 1st Division at the Guild of Copy Editors requests page is now complete. All feedback welcome! Dhtwiki (talk) 00:12, 29 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've left a "dead link" template with one of the Gazette citations, which doesn't want to link, although the issue and page numbers lead to the appropriate supplement when entered at the Gazette site. Might there be other linking problems? In my reading of the lead, I thought that it largely replicated the lead at the division article, and that there might be more on how the personalities of the officers impacted their command. Dhtwiki (talk) 00:12, 29 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nominations for the upcoming project coordinator election have opened. 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 will commence on 15 September. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the current coord team. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:05, 2 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add ((NoACEMM)) to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:28, 28 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Voting is now open for the WikiProject Military History newcomer of the year and military historian of the year awards for 2023! The the top editors will be awarded the coveted Gold Wiki . Cast your votes vote here and here respectively. Voting closes at 23:59 on 30 December 2023. On behalf of the coordinators, wishing you the very best for the festive season and the new year. Hawkeye7 (talk · contribs) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:56, 22 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]