Greetings! I've seen your work compiling these lists. I tend to feel these should be broken out into separate articles, e.g., "List of Deputy Lieutenants of...", because the sheer number of DLs is rapidly going to overwhelm the list of the Lord-Lieutenants. However, you're welcome to make use of my earlier efforts to start compiling such lists at User:Choess/DL. Choess (talk) 23:15, 13 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In this edit you changed the referenced date from 18 January 1900 to 19 January on the basis of a paper published on 19 January. I can't access the Times, but if your source is right, surely the Naval & Military intelligence report published on 19 January is referring to an event that happened the day before - it can hardly report something that hasn't happened before the paper was printed (on the night of 18/19 January), can it? Shem (talk) 18:50, 8 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The article dated 19 January has the following: ´The Sparrow, gunboat, Lieut. and Commander H. C. Wilkin, D.S.O., will pay off into the C Division of the Dockyard Reserve at Sheerness to-day.´

These paying off ceremonies are often mentioned on the day after the event, but there is nothing in The Times 22-24 January on the Sparrow (21 Jan was a Sunday). Thus I assume the information in the article from January 19 is correct. Takvaal 18:00, 9 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That seems pretty clear! Thanks very much. I might just drop that quote into the reference for future Wikipedians. Shem (talk) 20:03, 12 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi - Thanks for your edits to Stanley Brenton von Donop. Please could you insert a source for his "promotion to lieutenant-colonel on 26 June 1902." Thanks. Dormskirk (talk) 22:48, 22 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

reference added - there was a South African honours list published on the same day as the 1902 coronation honours list. Takvaal 15:00, 23 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Great. Many thanks. Dormskirk (talk) 15:11, 23 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for adding an article for Moreton John Wheatley! Seeing as there could potentially be more articles on the Bailiffs, I've created Category:Bailiffs of the Royal Parks, so if you feel like adding more about his successors feel free to apply that category to them. Nice work! MatthewVanitas (talk) 21:39, 29 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello and welcome to the Military history WikiProject! As you may have guessed, we're a group of editors working to improve Wikipedia's coverage of topics related to military history.

A few features that you might find helpful:

• Our navigation box points to most of the useful pages within the project.
• The announcement and open task box is updated very frequently. You can watchlist it if you are interested, or you can add it directly to your user page by copying the following: ((WPMILHIST Announcements)).
• Important discussions take place on the project's main discussion page; it is highly recommended that you watchlist it.
• The project has several departments, which handle article quality assessment, detailed article and content review, writing contests, and article logistics.
• We have a number of task forces that focus on specific topics, nations, periods, and conflicts.
• We've developed a set of guidelines that cover article structure and content, template use, categorization, and many other issues of interest.
• If you're looking for something to work on, there are many articles that need attention, as well as a number of review alerts.
• If you would like to receive the project's monthly newsletter, The Bugle, please sign up here.

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask any of the project coordinators or any other experienced member of the project, and we'll be happy to help you. Again, welcome, and we are looking forward to seeing you around! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:09, 7 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I added a bunch of them using some of my Who's Whos and Whitakers and the articles they already had. I did not add the "sort" stuff though so I will hold off on further additions. LE (talk) 01:57, 26 December 2018 (UTC) We were adding simultaneously today?...calling it a day after the two Richard Thomases.LE (talk) 02:10, 27 December 2018 (UTC) I have added links to the bio articles of many admirals onto the article's talk page and will leave it to you to sort them out and get precise rank dates...LE (talk) 08:31, 27 December 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

thanks for the additions - the list is a work in progress, and all help is appreciated. Takvaal 12:00, 27 December 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Tucked in a couple more in the article and another set on the talk page.LE (talk) 16:21, 27 December 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The Dreadnought Project has looked up the Gazette cites on some of the admirals you've added and you can check their bio articles there for facts not found here. I've left you plenty of talk page entries for people to add to the charts, you are more familiar with the sort functions than I am but the links generally provide the needed information. I have kept track of the running distinction of being the senior living Admiral of the Fleet for some time, and wanted to have reference to who was the senior living Admiral...it looks like that can be accomplished! LE (talk) 05:18, 28 December 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It looks like more curly-bracket-sort magic (not my forte) is needed to make the sorting by promotion date work (though we try to have that be the default order). Clicking the sort...

• if one leads with the day the days of the month (without regard to month or year) are sorted first.
• if one leads with the month the alphabetical (not chronological) order of the months is used.
• if one leads with the year there's no proper use of the date within the year.

Is an all-numeric date format (YYYY.MM.DD?) needed? LE (talk) 19:43, 28 December 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Good point - I added another sort function to the date column. It lists those without any date at one end (I cannot think of an easy way around this), otherways it should now sort by YYYMMDD. Takvaal 01:15, 29 December 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The Dreadnought Project bios typically reference London Gazettes, so I suppose you can convert references directly to Gazettes if you click through to find them for the dates-of-rank etc. (I will continue to search DP for things).LE (talk) 23:56, 29 December 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

So you don't consider the columns "broken" by Lord Mountbatten? LE (talk) 20:32, 31 December 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I didn′t see your message until now. I agree Mountbatten makes this tricky. I have added a formula to always have the full date of promotion on one line (width of the promotion column), it looks more tidy. I don′t have a problem with the name or notes being on more than one row, though the notes can probably be sorted between position and further promotion with a break. For Mountbatten, I suggest we reduce the number of names, as with other royals, but those are exceptions (generally the full name should be included I think). Takvaal 15:26, 1 January 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I wasn't asking to reduce the names but the inclusion of all names does cause issues! I have a personal aversion to the British convention of DMY dates (please,either "January 1", or "January 1st", or "1st January"...but never "1 January"!) so I never write out promotion dates that way but where it's known I include the full date in the sort so you can expand as desired.LE (talk) 17:35, 1 January 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have to say I am sobered by just HOW MANY men have made it to full Admiral in the RN over the years. In current times the establishment has shrunk to where the three 18th century slots would be sufficient for any eventuality. Tracing the rise and fall of numbers may be interesting!LE (talk) 01:42, 2 January 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Color codes

I am quite surprised that you were unaware of the colored-squadron protocols? One first became each type of admiral "of the blue" and then rose by seniority to white and then red before entering the next rank as blue. Admiral of the red (the highest subrank of the highest rank) was not formally distinguished from admiral of the fleet until 1805. Promotion from vice admiral of the red to admiral of the blue is the line at which one became a full admiral. LE (talk) 17:32, 3 January 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I knew of the colour codes, but the many ranks (and sometimes sub-ranks) are slightly confusing, and I couldn't work out what would have been equal to today's full admiral. Thank you for making it a bit clearer. So a list of full admirals should includ all from the date they became Admiral of the blue? Takvaal 11:20, 4 January 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Looking at the following page as well (which was a source in an admiral's article) that one day in February 1799 saw twenty-four vice-admirals become admirals. More than the RN has elevated in the most recent quarter-century! The admirals of the blue elevated to the white had become admirals of the blue at dates from 1794 through 1795 (I note that Lord Bridport must already have been elevated although he made admiral of the blue the same day as his brother Lord Hood). All incumbent vice-admirals of the red(it seems) or white were elevated (two-sub-ranks in the case of the latter) to admirals of the blue. All incumbent vice-admirals of the blue were elevated two sub-ranks to vice-admirals of the red and all rear-admirals were elevated two sub-ranks. On page 147 we find many future full admirals below those already elevated at that time but would it would take a lot of looking to check how many made it all the way (Nelson for example died a vice-admiral). Would you care to do some of the research? LE (talk) 21:51, 3 January 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I agree the amount of promotions are huge, especially compared to recent quarter-century. It appears that as late as the 1920s, many (most?) rear- and vice-admirals would eventually be promoted Admirals, often on the retired list. Nowadays we barely have a handful.

I′ll see what I have time to - the start of the year is rather busy on other fronts. Takvaal 11:22, 4 January 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

One side-effect of all this has been my discovery that my software CAN display London Gazette PDFs despite their website telling me it looks like it can't. (Not that I like PDF format and the attendant complications one bit). In any event issue 20137 page 3387 has a perfect illustration of the cascade of promotions by seniority in announcing the promotions caused by the death of Admiral of the Fleet Hawkins-Whitshed (and below the smaller one caused by the death of Rear-Admiral of the White Sir Samuel Pechell).LE (talk) 01:40, 4 January 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The end of colors

I have seen it dated to 1864 (the Navy List of 1863 I was working from last night includes them). I expect searching the Gazettes for that year would turn up a formal declaration,LE (talk) 16:17, 11 January 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The relevant order was apparently on the 9th of July taking effect from the 10th of October. I have not found it in the Gazette (only a partial quote at fotw.info).

I note that in the last week the user Navops has created articles on the three colors of admiral but separate lists would be pointless as each one soaked up those who had survived long enough in the rank below to reach the top of its list. It appears that about 1849 they switched from having huge rafts of promotions (at times years apart) that could elevate everyone holding a single subrank to the next to having automatic promotions whenever deaths or retirements created openings.LE (talk) 16:53, 11 January 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

oldest admiral ever

As far as I know Provo Wallis (1791-1892) holds that distinction for the RN. Bush and O'Brien did rather well back-to-back in one command though! LE (talk) 21:57, 12 January 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Article scope

Not meaning to step on your toes since you created the article but I've been engaged in a dispute with User:NavOps who wants to include mediaeval "admirals of" various places and I think it best that the article mirror the List of British Army full generals and concern itself only with post-Union GB/UK rank-holders rather than delve into times when the distinction between rank and posting was ever more vague the further back you go. I edited the lead to reflect this but tell me if you'd rather this article also include English or Scottish navy leaders from long ago (or Cromwellian "Generals at sea"). Better to have them elsewhere I think. LE (talk) 16:57, 2 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I agree, the post union is a logical time-frame for this list. If we include pre-union ranks, it will be too long and probably difficult to understand without more explanations. Better to make separate lists for the earlier ranks, as you suggest.(No need to worry about toes btw - you have done more work on this article than I ever had time to do.) Takvaal 16:40, 3 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

NavOps has now taken his demand to include pre-Union admirals to dispute resolution. If he prevails I will regret ever having contributed to the article. LE (talk) 07:49, 22 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am leaving the RNB listings on the Admirals talk page for now as I try to determine the final ranks of all the listed officers (the ones indicated may not be final but are the latest I've tracked). You may want to put them on the vice or rear admiral lists though I don't plan to.LE (talk) 15:56, 10 January 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks - you have done an impressive job of researching this. The list might be helpful for future work, as you say, but judging by the amount of Admirals I am uncertain whether it is realistic to create similar lists for Rear and Vice admirals. And not as many of those have pages on wikipedia to link to. I am not delving into that at this time myself. Takvaal 11:50, 11 January 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't have access to the Times and one of my reviewers has asked a question about a cite that I believe you added to the article on HMS Bulwark (1899) that reads: "In August, she was the flagship of a squadron visiting the Aegean Sea for combined manoeuvres, landing at Lemnos and Nauplia,". He wants to know what landing means in this context. A port visit, which is what I suspect, or an amphibious landing as part of the manoeuvres. I'd be appreciative if you can get a better sense of what the newspaper report meant.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:39, 1 August 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have seen no newspaper reports detailing the manoeuvres of 1902, only the Naval & Military intelligence notices that give details on movements of the ships and officers. With my use of the word landing, I had intended to suggest port visits, as I have seen nothing to indicate more action on those islands in August 1902. There might be a misunderstanding from the editing in the article, as HMS Bulwark was flagship of the squadron visiting the Aegean Sea in August 1902, but the combined manoeuvres between the Mediterranean and Channel Fleets did not take place until the following months, and are the same as referred to with reference Ball p 365. There is a book on the Mediterranean service of HMS Bulwark (which is on Google books but I cannot access it) that might give more details.

The relevant notices in The Times reads:

Notice in The Times Naval & Military intelligence on August 19:

The vessels of the British Mediterranean squadron which have been on a visit to the Piraeus left that port yesterday evening for Lemnos

Notice on August 22:

An Admiralty telegram states that Admiral Sir Compton Domvile, Commander-in-Chief in the Mediterranean, in the Bulwark, battleship, Captain F. T. Hamilton, with the squadron, will leave Lemnos for Nauplia on the 30th inst.

In the following days it is reported that several other ships of the Mediterranean Fleet left Fleet-headquarters at Malta for Lemnos.

Notice on August 28:

The Channel cruiser squadron, consisting of 17 ships, arrived at Gibraltar yesterday. .. The squadron is expected to leave this evening to join the Mediterranean squadron for combined maneuvers

Notice on Monday Sep 1

Adm Sir C. E. Domvile, Commander-in-Chief in the Mediterranean, in the Bulwark, battleship, Capt. F. T. Hamilton, left Lemnos with the battleships of the squadron for Nauplia on Saturday. The cruisers and destroyers left for Nauplia on the 28th ult.

Notice on Tuesday Sep 2

Adm Sir C. E. Domvile, Commander-in-Chief in the Mediterranean, in the Bulwark, battleship, Capt. F. T. Hamilton, left Nauplia for Malta on Sunday.

Notice on Wednesday Sep 3

The Channel squadron arrived at Malta yesterday from Gibraltar, and will remain six days.

The Bulwark, battleship, Capt. F. T. Hamilton, flagship of Adm. Sir Compton Domvile, arrived yesterday at Malta from Nauplia.

Notice on Saturday Sep 6

The Bulwark, battleship, Capt. F. T. Hamilton, flagship of Adm. Sir Compton Domvile, and the Implacable, battleship, Capt. Prince Louis of Battenberg, left Malta yesterday for Nauplia.

In the following days it is reported that several other ships left Fleet-headquarters at Malta for Nauplia.

Notice on Tuesday Sep 9

The Channel and Cruiser squadrons left Malta yesterday for the Levant

The Bulwark, battleship, Capt. F. T. Hamilton, flying the flag of of Adm. Sir Compton Domvile, with the squadron under his command, left Nauplia yesterday.

Notice on Sep 23

Part of the Channel squadron, under the command of Rear-Admiral the Hon. Assheton G. Curzon-Howe, arrived at Suda Bay, Crete, yesterday. The vessels are the Magnificent, Prince George, and Mars, battleships, and the Niobe, Sutlej, Doris, Juno, Rainbow, Furious, Prometheus, and Minerva, cruisers.

Notice on Sep 26

A second part of the Channel squadron, from Nauplia, under the command of Vice-Adm. Sir A. K. Wilson, arrived yesterday at Suda Bay, Crete. The vessels are - battleships, Majestic, Hannibal, and Jupiter; cruisers, St. George and Pactolus; and t.b.d.'s Daring, Ardent, Myrmidon, Kangaroo, and Chamois.

Takvaal 12:20, 6 August 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for checking.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:15, 6 August 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

On 5 September 2015, you created the article at James Digges La Touche, citing The Times' issues from 9 September 1901 and 30 August 1907. Do you still have access to those sources, and can you share them if you do? — Fourthords | =Λ= | 17:32, 14 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi! I found your name on WikiProject Orders, decorations, and medals, where you are the only who have said you have knowledge about Swedish medals. I wonder if you are able to identify this: https://i.ibb.co/3zP0PZ9/svensk.png ? As you can see, I have made the other ribbons in grey scale, and for the medal itself, I have highlighted the part that's visible of the Swedish one. Some text is visible, definately "förbund", possibly "ngsförbund". In a news paper article about the person wearing the medal, it said he had been awarded «Den Svenske militære delegasjonsmedaljen». First of all, I don't know for sure if the one pictured is the same as the one listed, second I can't find anything on Google by that name, neither in Norwegian or Swedish. I have looked through commons:Category:Ribbon_bars_of_Sweden, commons:Category:SVG_ribbon_bars_of_Sweden and the 200 pages of SFHM's "Utmärkelsetecken på militära uniformer", with no luck. Thanks in advance! 1000mm (talk) 14:54, 3 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm afraid I can´t help you here. I agree the medal probably says "ngsförbund", which would probably indicate utbildningsförbund. Possibly befälsutbildningsförbund. But the combination of colours is quite common for Swedish medals, and if it´s not listed in the pdf you attached, I don't know where else to look. As for "military delegasjonsmedalje", I would guess it was a medal awarded for taking part in a mission, possibly a UN mission. I'm sorry I cannot be of more help. Takvaal (talk) 15:23, 3 December 2022 (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) 00:31, 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]