Talk:Battle of Lyngør

Military history: Maritime / British / European / Nordic / Napoleonic era

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history

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

Associated task forces:
/
	Maritime warfare task force
	British military history task force
	European military history task force
	Nordic military history task force
	Napoleonic era task force (c. 1792 – 1815)

Norway Mid‑importance

	Norway portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Norway, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Norway on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.NorwayWikipedia:WikiProject NorwayTemplate:WikiProject NorwayNorway
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Denmark Mid‑importance

	Denmark portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Denmark, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Denmark on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DenmarkWikipedia:WikiProject DenmarkTemplate:WikiProject DenmarkDenmark
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Rating

I have to humbly differ with the rating of this article as "start." There are limited sources available on the short battle, and all relevant details have been included. It may never reach featured article status, simply because there isn't that much information available. --Leifern 19:57, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Fated Ship

From http://www.snl.no/.nbl_biografi/Hans_Peter_Holm/utdypning Translated from Norwegian by Google, then polished/corrected by Viking1808

Najaden was to have sailed from Copenhagen 28 February 1812, but touched the ground whilst leaving harbour. The departure was postponed until the following day, which was a Friday – according to the ancient custom a bad day for setting sail - as well as leap year’s day. The frigate had a good wind and covered the distance from Copenhagen to Brekkestø with an average of an incredible 10 knots. But Friday was the curse of the ship, which dragged her anchor and the rudder was damaged on a reef. With the help of the naval brigs, Najaden was towed to Kristiansand on Friday 13 March!
I hope this section may be of interest or use to other editors Viking1808 (talk) 11:12, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Battle of Lyngør. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:34, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Battle of Lyngør. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.cronab.demon.co.uk/D1.HTM
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20041229065525/http://heim.ifi.uio.no/~oddharry/dsfmc/etext/najaden.html to http://heim.ifi.uio.no/~oddharry/dsfmc/etext/najaden.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:37, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Battle of Lyngør. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120306011137/http://www.milhist.dk/soldaten/holm/holm.htm to http://www.milhist.dk/soldaten/holm/holm.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:21, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Steward or Stewart?

Can anyone confirm the British commander's name? Articles are using both Steward and Stewart and I was wondering which is correct. --Peulle (talk) 11:06, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The report of the battle in the London Gazette as referenced is signed STEWART. See here Viking1808 (talk) 12:44, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I will look into this. However, the idea of one correct spelling is a modern one. I have seen the same officer spell his name differently in different documents. As I believe Mark Twain said, "It is a poor mind that cannot think of more than one way to spell a word." I generally use the spelling in the document I cite so that someone may find the item more easily. The downside to that is that the article may show inconsistent spelling. Cheers, Acad Ronin (talk) 13:38, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]