Talk:Battle of Quiberon Bay

Military history: Maritime / British / European / French / Early Modern

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 articles

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
	French military history task force
	Early Modern warfare task force (c. 1500 – c. 1800)

Links?

Could we get a like on the Quiberon Bay page?

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Battle of Quiberon Bay. 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/20090327232124/http://www.royalnavy.mod.uk:80/history/battles/battle-of-quiberon/ to http://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/history/battles/battle-of-quiberon/

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) 20:19, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

French losses

According to the "Royal Navy Day by Day" the French lost 11 ships captured or destroyed - but I can't make that number out of any of the accounts. Were some smaller ships lost? Springnuts (talk) 16:58, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Springnuts, got any more details on that work? The French losses are pretty solidly sourced.

Cheers. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:03, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It is "The Royal Navy Day by Day" - ISBN-10 : 0750982667; ISBN-13 : 978-0750982665 - but there are several editions and I don't know which edition this is. It's in almost all Wardrooms and Royal Marine Messes, and it is generally pretty reliable (though sometimes infuriatingly intriguing, as when speaking of a grounding in the Red Sea which was a direct result of actions of the Ship's Cat, but giving no further details). Generally pretty reliable, but maybe not in this case! Springnuts (talk) 17:14, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Springnuts, could you add it to the bibliography? And give a page number for your cite? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:26, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I don't think it belongs in the bibliography really. The quotes are I think most helpfully referenced by the day rather than the page number. I would have to check if there are even page numbers in it! Springnuts (talk) 18:15, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Springnuts, it definitely needs to go in the bibliography. Would you like me to do it? (In the 1979 edition the navy toast is referred to on page 322.) Gog the Mild (talk) 18:30, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, of course: I just didn’t think it was significant enough to get a mention. Please do. Thank you. Friendly regards, Springnuts (talk) 23:59, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]