Talk:Landing at Cape Helles

Fair use rationale for Image:LateOttomanFlag.png

Image:LateOttomanFlag.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 23:38, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

CE

Made a start on the referencing, tidied page and parachuted a background section from the Gallipoli page.Keith-264 (talk) 16:54, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Most of the Turkish spellings I've used are from the OH and may be obsolete, please amend as needed.Keith-264 (talk) 07:14, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

I've been experimenting with introducing acronyms with ("ABCD") rather than (ABCD) but I'm not sure about it. Any opinions? regardsKeith-264 (talk) 22:31, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

G'day, Keith, I had a quick look at the MOS. MOS:ACRO appears to list examples without the "..." marks. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 22:41, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Bugger! ;O)Keith-264 (talk) 05:57, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Finished off some loose ends and added a little material about the Ottomans from Travers.Keith-264 (talk) 11:11, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Landing at Cape Helles. 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/20100603052644/http://www.remuseum.org.uk/corpshistory/rem_corps_part14.htm to http://www.remuseum.org.uk/corpshistory/rem_corps_part14.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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 08:11, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

trojan horse

In all the dictionaries that I have consulted (and in the WIKI link) the main defining feature of a trojan horse is the deceit/trick (I am not native english, these words may be sloppy). The enemy nature of the River Clyde was evident, so this rating seems inadequate. pietro06:19, 25 September 2019 (UTC)151.29.191.205 (talk)

G'day, I think it probably does make sense to remove this. For instance the sentence "The rest were landed from a Trojan horse, SS River Clyde..." could become "The rest were landed from SS River Clyde..." without changing anything too significant. Does anyone else have an opinion on this? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:58, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Recent edits

@Beshogur: There is consensus to use Ottoman in this series of articles for the reasons given. If you want to change it you will need consensus which you probably won't get by using a source from 1936 and resorting to WP:OR Regards Keith-264 (talk) 17:36, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

What's wrong with a 1936 source? It's secondary, and maybe one of few sources covering it. Beshogur (talk) 17:40, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Keith-264

@Keith-264: please stop editing existing quotes. I placed that a while ago and noticed you changed the quote entirely. I ask to the mistake. "It was the Ottoman empire not the Turkish empire" and "Not just Turks at Gallipoli" is not a valid reason to change a quote. Beshogur (talk) 17:37, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

I haven't edited anything, I have reverted your edit. Please stop this. Keith-264 (talk) 17:39, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

My edit on 13 December 2020, on 1 June 2022, editing Patton's quote. Beshogur (talk) 17:42, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

I see it now; it wasn't rendered as a quote i.e. with "quotation marks" so there was no reason not to edit it and there is no need to use a quote if the information is in a source. There's no need to cite the numbers in the infobox, it is taken from referenced material in the article and using it to excuse "Turkish victory" in place of "Ottoman victory" is a mistake. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 17:49, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

there is no need to use a quote if the information is in a source. why not? For verifiability purpose, it's useful. it is taken from referenced material in the article and using it to excuse "Turkish victory" in place of "Ottoman victory" is a mistake Please don't put words in my mouth, I don't agree on adding to the infobox "Turkish victory" either. I say that you're editing an existing quote and it's misleading. Also I noticed today, when I checked the note, that the quotation was changed. Beshogur (talk) 17:52, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Anyway, could remove the quote entirely. Solved. Beshogur (talk) 17:57, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

[Edit conflict]

If that wasn't your edit, I apologise, I thought it was.

See Template:Infobox military conflict

• Information summarized in an infobox should follow the general guidance for writing a lead section. It should not "make claims" or present material not covered by the article. As with a lead section, there is some discretion in citing information in an infobox. The same guidance should be applied to an infobox as given for citations in a lead section. Information in an infobox must conform with verifiability, point-of-view and other policies.

If you have added Patton's material to the article and cited it there, citing the addition to the infobox is not necessary. If you really want to keep the Note, I'll put it back with "around it" so it's obvious that it's a quote. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 18:00, 15 November 2022 (UTC)