Talk:Naval operations in the Dardanelles campaign

message: From what I see, there are none listed, and the links below do not provide all of the information given in the article. Should this article be marked as not citing sources? Akallabet 06:13, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. I've also re-assessed it as start class as it fails the referencing requirements for B-class. This is a pity because it is otherwise a very good article. --ROGER DAVIES TALK 11:00, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Rather silly that, really, categorising a lengthy and informtive article simply as 'start' just because no one inserted refs? Sandpiper (talk) 08:27, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources? 

message: The numbers indicated are total casualties, not killed.  This is a gross mistake for both sides.  On the Turkish side total killed in this particular campaign were about 90,000.  15,000 of them in the hospitals, behind the lines.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hudavendigar (talk • contribs) 17:41, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: How do 6 battleships have 252,000 casualties, even including wounded.  And why are the figures for both sides almost identical ?  The casualty figures look made-up to me.Eregli bob (talk) 10:07, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Some lazy person just copy-pasted the casualties from the entire Gallipoli_Campaign onto this page. But the article doesn't state the casualties so I wouldn't know what else to put there.134.58.253.57 (talk) 11:09, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

text: OK I forgot to login. lol. Anyways I removed the casualty counts, I do not believe they have a meaning for this article, if anyone can find a casualty count that fits this article better, that'd be great.Andreas Willow (talk) 11:13, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Casualties 

message: In the section "Aftermath":
"De Robeck was reported to be distraught from the losses [22]. He wrote on 18th March: After losing so many ships I shall obviously find myself superseded tomorrow morning.[23] He had been in charge of a fleet that had suffered the most serious loss to the Royal Navy since Trafalgar"
Yet in the Wikipedia entry "The Battle of Trafalgar":
"The French and Spanish lost 22 ships, while the British lost none in the most decisive naval engagement of the Napoleonic Wars."  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.109.211.131 (talk) 15:17, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Aftermath 

message: In the infobox there is a misinterpretation of loss figures. Since the article is about the naval operations, the human loss figures should be given accordingly. The human loss of both sides is under 1000, and not more. The figures given in the box are 252 000  and 253 000 . These figures refer to land battles after troop landing (which is not the subject of this article). So the human loss figures must be replaceds by correct figures. Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 12:27, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Incorrect Loss figures  

message: The title should have read "Allied Naval Operations", as it covers only and only the Allied naval operations.  Ottomans did have a navy and limited as it was, they had operations, some with siginificant results.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.77.162.40 (talk) 13:03, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wrong Title 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Naval operations in the Dardanelles Campaign. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080919145649/http://www.dzkk.tsk.mil.tr:80/muze/turkish/Fsergi_alanlari.htm to http://www.dzkk.tsk.mil.tr/muze/Turkish/Fsergi_alanlari.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 07:29, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Imported the background section of Gallipoli Campaign and edited it to fit existing text, tidied citations and references, rm dupe wikilinks altered a few headers. Keith-264 (talk) 17:44, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Added some detail from OH G I and did some tidying.Keith-264 (talk) 11:55, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Found citations for all bar one detail.Keith-264 (talk) 14:36, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

text: Gibson, Isham WorsleyKeith-264 (talk) 21:27, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Got fed up waiting for the Turkish task force to alter their class rating and did it unilaterally.Keith-264 (talk) 18:43, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

text: Did some copy-editions and tinkered with section layout, still not quite satisfactory.Keith-264 (talk) 23:49, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Expansion 

message: Seems like this is a missing topic. They were not substantial, but both sides utilized sea planes in various roles. Worth a section I think.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.41.176.219 (talk) 17:13, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Naval air operations