Talk:Camps Bay

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

South Africa Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject South Africa, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of South Africa 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.South AfricaWikipedia:WikiProject South AfricaTemplate:WikiProject South AfricaSouth Africa articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

This has been reported as a copyvio. However, it should certainly be rewritten as a legitimate article. Capitalistroadster 10:17, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Turns out it wasn't a copyvio; see Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2006 May 20/Articles. Melchoir 10:40, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The website encyclopedia.vestigatio is a clone of wikipedia so if this article is in violation then so is Cape Town, Durban, Johannesburg, plus most of wikipedia. Please remove copyright infringement tag and do your research thougherly before putting your foot into your mouth. --Jcw69 10:41, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• • Thank you for removing tag --Jcw69 10:43, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I did my research properly. The text is also copied from [1]--Da legend 10:44, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I see. 64.169.241.50 copied in the offending material; I've now removed it. We don't need a copyvio notice unless the entire article and its history consists of violations. Melchoir 10:47, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, my source: Wikipedia:Copyright#If you find a copyright infringement. Melchoir 10:49, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much--Da legend 10:52, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No prob, thanks for bringing it up! Melchoir 10:57, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• JCW69, please remember Wikipedia:Civility when leaving messages on Talk Pages. Capitalistroadster 16:29, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the recent removal of the multiple tags for content problems (I fixed a bit of remaining non-neutral wording). But there is a serious lack of sourcing. The only cited content is the census data. There are claims of history, claims of facilities, claims of interest/popularity, zero cites for any. Someone with knowledge of this place, please fix this mess so it doesn't have to get stubbed down for failing WP:V policy. DMacks (talk) 02:47, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]