Talk:History of Dover

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject History, a group devoted to the the study, and improvement of Wikipedia articles on the subject, of History. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
Additional information: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: not checked Neutrality: not checked To fill out this checklist, please add the following to the template call: <!-- 1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points are appropriately cited. --> |B-Class-1=yes/no <!-- 2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain major omissions or inaccuracies. --> |B-Class-2=yes/no <!-- 3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. --> |B-Class-3=yes/no <!-- 4. It is free from major grammatical errors. --> |B-Class-4=yes/no <!-- 5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. --> |B-Class-5=yes/no <!-- 6. It is written from a neutral point of view. --> |B-Class-6=yes/no

I have transferred the information here from the Dover article, since it overwhelmed it. Much of the information lacks references: and a good deal of rewriting, since it is somewhat bitty. I have also suggested that the article Dubris belongs more properly within the confines of this article (and repeats itself too). There are innumerable catagories as well: including Category:Napoleonic defences of Dover (two entries); Category:Forts in Dover (two entries]]; and Category:History of Dover.

Now it has been speedy deleted but I am contesting that Peter Shearan (talk) 07:19, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I looked the article over thoroughly before tagging it for speedy deletion. It was a word-for-word copy of this website. The short intro paragraph was the only part not taken from that site. I wasn't clear on whether you copied it from Dover or where it came from exactly, but all the text was copyvio. --L. Pistachio (talk) 07:23, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

From my reading of the revisions, I am sure that the Wikipedia section came first and Kentfind's History of Dover page is an unacknowledged copy of our text that was made some time after May 2007. See the Earthquake section, where our copy originally stated: "The earthquake was said to be 5.4 on the richter scale."[1]. This was then changed by several edits [2], [3], and [4] to the version that appears on the other site. I think this is good enough evidence that there is no copyvio from kentfind.co.uk, so I'm restoring the deletion. Happy to discuss, though.  —SMALLJIM  10:14, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Another point in our favour: looking at the source of the Kentfind page shows that the photos are linked directly from WP.  —SMALLJIM  10:31, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Nice catch. I guess I didn't look quite thoroughly enough. --L. Pistachio (talk) 16:48, 11 February 2008 (UTC)