Talk:Cap d'Agde

NPOV

It seems to me that the article stands un-edited because, if there are others of us on the web who know about the evolution of the Naturist Village at Cap d'Agde and the present position, we probably know from our own experience that the article is accurate.

If the article was intended to be about the development of the philodophy and lifestyle of Libertines, there might be an argument. But it is not: the article is about a naturist village. There is another article within Wilipedia on the subject of Libertines.

I also feel that requesting citations in every case is not helpful since most relevant ones would be sponsored links or 'adult only' sites.

In the summer of 2009 the CRS, the French riot police, are seen regularly in the Naturist Village and on the Naturist beach. Their presence is apparently designed to prevent exhibitionist displays from taking place in circumstances where a crowd could become hostile at attmepts to stop such activitiy in public. By any standard of a civilised society this development must be seen as a retrograde, if necessary step. In such circumatances, it is only to be expected that anyone espousing the basic values of naturism would find this offensive. Furthermore, I suspect that 99% of the general population would share such views. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ALEXEIS (talk • contribs) 22:03, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please add Citations

Would editors please try and add citations, I know that it can be difficult but the worth of any article is only as good as the facts contained within. (SouthernElectric 10:30, 22 September 2007 (UTC))[reply]

NPOV

There seem to be a lot of issues in this article with non-neutral point of view. I don't think it's necessarily a problem to focus so much on the naturist aspects of the town, as those are certainly the primary reason for this small resort area's notability on an international level. The issue is the clear personal opinions being expressed re. the evolution of the area. Please, more citations -- there must be people elsewhere on the web and in print discussing those issues of evolution and naturist vs. hedonist focus. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.73.86.175 (talk) 03:11, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Airports

I'm going to reinstate the recent deletion regarding Airports for the simple reason that the closest airport only appears to be for internal internal flights (via Paris) at the moment. If this is wrong can someone please cite a reference to European and international flights using Béziers airport. (SouthernElectric 11:58, 25 September 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Since 2007 Ryanair has been flying from Beziers, starting with Bristol and London (Stansted or Luton), then adding Düsseldorf Weeze and about to add Stockholm. A Danish company airBorne was flying to Denmark but their site is only in Danish... No internal French flights for the moment - quite a change round http://www.beziers.aeroport.fr/2-13026-Accueil.php Crusoecap (talk) 15:07, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement of scope (of the article)

At the moment this is primarily about the naturist area of Cap d'Agde, if and when non naturist content is added then the scope of the article may well change and any such statement could be removed - Cap d'Agde is not 100% naturist so mention needs to be made of the article current unbalance. SouthernElectric 16:50, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I changed the inline warning to the more standard {{generalize}} template so that the article is listed in the proper category and somebody familiar with the resort might come along and fix it. -- Gogo Dodo 18:52, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Web site links

This is not a links farm or a personal promotion site, see Wikipedia:Spam. SouthernElectric 20:31, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the recently removed talk page content by User:Agdefan (contribs);

By all means discuss the issue but placing of the same spam as was being placed on the article page is not acceptable (all editors can access the removed links if they need to check on their status via the version history's), and as for the (IMO unwarranted) suggesting that the IMDB web site is infected with a virus needs to be notified to WP admin (and the IMDB it's self) as many other pages have links to the site as it's a WP policy to link to that site rather than say Amazon reviews. Regarding spelling mistakes and or incorrect content, rather than complain why not correct it! As for the complaint about the use of the camping web site, it's a reference to a citation so is not spam, it is because it's a citation reference and the official web site why the link is present SouthernElectric (talk) 12:33, 9 December 2007 (UTC) Edited @ 12:25, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion the offical website of Cap d'Agde is not a spam. Look to www.Capdagde.com Also it's webcam. <spammed URL removed SouthernElectric (talk)> The link of the camping, that's spam! It's a private camping place!!! Or the link to the video: Cap d'Agde, Naked City with a shop..... At the end 30% of the informations to Cap d'Agde are wrong!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Agdefan (talk • contribs) 19:03, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'living here in Cap d'Agde since 35 years and I know that 30% ist wrong in this article.... Good work SouthernElectric

"Helopolis" " Village Heliopolis"......häääääää —Preceding unsigned comment added by Agdefan (talk • contribs) 19:08, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You keep saying that article information is incorrect but all you seem to be bothered about is the placement of web site links, hmm... As for the removal of all the web links and some of the web based citation references this was the direct result of the spammed web cam, you seem to have some confusion about what are citations and what are gratuitously placed web links that have no connection to the article other than the subject / location name, the reason why the camping site and video production company links are present is solely because information on those sites back up textual information given in this article. You would actually get a lot further by contributing to the article and understanding, rather than fighting, the Wikipedia spam and citation policies! SouthernElectric (talk) 19:44, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Removed

removed Image:Grau d'Agde plage.JPG as it seemingly had nothing to do with the article.

The article is about a naturist beach, essentially, and no naturists were in the photo.
The filename itself seems to indicate it is from a different location.
The image was rather pointless... "here's a beach" basically. So what?

Vengeance is mine, saith the Prime ^{20:42, 16 Aug 2008 (UTC)}

Port Venus

An anon marked this sections with the words "This is completely incorrect". I've replaced this with the {{disputed-section}} tag, but I don't know either way whether it is correct, and if it isn't in what way it isn't. Thryduulf (talk) 22:57, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here is information about Port Venus for anyone who likes to check the facts. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 23:30, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have lived with my family year-round in Port Venus for 20 years - your para about PV is broadly correct although quite a lot of owners rent their places in summer (in fact 99% of the apartments and villas in the whole naturist village are owned by individuals - even in those buildings that look like hotels!!!!). The area that you seem to describe as Port Venus includes other developments as well (Port Soleil, Jardin de la Palmerie, El Pueblo (the "big houses" you mentioned). Port Venus itself consists of 106 apartments in Port Venus Residence and 56 villas in Port Venus Village. P.S. The Port Venus "arts day" was a one-off so far....!Crusoecap (talk) 17:30, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not a travel guide

Per WP:NOT, Wikipedia is not a travel guide and yet this pretty accuaratly describes most (but not quite all) of The Naturist Beach section and it's sub-sections. Much of it has additionally remained uncited for several months at least.

I think we should take the following action:

remove all the uncited an factually disputed material
replace most of the subsections with a simple summary of what is available, where citations can be found to verify this
reword any and all remaining text about libertine developments to be neutral and supported by citations.

I'll make a start on this in about a fortnight if there is no objection here. Thryduulf (talk) 10:30, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As nothing has happened in over a year, other than the addition of more sections about non-notable places to stay, I've removed the details of all the accommodation other than Heliopolis (which is clearly notable). If anything that I have removed is truly notable, please feel free to reinstate it iff accompanied by a citation to one or more reliable sources that demonstrates it's notability. Remember though that Wikipedia is not a travel guide, tourist information site, accommodation directory or advertiser. Thryduulf (talk) 11:28, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

French vs. English

Please don't talk about "libertines" and "echangistes". In English these people are "swingers". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Smurfix (talk • contribs) 18:56, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree. Never used the word sw**g**s ( and not starting now). Ménage à trois is perfectly acceptable British English - as Échangiste will become. I don't understand why you feel that Libertine is not English, it was used by Calvin in (1649)! --ClemRutter (talk) 23:20, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tourist Tax

This is meaningless since every tourist resort has a Tax de Sejour so why mention it. 87.102.44.18 (talk) 17:43, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Cap d'Agde. 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:

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) 12:43, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]