Talk:Quedgeley

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cities, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of cities, towns and various other settlements 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.CitiesWikipedia:WikiProject CitiesTemplate:WikiProject CitiesWikiProject Cities articles

England Low‑importance

	England portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of England 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.EnglandWikipedia:WikiProject EnglandTemplate:WikiProject EnglandEngland-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Gloucestershire Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Gloucestershire, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Gloucestershire 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.GloucestershireWikipedia:WikiProject GloucestershireTemplate:WikiProject GloucestershireWikiProject Gloucestershire articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

UK geography Low‑importance

	United Kingdom portal This article falls within the scope of WikiProject UK geography, a user-group dedicated to building a comprehensive and quality guide to places in the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you wish to participate, share ideas or merely get tips you can join us at the project page where there are resources, to do lists and guidelines on how to write about settlements.UK geographyWikipedia:WikiProject UK geographyTemplate:WikiProject UK geographyUK geography articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Image

Is it me, or is the photo of the Tesco Car Wash in this article a candidate for most boring image in the whole of WP? I'd propose removing it. Scoop100 (talk) 16:14, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Quedgeley. 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 http://web.archive.org/web/20150203195539/https://neighbourhood.statistics.gov.uk/dissemination/LeadTableView.do?a=7&b=11127768&c=Quedg&d=16&e=61&g=6427705&i=1001x1003x1032x1004&m=0&r=1&s=1422983538357&enc=1&dsFamilyId=2491 to https://neighbourhood.statistics.gov.uk/dissemination/LeadTableView.do?a=7&b=11127768&c=Quedg&d=16&e=61&g=6427705&i=1001x1003x1032x1004&m=0&r=1&s=1422983538357&enc=1&dsFamilyId=2491

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) 19:28, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Segregated Bicycle Path entry

The Segregated Bicycle Path contribution appears to have a number of issues:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Quedgeley&type=revision&diff=783367436&oldid=779660880

The entry for the cycleway is non-notable and is not shown to be relevant to Quedgeley.
The entry contains a safety opinion that is not evidenced by the source. One (or more) accident does not in itself allow the conclusion the cycleway is (particularly) dangerous. Unfortunately the source now appears to be a dead link (though I have viewed it previously). [[WP:WP:Fringe theories, WP:No original research
The location of the entry gives undue weight in the context of the article (Probably should be under 'roads' if present at all).
Some concern that this is a fringe interest WP:FRINGE

The reversion previously made by myself have been reverted without comment WP:Reverting#Explain_reverts.

Unless discussed improvements are made to the contribution I propose it is removed in due course.

Djm-leighpark (talk) 22:29, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There being no further discussion after 4 weeks Segregated Bicycle Path entry has been removed Djm-leighpark (talk) 01:27, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Quedgeley Church War Memorial.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 05:43, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sam and Spectrum shows

Worth a mention? They were pretty big during the mid 90's 2A00:23C7:B801:A401:8470:AE06:4936:8B64 (talk) 06:51, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]