Talk:Stoke Gifford
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||
Depth charge
[edit]Is that depth charge thing made up or a joke? There is no gun crime in Stoke Gifford at all... 88.105.255.115 18:01, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
- That was 12 years ago and I think it's long gone. So yes, I suspect it probably was made up and/or a joke. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:28, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
External links modified
[edit]Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on Stoke Gifford. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081225075111/http://www.stokegifford.org.uk:80/history/A_Brief_History.shtml to http://www.stokegifford.org.uk/history/A_Brief_History.shtml
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 12:24, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
Is Alex Stedman a notable person from Stoke Gifford? What is his connection with the village? Was he born there? Does he live there? The source for Witness For The Prosecution, directed by Lucy Bailey, at London County Hall, says he was cast for an unspecified role. Did he actually appear? Was his performance mentioned in any review? Was that production reviewed at all? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:30, 9 July 2018 (UTC)a
- I can see reliable sources that document he's been in a notable play and that he comes from Bristol, but that's it. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:47, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
- Stoke Gifford isn't really "Bristol", is it? Perhaps he ought to try his luck over at that article, where I suspect he might have stiffer competition. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:52, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
- Well it's south of the M4, and east of the M5, so I would say it's "close enough" to count as Bristol these days. I think I was more annoyed with other people (not you, though) just edit-warring past each other instead of coming here first. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:56, 9 July 2018 (UTC) mbi
- So where's the RS that gives any connection with Stoke Gifford? I've failed to find one. 3RR is a bright line isn't it (especially for familiar-sounding new editors)? Martinevans123 (talk) 15:05, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
- Oh well. Thanks to User:Velella here, it now seems there is nobody notable from Stoke Gifford, whether or not they appeared in Casualty thirty-two years ago, nor whether or not they were the SatNav "Voice of UK" for TomTom in 2010. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:58, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
- I neither make any judgement about individuals or about Stoke Gifford. I simply apply Wikipedia's definition of notability to test whether the individuals listed meet those criteria. On the evidence given, they don't. As noted in my edit summary, writing the appropriate articles first and getting them through new article review is the best and only certain way of establishing notability. The reaction of the persistent and twice blocked editor who has added the contentious content many times to anyone challenging the notability of the additions, cause me significant concern, calling other editors "....you fucking nerd. I am adding vital content to the page. So get off your computer and enjoy the sun, you cretin" certainly isn't helpful. Velella Velella Talk 16:07, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
When did you first realise you were a cretin, Velella?I agree that's not the most promising way to go about adding material. Although I have seen unchallenged additions of "notable people" at geo articles, even though they do not have a WP article. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:25, 9 July 2018 (UTC)- Yeah, I can't find any source anywhere tying Stedman to Stoke Gifford, and I agree for consistency we should either have all of these "notable residents" that are at least sourced, or none of them. I think the "fucking nerd" bit probably comes from too much reverting and not enough discussion; if we'd come here and said "look, if you can't supply proof of what you've written, you can't add this" and they might have got the hint. Perhaps. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 18:17, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
- You're such a nerd, Threesie. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:27, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
- Yeah, I can't find any source anywhere tying Stedman to Stoke Gifford, and I agree for consistency we should either have all of these "notable residents" that are at least sourced, or none of them. I think the "fucking nerd" bit probably comes from too much reverting and not enough discussion; if we'd come here and said "look, if you can't supply proof of what you've written, you can't add this" and they might have got the hint. Perhaps. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 18:17, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
- I neither make any judgement about individuals or about Stoke Gifford. I simply apply Wikipedia's definition of notability to test whether the individuals listed meet those criteria. On the evidence given, they don't. As noted in my edit summary, writing the appropriate articles first and getting them through new article review is the best and only certain way of establishing notability. The reaction of the persistent and twice blocked editor who has added the contentious content many times to anyone challenging the notability of the additions, cause me significant concern, calling other editors "....you fucking nerd. I am adding vital content to the page. So get off your computer and enjoy the sun, you cretin" certainly isn't helpful. Velella Velella Talk 16:07, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
- Well it's south of the M4, and east of the M5, so I would say it's "close enough" to count as Bristol these days. I think I was more annoyed with other people (not you, though) just edit-warring past each other instead of coming here first. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:56, 9 July 2018 (UTC) mbi
- Stoke Gifford isn't really "Bristol", is it? Perhaps he ought to try his luck over at that article, where I suspect he might have stiffer competition. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:52, 9 July 2018 (UTC)