Talk:Bicycle-friendly

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cycling, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of cycling 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.CyclingWikipedia:WikiProject CyclingTemplate:WikiProject Cyclingcycling articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Transport

	Transport portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Transport, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Transport 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.TransportWikipedia:WikiProject TransportTemplate:WikiProject TransportTransport articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Citation needed tags[edit]

This article has been liberally littered with "citation needed" tags by User:DeFacto. Utterly non-controversial suggestions, such as the idea that cyclists may not like to use major arterial roads, are being flagged as unsubstatiated. These are not only uncontroversial issues, but ones for which it would be very difficult to provide a citation. What is a recourse in such circumstances? Can a contributer who diagrees with tags remove them? Must a higher authority be involked?

Cmsg 18:05, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

No, it's not a matter for calling the Wikicops. You've done the usual first step, which is to mention it in the talk page. If in a couple days nobody objects, take action. Since the whole section has only one tangential cite, some sort of flag is appropriate, but a profusion of flags rarely brings a profusion of citations, so better either to plant only one flag at the end of the section, or look for an appropriate section template. WP:CITE is one place to start looking. And of course it would be nice to be able either to replace the flagged phrases with unobjectionable ones or cite them or replace with a link to another article, but obviously there are cases where that's unnecessary, impractical or silly. Jim.henderson (talk) 18:53, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rating[edit]

I rated this article start; in my view the short sections are the most problematic for C-class.--EdgeNavidad (talk) 16:01, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]