Talk:Pembrokeshire Coast Path

Useless Coordiantes

Will the tit who bothered linking to THREE KML points either come back and flesh it out, or erase the links? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.145.64.229 (talk) 17:06, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Description of walking conditions

In the description section it states "walking is not strenuous". Having done the section from Newport to St Dogmaels yesterday , it was ridiculously difficult in places especially between Newport and Ceibwr Bay which is over 7 miles with no where to get off the path after Newport Beach, and also the section heading towards Cemais Head. I would go so far as to say to describe it as easy could potentially be dangerous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.41.63.213 (talk) 09:28, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Offshoot trails

Some of this section does not belong on the page. The lead sentence needs rewording if some are to stay. Llys-y-fran circular walk is not connected at all to the coast path, so its inclusion is more like a guide book and the image is not justified. SovalValtos (talk) 12:21, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

"Llys-y-fran circular walk is not connected at all to the coast path, so its inclusion is more like a guide book and the image is not justified"

 Done Tony Holkham (talk) 15:50, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Pembrokeshire Coast Path. 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 https://web.archive.org/web/20140603222000/http://www.pembrokeshire.gov.uk/content.asp?nav=838,839,1038&parent_directory_id=646 to http://www.pembrokeshire.gov.uk/content.asp?nav=838,839,1038&parent_directory_id=646
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20001204171900/http://www.pembrokeshirecoastpath.com/ to http://www.pembrokeshirecoastpath.com/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 20:13, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

"Notoriety"

An anon IP is seeking to add this:

The path gained notoriety as John Cooper was lurking in the bushes along the path choosing several of his victims.

without citations (but does offer [1] in an edit summary). I've reverted it twice, citing WP:UNDUE and WP:VERIFY. Apparently contrary to the claim that "several" of the serial killer's victims were attacked on the Pembrokeshire Coast Path, the article only mentions one couple (Peter and Gwenda Dixon) attacked on the path, though it does contain the heading "The Pembrokeshire Coastal Path Murders". The John Cooper article only mentions the word "path" twice (both in connection with this couple), and says The murders were known in the media as the "Pembrokeshire Murders" or the "Coastal Murders" rather than mentioning the LDP explicitly. Seeking consensus:

• Does this warrant mention at all?
• Is the claim of "notoriety" justified?
• Is it true that "several of his victims" were attacked on the coast path, or was it just this one couple?

Dave.Dunford (talk) 08:05, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

My opinion is that it does not warrant mention.SovalValtos (talk) 09:57, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

@ Dave.Dunford I emphatically agree with you; Certainly not to be included.
Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) (contribs) 15:10, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

I'd agree. Geopersona (talk) 04:30, 30 June 2022 (UTC)