Talk:Reading, Berkshire/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 1 Archive 2

Enter Shikari

I've removed part of the music section which stated Enter Shikari were from the Reading area. It's a well known fact that Enter Shikari are actually from St. Albans.

Politcal/practical consequences of borough borders, and third bridge as a case study

I've extended the third bridge coverage in the transport section to include practical information about the location, etc. That should hopefully be uncontroversial! However, I’ve also reinstated and extended some of it to the Government section. My reasoning: it is merely a case study for a far more serious/large point. i.e. it's not actually about transport infrastructure, it's about the political ramifications of such a constricted borough. Perrhaps somebody can expand it further, and provide some non-transport examples? There's got to be plenty in areas such as potential locations for further housing developments TarquinSidebottom 23:51, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

ps. Wikipedia is complaining that the article is too long. Time to start splitting it in to sub-articles? TarquinSidebottom 23:52, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

page location

I have moved this from 'R, England' to 'R, Berkshire' to conform to standards (as per move of Canterbury and Christchurch pages). --Joe D 00:16, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)

John Madesjki

I've removed John Madejski from the list of notable Reading people, as he was born in Stoke-on-Trent. Deadlock 18:20, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Apparent vandalism by

I've just reverted what I thought was vandalism by an unsignedin user on IP, which replaced (pronounced to rhyme with bedding) with some unprintable characters. However looking at other changes made at the same time, I wonder if this was vandalism or perhaps a well-intentioned change without consideration for browser incompatabilities. I now know IPA is the 'International Phonetic Alphabet' (as well as 'Indian Pale Ale') so I suspect this was an attempt to display Reading's pronunciation in that alphabet; if so it failed because all I saw were a few funny square boxes. -- Chris j wood 01:05, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

It wasn't vandalism, it was, as you surmised, IPA. There are thousands of pages in Wikipedia that make use of characters that some browsers don't recognise -- you'll probably find you get the square boxes when you look at Tokyo, for example. If you're using a Windows PC then getting hold of the font Arial MS Unicode will enable you to see these characters (it comes with MS Office, don't know where to get hold of it otherwise). If you're using some other OS then I don't know what the solution is, but I'm sure someone does! Anyway, I've replaced the IPA, and to assist those without the necessary fonts, have added SAMPA pronunciation and kept the "rhymes with bedding" bit. It does look a bit messy now though; perhaps someone else would like to decide which of these should stay and which should go. --Lancevortex 10:03, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Thanks for that. I've kept the pronunciation info more or less as above, but made it a separate sentence at the end of the first para, which I think mitigates the messy look. -- Chris j wood 12:42, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I've reduced the messy look still further by removing the SAMPA - there should be no need to have this alongside IPA now that we've got the IPA template to make the IPA characters show correctly. I've also changed the cross-reference to refer to International Phonetic Alphabet for English which is probably more helpful to readers unfamiliar with IPA, as it explains what English sounds are represented by the IPA. rossb 10:27, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)


In accordance with the guideline Wikipedia:Categorization, in particular the sentence:

"An article with the same name as a category should usually belong only to that category, for instance, Deism belongs only in Category:Deism."

I've moved the categories for the article Reading, Berkshire up to the owning category Category:Reading, Berkshire. Please let me know if this causes a problem. Thanks, Ian Cairns 00:16, 25 November 2005 (UTC)


The article states:

People from the town are known as "Redingensians."

Are they really. I think you would get some pretty odd looks from the average man in the street in Reading if you called them that. In 30 years living in the town, the only context I've ever heard the term used in is to mean a former pupil of Reading School. Even in that context, I think it is rather affected. -- Chris j wood 20:42, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

No response on that in over 10 days, so I'm removing the statement. -- Chris j wood 21:26, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
I concur. My understanding is that it is only used in relation to the F.C.--Duckbill 22:05, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
Aren't Redingensians a Rugby club. Also i've lived in Reading all my life and I must also concur.--Peidu 23:36, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
I concur, and can confirm that Redingensians are indeed the name of former boys of Reading School.--TheIslander 23:07, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
I *think* we're known as 'Readingites, but I'm not sure enough to edit.
I'm sure a collective term has been invented at some time in the past in the same way that it was once a popular hobby to invent such terms for groups of birds and animals, but I'd be suprised if anyone had ever used it in preference to 'people of Reading'. If such a term does exist, I've yet to come across it and I really don't think it would merit inclusion. Mighty Antar 17:19, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
This has crept back in somehow...I have deleted a_boardley (talk) 13:57, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Emmer Green

Surely Emmer Green is spelled "Emmer Green", i.e. both words with initial capitals.

I have just moved the page "Emmer green" to "Emmer Green", and will now update the links to it.

--Duckbill 11:42, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Encyclopedia not travel guide

The paragraph:

BEYOU [[1]] is Berkshire's Lesbian & Gay Information Network and contains information and resources covering a wide range of issues. There's information, addresses and links to local groups, safer sex sites, bars, clubs, magazines and much more. There are two notable gay bars, The Wynford Arms [[2]] and The Granby [[3]] public house. Reading also has its very own Gay Pride [[4]] which is held annually in King's Meadows.

has a number of problems:

  1. it's in a section "History", when it is nothing to do with Reading's history
  2. part of it relates to Berkshire, not Reading
  3. it's bordering on micro-detail, and travel-type information

So I'm going to remove it. The issues listed above should be addressed before re-adding is considered. --Duckbill 12:02, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree. This article is starting to blur the distinction between an encyclopedia and a travel guide, and I think we should resist the temptation to list individual shops, restaurants, utility providers, etc. unless there is a good encyclopedic reason to do so. There is an article on Wikitravel for Reading, and this kind of information would, I'm sure, be very welcome there. See Wikitravel on Reading. -- Chris j wood 12:18, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Bad paragraph in history section

The paragraph

Listed companies headquartered in Reading include BG Group, Wolseley and Yell. Other large employers in the area include Information and Communications Technology (ICT) giants like Microsoft, Hewlett-Packard and Oracle, as well as financial services giant Prudential and shaving products company Gillette. The town also hosts two annual music festivals — Reading Festival and WOMAD and an annual Gay Pride event. [5]

appears at the end of the History section, but is not related to the history of Reading. It is a brief description of major business concerns in Reading, some major festivals, and recently a mention of Reading Pride, all of which are current things rather than historical.

So I'm going to remove the paragraph. The information could be re-added, but it should be in an appropriate section. Some ideas for sections might be "Business", "Commerce", "Industry", "Culture".

(My apologies to JonathanDempsey, whose edits have been reverted twice, it's nothing personal or untoward, it's merely a case of bad luck.) --Duckbill 17:21, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Confusion between town and borough

I've just had to correct the population figure in the borough summary box. For the record the population of the town is 232,632 whilst that of the borough is only 144,000. Both figures from the Office of National Statistics (see [6]).

I personally find it very confusing having one article covering both the town and the borough, when they are actually quite different animals. Even more so when the infobox is so heavily borough-only. But this is apparantly the standard where a town is a superset of its local authority. Anybody else find this confusing; should we split the article?.

If we do feel we should split the article, then we have a good case. Reading has the largest discrepancy between town and local authority of any place in the UK. -- Chris j wood 10:58, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

If we split the article into Town and Borough, would each of these two new articles have sufficient content to merit being an independent article? Duckbill 17:05, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I would have thought so... There are enough places and info for both.--Peidu 17:50, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Suggestions for somebody with more time

A music with discussions of the Reading Festival and Womad would seem to be two fairly significant omissions. When I've been elsewhere in the world, one of those two is invariable why people have heard of Reading. For some history of Womad:,,765215,00.html

Under sport, the Snooker Grand Prix that ran for ten years at the Hexagon is proably also worthy of a mention.

Under education, Kendrich school is constantly coming out near enough the top of GCSE league tables warrent a name-check. As for a notable people, Stuart Price/Jacques Lu Cont/Les Rythmes Digitales is generally quoted as growing up in Reading.


I've tried to expand the culture section, but having taken note of the discussions of the Wikitravel page I'm unsure about how much detail to include. For the moment it's very brief, but it might be nice to list such things as the arts centres, galleries, etc.

I'm also unsure about listing particular bands such as Exit Ten and Sylosis - why not the many other bands that are based in Reading and that have found, depending on your definition, a moderate degree of success? Perhaps just link to Josaka for current local bands?

Notable people

I've reverted Will McBride - he isn't notable enough to have a Wiki article, and he was placed in the wrong alpha order anyhow. Ian Cairns 00:26, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Bet Tickner (Labour Councillor for Abbey Ward) was made Mayor of Reading for 2006-07. Grant S, Reading.


The related Category:Reading MPs has been nominated for deletion. You are encouraged to join the discussion on the Categories for Discussion page.

--Mais oui! 09:39, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Recent split

With respect to the recent split (which went against long-established convention on this issue, not that it's necessarily bad just for that reason), I ask people to read my question on Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_UK_subdivisions about this issue and invite comments. Morwen - Talk 23:01, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Both articles start by telling us they about the unitary authority of Reading. This is not exactly ideal. MRSC 23:28, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
I have commented further at Talk:Reading (district). MRSC 06:50, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
I have also commented further at Talk:Reading (district). -- Chris j wood 14:34, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Government section

I've just actually read the government section in greater detail, and noticed it says that Reading was made smaller in 1998! Which is just nonsense on stilts. Reading became a unitary authority on exactly the same boundaries as it had before, as did the other five districts of Berkshire. Morwen - Talk 13:37, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

this edit introduced this nonsense. i'd say you can't make this up, but evidently someone did. Morwen - Talk 13:43, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

New infobox

So, anyway, if the new infobox is for "Reading the urban area", surely it should mention West Berkshire and Wokingham districts. Fundamentally, this infobox was made for small localities, not big ones. Morwen - Talk 14:18, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

That is a good point. I agree that the Administration section of the lead infobox should make reference to the other authorities. Any ideas on how to make this template do that, or a better template to use. -- Chris j wood 18:54, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
also, the population figure is the Reading Urban Sub-area of the Reading/Wokingham Urban Area. Reading Urban Area could easily be taken to include Wokingham. Morwen - Talk 14:21, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
I think the very fact that the ONS gave the names it gave ('Reading Urban Sub-area' and 'Reading/Wokingham Urban Area') gives the lie to that idea. They clearly felt that Wokingham is not in Reading; but that places like Woodley and Earley are. And I think that pretty well matches the way local people use the names, at least when they are not trying to score political points. We have had no other significant complaints on this in nearly three months; I suggest we leave the area definition as it is.-- Chris j wood 18:54, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
It might be better at least to put the first infobox a little further down. When I first looked at it I didn't realise the borough one was still there and assumed the article was now about a "Reading locality" rather than the borough. Now I see it is about both with two infoboxes I don't think the first one should be given such primacy as to be at the very top. MRSC 16:23, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
There has been quite a lot of discussion about this. The initial attempts involved splitting it into two articles (one for the place, the other for the local government area). But WP has an oddly asymetric policy on doing this; it is fine where the place is smaller than the LGA (eg Wokingham / Wokingham (district)), but it is deprecated where the place is bigger than the LGA. Given that we must have a single article, it seems to me that the 'place' has the stronger correlation with the name and should go first (this is backed up by a precident with the 'place smaller case': the place always gets the undisambiguated article name). If we were to move both boxes down, I'm not sure what we would put at the top. -- Chris j wood 18:54, 21 January 2007 (UTC)


I have clarified info on Reading suburbs as best I can. However, I am having trouble finding details of the exact boundaries of Holybrook parish. I would be grateful if someone could check this out. Verica Atrebatum 21:04, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Found it on the West Berkshire website. All seems to be OK. Verica Atrebatum 21:14, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Oracle Corporation

User:Brother Francis just removed a comment that said, effectively, that the Oracle is not named after Oracle Corporation. I agree with the edit, but wonder if something along these lines should still be mentioned: Oracle have a large office just outside Reading, and I have heard people on the train commenting "oh, is that the Oracle, then?" as the train rolls by the offices. I haven't tried an edit myself because I'm not sure how to phrase it... GDallimore (Talk) 13:36, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

It's an interesting point but I, regretably, also have difficulty seeing how best to clarify things. I toyed with the idea of have the reference to Oracle followed by a, "For The Oracle shopping centre see elsewhere in this article," (and vice versa) but that seemed clumsy. A fairly crude solution would be to have a section called "Two Oracles". I think would be out of character with the remainder of the article but maybe this is an unusual siuation and by saying "two Oracles" it would make that fact clear. Is Reading unusual in having two such prominent, closely named yet unconnected enterprises? Brother Francis 18:39, 19 April 2007 (UTC)


At some point the article was amended to include the following:

Suburbs within the borough include:
Suburbs in West Berkshire include:
Suburbs in Wokingham District include:

I have fairly ruthlessly copy edited this, to something much closer to the earlier alpha list of suburbs, albeit with the addition of some additional suburbs from the above list. I have done this because:

  • Interesting as the apportionment to old ecclesiastical parishes is, I don't believe it has a particular bearing on these places as suburbs.
  • The apportionment clutters up what is supposed to be a simple and accessible list.
  • I'm not sure that Battle, Churchend, Kentwood, Norcot are really suburbs. I've never heard anybody say 'I'm going to Battle/Churchend/Kentwood/Norcot'. Battle is a ward; Kentwood Hill and Norcot Hill are roads. But suburbs - debatable.

I'd suggest that the ancient parish apportionment is best handled by text in the suburb article, and perhaps by creating articles on the parishes, rather than cluttering up this section. If other editors are attached to Battle/Churchend/Kentwood/Norcot as suburbs, I'm cool with re-adding them. -- Chris j wood 14:24, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Canadian Connection

A national radio program on national broadcaster CBC called As It Happens refers to Reading on a regular basis. Many years ago, one of their reports included a reference to a certain UK village being "x miles from Reading." Since that time, particularly when concluding a more humorous report about someone who resides in the UK, the hosts will usually conclude that the town of residence is "x miles from Reading." I don't know if this has a place in the article, but if you are interested, here is the link that confirms this practice: Risker 13:29, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

As It Happens is a newsmagazine show heard every weekday in Canada (and in much of the US via NPR), and has been doing this for nearly 40 years now. EVERY location they mention in the UK is straight-facedly noted in terms of its proximity to Reading. In her book about the show, Mary Lou Finlay notes that some Canadians visiting the UK specifically arrange to see Reading while they're there, simply because of the shows frequent mentions of the town. (talk) 19:31, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

University town

I very much disagree that Reading is a 'university town'. It dosent have 2 universities, it has 1 and then 1 section from another uni (TVU). Also, take a look in the town centre on any typical day.. it is far from student orientated in both shops and people. If anything, students in Reading are the minority to the different ethnic groups that reside here. Also i tend to find that as Reading uni is a campus uni, the students very rarely come into town to socalise, instead many of the pubs and clubs are filled with Reading Locals.

"University town" has pretty much lost all meaning these days. Any old town has got a university now, I think even Swindon will be getting one soon. I think Reading caters for all groups of people pretty well. It's not as heavily student orientated like Southampton or Oxford. It must be noted a lot of those in minority ethnic groups are, in fact, students. Marky-Son 18:13, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
Reading does indeed qualify as a University town, as it has a wacking-great University campus in the middle. Also, (in a sense), we do now have two universities, in the form of UoR and TVU'. Reminder to the original poster: always sign your comments on wikipedia with ~~~~, which Wikipedia automatically converts to your username and a timestamp. TheIslander 19:08, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but i still totally disagree that it is a university town. The Uni of Reading is not 'in the middle', it is quite a bit out of town centre and infact has a whole area to itself called the university area. The TVU campus certainly dosent add to the 'university town' as it is only a small campus itself and was originally (and still really is) just a collage. Take a look at the demographics of Reading.. it is deffinatly NOT filled with students to call it a 'university town' —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:27, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the University of Reading is fairly central - there are many areas of Reading that are much less central. Also, it might have it's own area (Redlands / Whiteknights, certainly not called 'University Area'), but again, how does that stop Reading being a University town? Regardless, where have you gained this view that to be a University Town, a town must have more than one University? I'm still very much of the opinion that Reading is a University town. TheIslander 19:35, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I dont particularly think a town has to have 2 universities to be a 'university town'. I do however think that the university and its students must have a strong presence within the town to make it so. This just isnt the case in Reading where the student community is very rarely seen activly around town. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:26, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree, but can you try and reach a concensus on the talk page, next time, before removing something please? Look at College town, it seems to disagree that Reading is a university town, both in the definition, and the list of UK university towns. It seems to me a university town is one totally dominated, and most famous for, its university, i.e. a small town with a big uni. Reading does have 2 medium-sized universities, but this is perfectly normal in such a large town. If merely having a university qualifies a place as a university town then surely even London is one as well. I've looked at other nearby towns and cities that have universities, and none of them mention being a university town. Marky-Son 12:56, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Agree with Marky-son —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:31, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

TVU, despite the name, is not a university! It's a 6th form college82.15.248.153 (talk) 18:58, 13 June 2009 (UTC)


I think this article should be split into two seperate articles. It has been suggested before, but not acted upon. I think we need:

  • Reading dealing with the central, specific town.
  • Reading (borough), the local government district (which is currently a redirect page)

This approach would aid in streamlining some of the bulky, complicated and contrasting definitions and text, and bring it inline with other parts of the UK (Oldham/Metropolitan Borough of Oldham, Lancaster/City of Lancaster, Leeds/City of Leeds, Salford/City of Salford, Macclesfield/Macclesfield (borough), Dartford/Dartford (borough) etc etc etc).

Alot of the text is good, but its in breach of the UK settlement heading guidelines, and I think this split will help solve this. If the article is not split, then it should use the local government infobox rather than the settlement infobox in the top right. Jza84 01:44, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

From your comment (especially the quote 'dealing with the central, specific town'), I suspect you have misunderstood the issue here. The issue isn't that we have a central, smaller town with a larger local government district named after it. Rather we have a 'area-wise' very small borough, which doesn't cover the whole of what in normal usage is described as the town of Reading. As you say, the guidelines quite clearly cover the former situation, saying there should be two articles. But (IMHO) rather perversely, they imply that the 'local government smaller than town' should be covered by a single article. There was quite a long debate on this a while ago at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_UK_subdivisions#Splits_where_borough_is_smaller_than_urban_area which you may care to read. -- Chris j wood 16:56, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
Returning here after some time, it's no skin of my nose by any means, but thought (and, regardless of wider "town" boundaries, kinda still do) that the split would have been much more suitable. But, if there's no desire from elsewhere for a split I can live with the current set up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jza84 (talkcontribs) 14:24, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

01189 problem

01189 problem may belong in this article, or one of them. It's up for deletion here. Frankly, if you're not interested, I don't see why anyone would be. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:45, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

location of the Oracle gates

User: added the following to the text about the Oracle: "but usual reside in the main hall of Kendrick School, a girls' grammar school set up from money from John Kendrick's Will". As well as being grammatically odd, I'm not sure if it's true. Should it be reverted? Lancevortex (talk) 13:20, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Names of articles describing villages in the Borough

Please contribute to the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK geography#Olney, Milton Keynes; Caversham, Reading; Wanborough, Swindon. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 20:35, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Discussion has been settled. Result: use ceremonial counties for disambiguation of places, and in a geographic frame of reference, see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK geography#Olney, Milton Keynes; Caversham, Reading; Wanborough, Swindon. Mpvide65 (talk) 22:11, 26 August 2008 (UTC)


The article went four sections before its first reference, and is generally very low on them. I am not doubting authenticity generally speaking but this is Wikipedia and all claims must be referenced. Just needs a going over finding external sources for all the facts (particularly historical ones I guess). Will do my bit over time but please contribute as you feel able. Have added a Refimprove tag at the top to flag it.a_boardley (talk) 13:50, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't know how many have been added since you wrote that, but I don't think that an article with 43 references can be called 'generally very low on them'. That is not to say that some sections and paragraphs are not low, if not totally deficient. But I don't think a Refimprove tag at the top of the article helps there; much better to use the Fact tag on individual sentences, or Refimprove in its section specific mode. I've remove the top level tag; added a few fact tags. If I've missed any areas you feel strongly about, please do the same.
Incidentally, the first two paras are in the article lede, which ideally should just precis information found later. Provided this is the case, and the following detailed information is properly referenced, then it is not unreasonable for such paragraphs to be unreferenced. And there is at least one reference in the third para. -- Starbois (talk) 15:10, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
The article has certainly improved since then. It's good to see so many refs added and I'm happy for the Refimprove tag to be removed. Fact tags are certainly the way forward now, I shall add them when I see the need and encourage you to do the same. Thanks for your help a_boardley (talk) 15:56, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Minority-Majority status.

I don't understand the unsupported claim in the second paragraph about Reading being a minority-majority town. The stats lower down the page clearly contradict this. Did someone get Reading confused with Slough? (One time passerby-poster) —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:45, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I've deleted the claim from the page; as you say it's highly dubious and shouldn't be in the article without a reference. Lancevortex (talk) 11:52, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

The Town of Reading during the early part of the Nineteenth century (1910)

An interesting book now available for free download:

QuentinUK (talk) 11:21, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Class: C

The main problems with the article are:

  • excessive detail in a number of sections that needs ruthless trimming to a succinct summary
  • two infoboxes need to be replaced with one {{infobox settlement}}
  • some sections are completely unreferenced
  • there are bulleted lists (districts, media, transport) that need to be turned into prose
  • some sectons needed, see WP:UKCITIES

The vast majority of what is needed is already there, just needs editing. MRSC (talk) 05:11, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

There are two infoboxes because they deal with completely different entities; one is the town, one is the local authority. In other parts of England such cases are dealt with by means of two separate articles; consider, for example, Wokingham/Wokingham (borough) or Slough/Slough Borough Council. Perhaps the content specific to the local authority should be split out in similar fashion; I note that Reading (borough) already exists as a redirect to Reading. --Redrose64 (talk) 14:09, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
This split has already been done once, and then reversed. There is a discussion on it at Talk:Reading (district), which also explains why and where there are two infoboxes. I don't think there is a particularly good answer to this, and I rather suspect that the current consensus maybe the best approach. I'm very surprised that 'two infoboxes' is cited as a reason for category C and rather wonder what policy or guideline it breaches. -- chris_j_wood (talk) 13:48, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
Instead of removing content which makes this page overly long, how about splitting it in to sub-articles such as Transport in Reading and similar? Alzarian16 (talk) 14:20, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

New image?

The image of St Laurence's and the old Market Place area is nice but doesn't give the best first impression of the 'new' Reading that's developed over the last 10-20 years. I was thinking a montage image like many other towns and cities, like Oxford or Southampton - we could include:

  • image of the Oracle riverside at night
  • new office buildings like the Blade/Green Park
  • the Town Hall and St Laurence's
  • panorama of the Abbey ruins, or other listed buildings (e.g. all of Queen Victoria Street)
  • the Maiwand lion in Forbury Gardens

Wouldn't take long to do and it'd give visitors a better impression than stepping out of the station to be confronted with the monstrosities on Station Hill! (talk) 13:37, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

A30 and Devil's Highway

"Reading may have existed as early as the Roman occupation of Britain, possibly as either a trading port on the River Thames, or an intersection on the Roman road connecting London with Calleva Atrebatum near Silchester."

Bad hidden hyperlink.

The A30 article does not say that it is a roman road. Reading is 12 miles away.

Calleva is not on the A30. The Roman road leading to it is the Devil's Highway. Reading's 10 miles from this.

The reference does not show any roads going in the direction of Reading from Calleva. Certainly Reading is not between Calleva and London.

Reading was not on the Thames. The first map, "The earliest map of Reading, published in 1611 by John Speed" does not even show the Thames. The later map shows very little is on the Thames with empty fields between it and Reading. It was originally, and still is, centred on the Kennet. QuentinUK (talk) 12:44, 20 June 2011 (UTC)


WP:NOTRELIABLE says that individual forum posts cannot be trusted but the has many posts from different people referring to Readingites. WP:ABOUTSELF says that forum posts can be used as reliable sources about oneself. The users of Reading Forum regularly refer to Reading residents as Readingites. Many are old pensioners who have spent a lifetime in Reading.

QuentinUK (talk) 10:47, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Actually it doesn't say "individual forum posts". Forums are never a reliable source for anything, no matter how many posts, and counting forum posts to demonstrate regularity or accuracy would count as original research. You may have a point as indicated in WP:ABOUTSELF, but I would suggest that this applies to articles that are about distinct individuals/organisations, and the posts are by those individuals/organisations themselves. Individuals in an unofficial forum can call themselves anything they like, that doesn't necessarily settle the matter for the general population.
But of course a better cite would settle the matter. Is the term ever used in local press? --Escape Orbit (Talk) 11:20, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
Found quote in local press. ps Counting, I've seen many discussions on Talk Pages where people count Google hits to win arguments. Is this allowed?
pps Neither of these terms is official for the general population. Google redingensians -rugby finds 8 hits all either rugby or Old Redingensians, the school.
QuentinUK (talk) 16:32, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
Google hit counting is (bad) original research. It should only be used as a vague indication of notability in discussions, and never as a source or verification of anything in the article. If you're unhappy with the "Redingensians" feel free to remove it, or mark it as needing a cite. It's not cited so can (and should) be challenged if you believe it incorrect. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 17:37, 20 June 2011 (UTC)


Original article: "Older people have the Berkshire accent, which to many people sounds West Country, but young people sound more like London, but not like cockneys."


"The Reading accent is a mixture of Cockney and West Country.[8]"

QuentinUK (talk) 15:14, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Reading, Berkshire/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 20:15, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm impressed with the article. If it weren't for the "a copyedit may be needed" tag, I'd probably pass it now. That being the case, I feel obliged to defer to someone with some copy experience (my own articles suffer). I'm away next week, so I'm placing the article on hold for 10 days. That should be long enough to find someone or ask the Guild to look it over. The lead is also not quite representative - there are new ideas about 'the bs' accent and demonym not described in the article. In my mind, it's probably a case of finding them a place, or ditching them. The space then can be used for a better summary of other sections, with a more systematic treatment of the history, culture, religion and sports sections. On all other criteria, which in my mind are somewhat weaker than the "clear prose" requirement, the article passes. However, since the goal of Wikipedia would be to go beyond GA, there are some things I've noticed about the article:

  1. "Reading and its surrounding area is currently divided between the parliamentary constituencies of Reading East and Reading West. The whole of the town is within the multi-member South East England European constituency." ~ lacks a reference, which I can't imagine would be too difficult to find. Done
  2. The present tense in the "boroughs" feels wrong. (Copyedit issue.)
  3. "The application for city status is politically controversial, with some groups of residents strongly opposed, while others support the bid." is vague. Every plan has its opponents, and so the reader is left thinking: 1% of people, 10%, 70%? Is there some sort of local poll or even discussion which could give some indication? If so, this would be an improvement. Done
  4. The second part of the "definition" section is unreferenced. In fact, if you read the article top to bottom, we find discussion of this issue in part a few times, might be worth having a look at the way it's presented.yellow tickY Half done
    1. This issue is complex with the town and borough separate but merged into one article. Could not find any references defining the areas. BaldBoris 03:19, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
  5. Does Reading only have four twinned towns? Seems quite low. Worth fleshing out perhaps. Done
  6. See if you can update the "Districts of South East England" Navbox with the article's current location, so it goes black and bold rather than becoming a self-redirect. Done
  7. The "misquotation" section on the talk page. Please address in some way. Done

Good work on the summary sections, the article feels balanced and a reasonable length. These first six things are strictly voluntary, falling well outside GA requirements. Referencing is generally good, and I'll have a check of image licensing now, although usage seems good. [Edit: image licensing checks out, although some of the descriptions aren't perfect if you want to go on to FA.] Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 20:15, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm afraid you're out of time. Articles are only supposed to be on hold for a maximum of 7 days; any later was discretionary. It is now over two weeks, and I do not yet believe the lead represents a suitably summary; similarly, some of the concerns raised on the talk / during the copyedit are still hanging. Please consider renomination when everything is done and dusted. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 15:12, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Removed copy edit template

At some stage an editor has added the copy edit template. There has been a considerable amount of copy editing since then; and other changes seem to be being handled as a result of the review (see immediately previous comment section). I have no way of knowing whether this has resolved the issues that caused the template to be added, because the editor who added the template did not see fit to explain its addition, either here or in the history comment.

It seems there are only two alternatives here. Assume the subsequent edits do resolve the issue, and remove the template. Or assume they don't, and leave the template on forever. I have chosen the former as the lesser of two evils.

Please feel to replace the template if you feel it is needed, but please do also explain why. -- chris_j_wood (talk) 14:11, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Change of content during copyedit

While doing the copyedit requested on the GOCE Requests page, I've removed the statement "and therefore for its population size unrivaled in the world with regards to number of languages spoken in one town" because it isn't in the three sources cited and "for its population size" feels a bit weaselly. If there's a source, please acccept my apologies and restore it. --Stfg (talk) 13:56, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

I've also removed the statement "but all serve local trains only" relating to Reading West, Tilehurst and Earley stations. It was uncited and is false. --Stfg (talk) 19:15, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Agreed about the need to cite or remove. Intrigued by the and is false though, as I'm pretty sure the statement is actually correct. -- chris_j_wood (talk) 10:21, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
I guess it depends what you mean by local. Trains between Waterloo and Reading, which stop at Earley, are hardly "local". Was the intention to mean stopping trains? That might be true, I think. --Stfg (talk) 11:04, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

I've removed the {{disambiguation needed}} template placed against "guild hall". The guild hall article provides a decent generic definition, which is all that is needed here. Disambiguation would be needed for a reference to "The Guild Hall" but not for "a guild hall". --Stfg (talk) 07:53, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

"In 2007, an independent poll placed Reading in the top ten retail destinations in the UK.[97][98]". I can't find anything like it in the first reference (which uses the word "top" just twice, neither time in this context). The second reference mentions an Experian report putting it 16th. I've changed it to that figure. --Stfg (talk) 08:12, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

"Reading is an important commercial centre in Southern England and is often referred to as the commercial capital of the Thames Valley." I've only tagged this for citations, but it seems like puffery and it might be best just to delete it (?) --Stfg (talk) 08:35, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Agreed about the puffery. I've replaced it with Reading is an important commercial centre in the Thames Valley and Southern England, which is I think is a reasonably summary of the (cited) info that follows. -- chris_j_wood (talk) 10:21, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
Looks good. (Be careful when there's an "in use" on an article, though. We didn't have an edit conflict, but could have.) --Stfg (talk) 11:04, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

I've removed quite a lot of wikilinks. The reasons are given in WP:OVERLINK. In particular: shouldn't link to common words; shouldn't link to the same article more than once (usually); shouldn't link to things implied by nearby links (e.g. Reading F.C. links to association football right at the start, so we don't need to as well). --Stfg (talk) 12:47, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

"and therefore for its population size unrivaled in the world with regards to number of languages spoken in one town" This is probably true because the BBC_Monitoring service is located in Reading and there they receive and translate a large number of languages, "more than 70 languages", from around the world. QuentinUK (talk) 03:47, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, quite likely. But that would be original research (and speculation) unless there's a source to cite. --Stfg (talk) 09:03, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

lead too short template

This template was recently added to the article. It expanded to the text:

This article's lead section may not adequately summarize its contents. Please consider expanding the lead to provide an accessible overview of the article's key points.

I have now read the lead, and the article, and I can see no obvious justification for the presence of the template. The first paragraph of the lead explains what and where Reading is, and gives a handle on its size. The second paragraph précis Reading's history, and says a little about it today. I'm at a loss as to what else you would want in an article lead.

The only criticism I would level is that the two paragraphs are over long. I've therefore split them both, so now the first paragraph explains what and where Reading is, the second gives a handle on its size, the third précis Reading's history, and the fourth says a little about it today. This neatly brings us in line with MOS:LEAD, which recommends a lead of 3 to 4 paragraphs for an article of this size.

Unfortunately the template was added without an explanation here. It may be that there is something missing I've missed, but without that explanation it is difficult to know what. I've therefore removed the template. -- chris_j_wood (talk) 16:00, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

It is the main reason why this article did not pass the GA review, so the question is really for the reviewer Grandiose. BaldBoris 16:34, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
Hmm. I hadn't noticed Grandiose's last comment (the timed out one) when I made this change. But now I'm not sure what to make of it. His earlier specific comment on the lead related to 'new ideas about 'the bs' accent and demonym', and you fixed that the day after he made that original comment and well before his last comment. I will touch base with him, and try and get more details on his thinking. -- chris_j_wood (talk) 12:17, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
No reply yet from Grandiose, but I have realised there is a chunk of stuff on Reading's early name that is not a summary of information later, and probably isn't important enough to be in the lead. I've moved this to the history section, leaving a rather sparse history para in the lead. Will try a sentence or two about the rest of the town's history. -- chris_j_wood (talk) 10:15, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
Grandiose has now replied here. I'm still not sure I entirely buy the need for a longer lead, but I've tried to add in a few obvious (to me) omissions. -- chris_j_wood (talk) 12:40, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Specific and generic wikilinks

Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (linking), links are useful when the article linked to adds to the reader's understanding of the present article; links to general words whose meaning is well known are unhelpful (as illustrated by this sentence - see what I mean? :)).

So what we need here, for example, is not a link to the generic article university, but to the specific one University of Reading, whatever text we use to introduce it. If it's wrong to hide a specific link behind generic text (but is it, if that helps to avoid stilted prose?), then it's the text that should be made specific, not the link that should be made generic. Hoping the edit just now has helped to achieve that. --Stfg (talk) 19:41, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Stfg. I personally believe in 'truth in linking'; the reader should not get a surprise when they follow a link, and I felt the previous texts and targets violated that. However you are quite right to point out that in my haste to correct that, I failed to consider the MoS's strictures on linking to general words. Had I spent a little longer thinking about it, and bearing in this is an article lead and there are following sections which do explicitly link, I would probably have deleted the links altogether and left just the plain text. However I'm cool with your changes too. -- chris_j_wood (talk) 12:12, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
Thanks Chris. --Stfg (talk) 12:18, 13 July 2011 (UTC)