Talk:Caversham, Reading

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Town Status[edit]

I'm interested that Caversham is described (and categorised) as a town. It isn't in the (admittedly not exhaustive) List of towns in England; it doesn't (to the best of my knowledge) hold a market; and a Google search reveals no sign of a town charter. All of which suggests it is really a village rather than a town. Can anybody provide a source or justification for this claim?. -- Chris j wood 18:15, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Hi Chris. As of just now, [www.caversham.org.uk] calls Caversham a village. Perhaps we need a category:Suburbs in Berkshire ? Ian Cairns 23:24, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Hi Ian. Maybe. I'd be happy to stick with Village for Caversham because of its previous history as an fairly independent place. I find it a bit more difficult to see doing that with say Whitley. Actually I would have preferred we didn't go down this Category:Towns in x/Villages in x route. -- Chris j wood 23:48, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
On second thoughts, I think Category:Suburbs of Reading may be more natural than Suburbs in Berkshire. -- Chris j wood 23:50, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Upper Caversham[edit]

Isn't the proper name for "Upper Caversham" "Caversham Heights"?

Without looking at a map my impression is that the Heights is some smaller area on the top of the hill (and should be mentioned in the article). Certainly, when living in Lower Caversham, we used to speak of Upper Caversham but while I don't think it included CPV, I'm not really sure where its boundaries lie. Part of the problem is snobbishness as people like the sound of "Upper Caversham" and might call where they live by that name, even if there is little historic precendence. What does a map tell you? --Douglas 19:14, 19 August 2005 (UTC)


Pronunciation[edit]

'sham' rhymes with 'pram'? 'Plum', surely. I've never heard anyone rhyme it with pram. --Deadlock 14:22, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

In British English, both "sham" and "Caversham" rhyme with "pram". Dan100 (Talk) 11:11, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
not if you live in the latter it doesn't, and it doesn't even rhyme with "plum" either! As with many placenames in England (Petersham and Horsham being examples) the "am" bit is hardly pronounced at all. It is more like "Caversh'm". Peter Shearan 14:29, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
Correct, the 'a' is a schwa vowel Mhkay (talk) 15:17, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

When did Caversham become part of Reading?[edit]

The article used to state that Caversham became part of Reading in 1911, but one of a series of edits by User: 86.131.98.96 has changed this to 1974. I havn't got access to any source material right now, but this sounds way too late. I recall reading that one of the conditions of Reading absorbing Caversham was that Reading agreed to build Reading Bridge, and that was built in 1923, making the 1911 date sound much more reasonable. I suspect the anonymous editor has confused the absorbtion of Caversham by Reading with a boundary change about that time that included what is now Caversham Park Village in Caversham (and hence Reading). Without harder sources I won't revert this change, however. -- Chris j wood 11:09, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

1974 is just a straightforard falsehood. The 1911 date is correct. I will try to find source for it. Morwen - Talk 12:00, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
http://www.berkshirerecordoffice.org.uk/collections/charter/charter_story5.htm Ian Cairns 12:07, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Buggs Bottom vs Hemdean Bottom[edit]

The captions on the photographs appear to suggest that Buggs Bottom and Hemdean Bottom are distinct places (specifically, that Hemdean Bottom is the part that has been built on, and Buggs Bottom the part that remains undeveloped). I believe this is incorrect, and that the two names are synonyms. (The Ordnance Survey uses "Hemdean Bottom", while "Buggs Bottom" is traditionally used by locals).

While we're about it, it's a minor local skirmish, but some account of the 1980s battle to save Buggs Bottom from development might not be amiss. Mhkay (talk) 14:42, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

In the Royal county of Berkshire (first few words)[edit]

The above old chestnut is an example of a peacock archaic description in my view being based on a generally more expensive, low density demographic area. It is mostly one of WP:TONE, so I am seeking other experienced editors guidance on how to address it in Berkshire. Please quote similar discussions or policy when answering. - Adam37 Talk 18:39, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Caversham, Berkshire. 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:

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

As of 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 {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • 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) 12:08, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Caversham, Reading. 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:

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

As of 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 {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • 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) 08:32, 29 November 2017 (UTC)