Talk:Slough

Disambiguation

Slough (pronounced "slew") is a swamp, marsh, or shallow lake system in eastern and southeastern United States. In western U.S., a slough is a secondary channel of a river delta. In Southern California, a slough is a narrow, shallow salt-water marsh that may or may not be flushed by the tides.

The above seems like a dictionary def to me - what's its purpose exactly? Martin 15:44, 21 Sep 2003 (UTC

Disambiguation I guess? Probably since the UK Slough isn't the only slough in the world, there should be some "see also" type of indication of that. And it could serve as a stub for a possible future article on the ecology of sloughs. Marj 18:05, 21 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I think the above could grow into something more encyclopedic, along the lines of what is at wetland and swamp. It's a dictionary def for now, but it has potential. Angela 19:40, Sep 21, 2003 (UTC)

What I'd like to know is, how is the name of the town pronounced? Mathyeti (talk) 02:04, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Unitary authority

Why start with the temporary bureaucratic notion of the "unitary authority"? The town predates and will outlast it, and is what everyone but local councillors think of when they hear 'Slough'. -- Hotlorp 10:36, 8 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Some of the articles linking here do so in the sense of Slough UA rather than Slough the town. Maybe we need two articles? Martin 11:35, 8 Oct 2003 (UTC)

"Why start with the temporary bureaucratic notion of the 'unitary authority'?"

Hear, hear! There seems to be far too much importance attached to local government boundaries and similar things in Wikipedia articles on towns, to the extent that regular editors won't even acknowledge the proper counties but insist on incorrectly changing them to match the bureaucratic boundaries, as the comments further down this page clearly demonstrate. 87.115.56.207 (talk) 18:25, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Unpleasant

I find the article somewhat POV in presenting the town as unpleasant. It's really no worse that many other towns. -- Daran 13:50, 22 Oct 2003 (UTC)

I agree. It needs to be NPOVed. It's the best town in the world! anon (who'd want to admit to thinking that about Slough)

Mars factory

I reverted the claim that the Slough Mars factory was the original (opened by Forest Mars in the 1930s) - there was an earlier one opened by Frank Mars (Forest's father) in N. Oak Park Avenue, Chicago in 1929. Ian Cairns 13:46, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

ROBERT WATSON WATT

Robert_Watson-Watt lived in the town, as the inventor of Radar may deserver a mention here.

Citroën

The French car manufacturer Citroën had an important factory in Slough for many years, building Tractions Avant and the ID (DS) models. I don't have any more details, but Citroën lovers remember Slough for the UK spec cars that were produced there, so it would be worth a mention if anyone has more info.

POV removed

The following addition of the first para has been removed: "...generally regarded as the most depressing town known to humanity. Slough is also considered the ugliest place in the world. In 2006 a government enquiry was launched to investigate the possibilty of razing the town to the ground along with all its inhabitants. A government spokesman said "Slough is a blight on England's green and pleasant land, and the sooner we get rid of it the better." It was just vandalism. Dieter Simon 00:54, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

NPOV Problem

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Slough&diff=42332961&oldid=42185967

It might be an idea to make a more neutral revision of that edit ...

Fyver528 12:21, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

I've removed the first 2 paragraphs relating to possible reasons for the negative attitude to Slough. Hope this improves the neutrality of my post.

(Kwikblade 20:50, 6 March 2006 (UTC))

Changes made and direction of the article

Checking the History, you'll see that I've made numerous additions and have also reworked parts of the article.

Famous people associated with Slough has been changed to a chronological list from an alphabetical one. The History section has been greatly expanded and split into Pre-Trading Estate and Post-Trading Estate for ease of read, and also because I felt that it's creation was such an important event for the town.

Added the In Praise of Slough section to highlight positive points within the town, to counterbalance the Criticism section.

Vastly updated the Transport section.

Updated the introductary text and reordered it.

Updated and organised the External Links section.

Added the Twinned Towns section.

Added the Heart of Slough Project section, and I will be writing the article for that soon.

Added the Geography section and organised the suburbs into a list.

Kwikblade 22:09, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Criticism of Slough

In a letter to The Times published on Aug 31, 2006, a Matthew Dick writes 'Lest we forget, Betjeman retracted his less than favourable critique of [Slough] fairly shortly after making it.'

Can anyone properly source this and work it into the article?

how to pronounce Slough

Should the pronunciation be slow, not slau? I thought it was pronounced like "slaw"? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Flydaddyfred (talk • contribs) 03:46, 12 December 2006 (UTC).

No idea of the phonetic spelling, but it most definitely rhymes with plough, and not 'through', 'though', 'cough' or 'enough' !!!

And anyone who pronounces it 'sluff' as a joke is to be pitied (it is not a very funny joke).

EdJogg 13:19, 12 December 2006 (UTC) (former Slough resident!)

Which reminds me of the limerick read by Humphrey Lyttleton during a broadcast of I'm Sorry I Haven't a Clue:

There was a young lady from Slough
Who developed a very bad cough
She wasn’t to know
It would last until now
Let’s hope the poor girl will pull through

This should be added to the Cultural, artistic and literary references section when we can ascribe a broadcast date to it. (Need to double-check the text, too. This was pulled off another website.

EdJogg 13:19, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Slough as a suburb

Somebody has just commented that Slough is "a suburb of London", and that this began during industrialisation. I have never considered nor been aware of Slough being so. Would the author like to comment, and other people please have their say regarding this statement? Maramotus 11:35, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

- maybe I need to review my wording. I was trying to put across that for a while after the coming of the railway, Slough was seen as a pleasant but accessible retreat from London. I thought that 'suburb' was the right term in this context but I do take your point - one can hardly claim that mid 19th century London stretched seamlessly to Slough!

Please feel free to amend, or leave it with me for a few hours.Grblundell 13:13, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Charles Dickens

What is the connection between Charles Dickens and Slough? I cannot find any reference to Slough in the article on Dickens.

- try looking in the section 'From the coming of the railway to the founding of the trading estate' of Slough. Maybe this is a matter of more importance to Slough than it was to Dickens...

It's possible that the information in Slough is wrong. If you know better, then feel free to correct the article - that's the way it gets improved! Grblundell 18:04, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

My Dad's been on at me to change this for months. Apparently the cottage was not in Church Street, but somewhere else (still south of the High Street, but closer to Alpha Street, sort-of 'round the back of the Floral Arms', off the alley-way, maybe?). Can't remember the detail, but it's probably in Maxwell Fraser's book.

EdJogg 18:13, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Maxwell Fraser (p135) does reference this - but (1) puts the dates as Jan 1866 - Jul 1867 (not as quoted here) (2) puts the cottage (Elizabeth Cottage) on the High Street (3) points out that the link was not proved. I know that Dickens studies have come on since Maxwell Fraser, but in the circumstances, I've removed the section from this article. The evidence isn't really encyclopaedic! Grblundell 19:47, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Can't argue with that! (I will still ask if my Dad has better proof... ...although his information may well have come from his copy of Maxwell Fraser's book.)

Incidentally, for anyone who doesn't know central Slough, the location I suggested was just off the High Street, which has changed considerably since 1866.

EdJogg 08:37, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

New reference

For anyone interested in taking this further, a google for ' "charles dickens" slough ' turned up this web page: http://www.victorianweb.org/authors/dickens/pva/7.html

This is a report titled "Major Biographies of Dickens -- a Critical Overview", written by Philip V. Allingham, Contributing Editor, Victorian Web; Faculty of Education, Lakehead University.

The report mentions a biography of Dickens, written in 1991 by Peter Ackroyd, which the author regards as a scholarly tome. To quote directly from the report: "Very much a literary detective, Ackroyd also tracks Ellen's residences carefully, noting for example that in Slough Dickens lived near the Ternans under the alias Charles or John Tringham."

The biography in question is: Ackroyd, Peter. Dickens: A Biography. London: Sinclair-Stevenson, 1990.

Since it would appear that Ackroyd has done the research we are looking for here, it would be worth someone following up this lead.

EdJogg 09:21, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Incidentally, the article on Ellen Ternan does refer to Slough, mentioning that Dickens rented accommodation for her under false names (etc). The Charles Dickens article only mentions this particular period in passing -- probably because most documentary evidence of the affair appears to have been destroyed by the parties involved.

It would be appropriate for the Slough article to refer to Ternan and Dickens, but we need a good reference for it!

EdJogg 09:38, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

How about the fact that we can be sure that The 'Bentley's' publishing firm based in Slough was Charles Dickens' publisher?

Kwikblade 10:21, 17 June 2007

Local Government

Does anyone think a 'Government' section should be added after the history section? This would explain the type of local government that operates in the Slough Borough.

Kwikblade 20:20, 17 June 2007

There is an article on Slough Borough Council which is not as well linked from Slough as it might be. My feeling is that the best thing to do would be to move most of the local government content there - which should help reduce the size of the main article. I think it would be worth shipping most of the history into a separate History of Slough article too. Grblundell 17:11, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Ceremonial County

I have reverted the revision 159666585 by 217.43.178.248 which put the ceremonial county as Bucks.

There is undoubtedly a lot of feeling in Slough that the town should never have been put out of Bucks. But as a matter of simple accuracy, although there is no longer a Berkshire County Council, for Lord Lieutenancy purposes (which I understand is the test used for ceremonial counties) Slough remains in Berkshire. So whether we like it or not, this is what the article needs to say.

If we're looking for a parallel, it's perhaps worth noting that the Linslade article quotes that as being in Bedfordshire rather than Bucks where it historically lay. So it seems that in general Wikpedia reflects things as they are rather than how we would like them to be.

If there is document to demonstrate the distaste at Slough being listed with Berkshire, maybe that should be referenced in the article? Grblundell 09:10, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Slough still IS in Buckinghamshire, and was never "put out" of it, so the statement currently appearing that it was "formerly in Buckinghamshire" is simply wrong.

The 1974 local government reorganization was just that - a reorganization of the boundaries of local government, not a change of the actual county boundaries by government edict. The government of the day even confirmed that as being the case.

The fact that the official local government body concerned decided to erect "Welcome to Berkshire" signs in inappropriate places (when what it really meant was "You are now entering the area which is administered by the government entity known as Berkshire County Council") did not change that, although it's understandable that it led many people over the years to believe that the government had issued a decree that the actual county boundaries were to change, and that belief has no doubt been compounded by OS and other map-makers adopting these administrative boundaries, for reasons best known to themselves. 87.115.88.67 (talk) 21:23, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

The Buckinghamshire boundary change in 1974 resulted in the transfer of Slough from the county of Bucks to that of Berkshire. It was not just 'a reorganization of the boundaries of local government' it was a change in the county boundaries of Buckinghamshire and Berkshire. There would be no 'Welcome' signs put up by Berks CC as Slough has subsequently become a Unitary Authority and is not now 'governed' by Berks CC. There are plenty of solid references online which support this but if you are looking for some authority take a trip to the library and check out perhaps the best cited authority on boundary changes, Arnold-Baker who published in 1973 a guide to the Local Government Act 1972 which was the legislation which gave legal sanction to this change. Difficult to respond to what seems to turn into a rant but there it is.Tmol42 (talk) 22:46, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

The boundary change was for administrative purposes ONLY. The title of the Local Government Act 1972 states that it is "An Act to make provision with respect to local government and the functions of local authorities in England and Wales." The very first part of the act is headed "New local government areas in England" and continues "For the administration of local government on and after 1st April 1974 England (exclusive of Greater London and the Isles of Scilly) shall be divided into local government areas to be known as counties and in those counties there shall be local government areas to be known as districts."

That's clearly indicating that the boundary changes were for administrative purposes only. And to quote from the Association of British Counties site: "On 1st April 1974, a DoE spokesman said:

'The new county boundaries are solely for the purpose of defining areas of ... local government. They are administrative areas, and will not alter the traditional boundaries of Counties, nor is it intended that the loyalties of people living in them will change.'"

So the Local Government Act specifically stated that the boundary changes were for administrative purposes only (confusing the issue by having an alternate meaning of "county"), not decreed changes in the actual county boundaries, and this was confirmed by the DoE at the time. 87.115.88.67 (talk) 08:10, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the argument you put forward is flawed. I have added wikilinks to relevant articles, each with useful citations so you can follow the trail. The Ceremonial counties of England are I presume what you are calling 'counties' and are distinguishing them from Metropolitan and non-metropolitan counties of England, which is what you refer to as 'administrative areas'. In 1974 the Met and non-met counties took over from the Administrative counties of England. Ceremonial counties are defined as those areas for which the monarch has appointed a personal representative the Lord Lieutenant. The Lieutenancies Act 1997 determined that the county area over which a Lord Lieutenant would have responsibility would be coterminous with that of the local government counties. Under a separate element of this package of legislation in 1998 Slough became a Unitary Authority and one of six such administrative 'units' all within the boundaries of the ceremonial county of Berkshire. So even if it was the case after 1974 that Slough had remained within the ceremonial county of Buckingham, which it had not in my view, then all such anomalies were wiped away when the 1997 Act came into force.Tmol42 (talk) 11:35, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm not talking ceremonial counties as referred to in the link posted to the Lieutenances Act, or any other reference to "county" in administrative legislation, be it the 1888 act or any of the 20th century acts. These defined boundaries for government administration purposes. Despite popular misconception to the contrary, they in no way sought to redefine the ACTUAL county boundaries (of the "historic" counties, if you wish to call them such). 84.93.165.235 (talk) 23:09, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Having eliminated Administrative and Ceremonial Counties as the basis of your argument that Slough is still in Buckinghamshire I cannot see what is the rationale for your contentions. The term "historic counties" is used to refer to those counties formed by the Normans for (note) administrative purposes. These are partly based on the "ancient counties" developed during the Anglo Saxon period for government and administrative purposes. I suggest you read Historic counties of England. You will see that these counties have evolved through endless boundary changes enacted by royal whim or decree, and various forms of what one can only call national and local government. The crux of all this is that counties by whatever definition one chooses to adopt were originally formed as a unit of royal or government control and administration and the boundaries have been endlessly modified for the same such purposes and since their respective origins all have had bounday changes, some have disappeared and others amalgamated and one or both abolished, or were created, recreated and some abolished again. So many settlements have moved from county to county, sometimes involving moves from and to three counties, to try and argue they have today retained some kind of association with one of the previous counties they were once part is just a romantic notion. The conurbation which today is Slough started to expand from a set of rural villages only during the later part of the 19th and continued to expand from the early part of the 20th century. So reference to such ‘historic counties’ as a basis of why Slough was and remains part of Buckinghamshire is flawed. At the time of its growth part of Slough was in Middlesex and its transfer from that, now defunct, county to Berkshire occured at the same time as the major part moved from Bucks to Berks. So following your train of though it would be valid to argue that Slough is also still part of Middlesex as well as the county of Buckingham. If you intent to continue to contend that Slough remains in Bucks please could your provide a contemporary valid source for your argument. By the way in the meantime as per wiki etiquette please do not amend the article as you did just now.Tmol42 (talk) 10:15, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

If you read the various acts quoted above, you'll see that they refer to changes of boundaries for administrative purposes only. They in no way decreed that actual county boundaries were to be changed. This has been confirmed by the government on quite a few occasions:

"The new county boundaries are administrative areas, and will not alter the traditional boundaries of counties {.....}" - Govt. statment published in The Times in April 1974.

"I can confirm that the Government still stand by this statement, that the local authority areas and boundaries introduced in April 1974 do not alter the traditional boundaries of counties." - Michael Portillo, Minister of State for Local Government, 11th July 1990

"The Local Government Act 1972 did not abolish traditional counties, only administrative ones. Although for local government purposes some of the historic counties have ceased to be administrative areas, they continue to exist for other purposes, organisations and local groups." - Statement from Dept. of Environment, 1990

"I can confirm that these Acts (1933, 1972) did not specifically abolish traditional counties, so traditional counties still exist but no longer for the purposes of the administration of local Government...." - Statment issued by Dept. for Communities & Local Govt., August 2006

84.93.165.235 (talk) 14:17, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Once again there seems to be an outbreak of the "Slough is still in Buckinghamshire" campaign. I cannot add much more than I did above other than to say that none of the so called Government statements" have legislative or official Governmental status, they are just a selection of comments one by a Conservative Minister in the House of Commons, or unattributed statements from anonymous civil servant reported in newspapers. These quotes are oft trawled out as part of a long running campaign by such organisations as the Association of British Counties . As far as Wikipedia is concerned it is clear from discussions on the Geography Project Page etc that consensus was reached some time ago not to indulge such notions. The article make reference to Slough's historic association with Bucks in line with the guidance on writing about settlements.Tmol42 (talk) 18:24, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Then cite the legislation which decreed that the ACTUAL county boundary between Berkshire and Buckinghamshire was to change. And that is NOT the Local Govt. Act 1972, since it states clearly that it applies ONLY to the administration of local government. 91.125.81.99 (talk) 22:11, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Just go and read Wikipedia:WikiProject UK geography/How to write about counties. If you disagree with this policy go there and discuss why it needs to change.Tmol42 (talk) 22:21, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

I'll take that as a "I can't cite any such legislation" then. 91.125.81.99 (talk) 22:54, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Its not WP etiquette to attempt to put your own spin on what another editor has said which was perfectly clear and pointed you to the Wikipedia policy. I have already stated the legislation I am referring to more than once which I note you do not agree with. If you follow the link you will see why this is relevant legislation as far as this article is concerned.Tmol42 (talk) 23:12, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

What on earth is the deal with all the Wikipedia articles which seem to take only the bureaucratic view of what constitutes an administrative county, unitary authority area, etc. as being the only thing relevant? The information boxes for U.K. towns and villages don't even contain entries for the actual county, only administrative areas, official "ceremonial" counties, local authority areas, and so on. The lead paragraphs of many of the articles also completely ignore the actual county and refer only to these government administrative areas as though they're the only thing relevant.

Looking at the edit histories of articles for the affected places shows quite clearly that as soon as anyone tries to provide the full story, long-standing editors of Wikipedia immediately remove the reference as though they have some sort of agenda to collude with the local authorities in their attempts to eradicate knowledge of the actual county boundaries. Or maybe these editors all actually work for various government departments themselves. As the debate above demonstrates, all they can do is quote legislation which does not support their claims, and refer to Wikipedia guidelines, which are clearly flawed, no doubt because those guidelines themselves have been agreed upon by the same people who seem to think that government administrative areas are the only thing relevant.

The result is that many Wikipedia articles for U.K. places are simply inaccurate, and confusing for anyone trying just to find out in which (real) county a town or village is located. Apart from giving incorrect information to those who aren't already familiar with the British counties, the tone of the opening remarks of many articles gives an overwhelming feeling that the articles are more concerned with pushing local councils' self-promotion of their own administrative boundaries than with facts. 37.152.226.104 (talk) 22:26, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

A "citation needed" tag added for the claim then. Let's see those who believe that Slough was "moved" out of Buckinghamshire into Berkshire provide a citation to that effect. 91.125.63.235 (talk) 16:17, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Here's a URL showing that Slough was in Buckinghamshire: http://www.maproom.org/00/20/present.php?m=0270 . I should not add it myself as it's on my own web site. Maproom (talk) 22:31, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Methinks the sockpuppet IP is not in need of evidence that Slough was once in Bucks. Suggest we leave him to ruminate and no doubt regurgitate as is its habit.Tmol42 (talk) 15:45, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

That Slough was in Bucks. isn't in dispute. It's the "formerly" part which is wrong, since it still IS in Bucks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.115.80.143 (talk) 15:20, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Twin towns - Riga

I have reverted the re-introduction of Riga as a twin town of Slough as I asked if anyone could WP:VERIFY this as being true on 8 October. There was no response so I removed the statement on 22 October - a fortnight later.

It's important that everything in wikipedia can be proved - either to be true, or that we have good reason to believe it. So if Slough is twinned with Riga, then a reference needs to be included showing where we got the information from to let other people check it.

I hope this makes sense!

Cheers

Grblundell 08:27, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

This is going to keep coming up while Slough is listed as a 'sister city' on the Riga page and on List of twin towns and sister cities in the United Kingdom, although the parent (List of twin towns and sister cities) does not include Slough as a twin for Riga.

Interestingly, 'Slough' does not appear to be present on the Riga City Council website, nor Riga (or even Montreuil) on the Slough Borough Council site. I did find one non-mirror reference: (http://www.riga-life.com/info/info.php) but further googling required more refinement than I had time for. Also, a certain European site suggested there were 30,000 twinning arrangements between European towns/cities, and another hinted that there was no definitive list!!

EdJogg 00:05, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I have reverted 87.81.176.119's good faith reintroduction of this - the amendment note refers us to the Slough BC website, but not to which page - and my search of the site finds no reference to Riga. So it is still an unsourced statement. I'm adding a note to 87.81.176.119's talk page to ask them to reference the statement if they reintroduce it. Grblundell (talk) 10:29, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Making Slough Good

I only joined Wikipedia for this page. As a kid I asked my dad why was Buckinghamshire council office on Windsor Road? and was explained but is only a little ref in the history. I been on Wikipedia two holidays now and wonder why Slough isn't a Good article like other towns nearby?

I grew up in Manor Park with practically no history of the town I lived in, but I am trying to find good things for the article. Other articles have 50 references to the article - are we just so happy to be in Slough that this is enough?

Make 2008 a time to make Slough a good article - we could start by going to Wikipedia Peer Review and telling us why we are B rate. Bpeps (talk) 19:00, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Looking at wp:peer review we're probably not ready for that yet, but I am about to put a request on Wikipedia:Requests for feedback. If I've read that right then we should get feedback there so please keep an eye on that page to give us pointers on where to go! Cheers, Grblundell (talk) 15:31, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I've just given the article a quick blast of WP:UKCITIES, and done some converting of templates. I hope this helps! -- Jza84 · (talk) 21:32, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

as well as Jza84's most welcome changes, the following comments have been made on WP:RFF,for which many thanks

• Well I'd say it is in need of many more inline citations and the quality templates need to be addressed. The trivia section, for example, should probably be worked into the main article, where it is relevant.—RJH (talk) 21:03, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

• The list sections are the longest parts of the article, and the actual information sections don't actually have that much information. Maybe mix it all in some? Fléêťflämẽ 03:38, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I'll try to pick up more from RFF as and when. Grblundell (talk) 09:41, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Ethnically Diverse

I have reverted 78.145.138.176 's contribution as - it reads like weasel words - it isn't sourced

But the reverted statement isn't perfect either. I would add a citation request, but my phone declines to edit documents as big as 31k, and the text is in the intro...

Could someone please - source the current statement - define what we mean by 'ethnically diverse'? It seems to me that it is not a synonym for 'has a large non white population' - if a town was (say) 50% white british and 50% Tamil, it surely would be less ethnically diverse (two ethnic groups only) than a town that was 90% white british, 5% Tamil and 5% Maori (3 ethnic groups).

Many thanks Grblundell (talk) 10:08, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I've found the following page in the archive of the Commission for Racial Equality Ethnicity profiles: South East England - Slough. This starts like so:

Leaving aside London, Slough can claim to be the most diverse place in England. If you were to pick any two people at random from its population of 120,000, there would be a 62 per cent chance that they would be from different ethnic backgrounds.

I took a quick look around the site for the Equality and Human Rights Commission, the body which replaced the CRE, but could not track anything down quickly. There are many references to Slough, for example!

Perhaps someone else can pick up this and run with it?

EdJogg (talk) 13:25, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

In the case of Slough, "one of the most ethnically diverse" is really quite meaningless. Croydon, too, is ethnically diverse. Slough either is or is not the most ethnically diverse towns. It isn't according to [[1]], it is Brent. Dieter Simon (talk) 18:56, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Photo

I think the photo shown is out dated due to most the building have been demolished. I think I will take a nicer photo.

Photo 2 - Upton Court Park

The Photo shown on the page of "Upton Park" is not of Upton Court Park at all, it is a photo of the Long Walk in Windsor. It would be nice if someone could replace it with a good photo taken in Upton Court Park. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.64.182.158 (talk) 09:40, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

This image was sourced from Geograph.org.uk (just follow the link from the image), so getting the location THAT wrong is unlikely. This is especially the case since the photographer provided the first image for that grid square AND the first image for the Long Walk. A second image of the Long Walk (by the same photographer, also at Geograph here) shows that the trees are not close to the tarmac. Besides, I know Upton Court Park, and you'd be hard-pressed to take a better photo than this one!

Incidentally, this photographer has contributed 30-40 photos of the Slough/Windsor/Langley area to Geograph, so editors of this article may find further useful images in his submissions. -- EdJogg (talk) 11:56, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

The only problem is that the tower in the far distance looks very much like that of Windsor Castle. Unless someone can verify that this in fact Slough Upton Court Park, I have removed it. Dieter Simon (talk) 00:47, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

The question to be answered is whether you can actually see Windsor Castle from Upton Court Park, never mind what the caption of the photo says. Dieter Simon (talk) 01:08, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I think there is evidence for this image being formal avenue of trees in Upton Court Park. Try this....Google the Park on satellite mode and you can clearly see the avenue of trees, follow the line of the avenue south-west and you will find Windsor Castle. Windsor Great Park on the other hand is not such a formally laid out park as this and comprises much open pasture and wooded areas with wide rides and no street lights. Not exactly a verifiable source, I know but may help to tip the balance!Tmol42 (talk) 01:31, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Blimey, if an aerial photo of the park doesn't count as a reliable source then boy are we in BIG trouble!

OK, so I don't live in Slough now, but I learned to ride my bicycle down that hill! That is certainly Upton Court Park, and yes you can see the castle from the park. I was in Slough on the evening of the great fire at the castle, and you could see the flames from Upton Court Road.

Out of interest, I used Google maps to view and compare the Long Walk. The entire length, apart from a few odd trees within the castle grounds, is characterised by a large swathe of grass either side of the tarmac, before a fairly dense double line of trees on both sides. It is interesting to note that the main part of it is laid out with two types of trees, judging by the leaf colours.

Now, in Upton Court Park there is this very short avenue of not very many trees. And if you look at the photo here, there is a 'layby', for want of a better word, just opposite a park bench. Have a look in this close up of the google map and you will see the layby, look on the opposite side of the road at the top end of the layby and in the shadow of the tree is a shape that is probably the park bench visible in the photo. Finally, look at the shadows of the lampposts on the road - there are no lampposts on the long walk. Judging by the tree shadows, the photo was taken at a point roughly level with the southern end of the changing rooms (building)

So, I have restored the photo. (Sheesh!) -- EdJogg (talk) 02:15, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Well done, EdJogg, as long as you are saying that impressive-looking building in the distance isn't Windsor Castle, then I can rest assured. By the way, what is that building? Dieter Simon (talk) 00:15, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Would it help to refer to a map? http://www.streetmap.co.uk/idnewprint.srf?x=498400&y=177700&z=120&sv=498400,177700&st=4&mapp=idnewprint.srf&searchp=ids.srf&dn=575&ax=498400&ay=178700&lm=1 has Upton Court Park shown with an arrow. If you follow the line of the track through the park, you will see that... you can see Windsor Castle.

If this doesn't help, perhaps it's worth considering the following points:

(1) Windsor Castle is visible from more than one side. That means that (a) it can be seen both from the Long Walk and from Upton Court Park (b) the profile seen from each side will be different. For comparison you might want to look at Geograph pictures such as http://www.geograph.org.uk/photo/805890 from the Long Walk - which does not show the same profile as the picture from Slough.

(2) Isn't Wikipedia meant to be drawn from other sources, rather than our personal opinions or experiences? As far as I can tell from the above discussion, the picture was described in its Geograph source as being 'Upton Court Park'. To argue against this, we would have needed a more reliable source (or sources) than Geograph to say otherwise. Dieter Simon's view that it is not a picture of Upton Court Park was not - of itself - good enough reason to remove a sourced contribution to Wikipedia.

Just one last thing - I've corrected the caption from Upton Park (which is one part of Slough) to Upton Court Park (which is another). Grblundell (talk) 13:22, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you Grblundell, for your help. Mention of Windsor Castle could have been made at the very beginning - and still can: "Windsor Castle in the distance", or something to that effect. Not everybody who does not live in the area is aware of that. It is an important landmark, after all. This is an encyclopaedia, and we shouldn't expect readers of Wiki to go to various lengths to ascertain what they think they are seeing. We should do it for them. That is why it drew my attention to it. Dieter Simon (talk) 22:47, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Since this seems to be the problem here, I have modified the picture description at Wikimedia Commons to mention that the [tiny] silhouette in the distance is Windsor Castle.

In this article it is not visible enough to be noticeable at normal sizing, so probably should not be mentioned in the caption (which is already rather long). Incidentally, at Windsor Castle is a nice view of the façade visible from the Long Walk.

(fao Grblundell:) the caption links to Upton, Slough, which makes no mention of the park! It does however mention Upton Court, but without making it clear (early enough) that it refers to a building, rather than a group of people!

EdJogg (talk) 14:27, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Updated

Well I have tried to make the article look more user friendly interms of coding and reading. I have separated the orginial infobox into a more organised way at looking at data. I have redone some sections and added more details to some bits. Any spelling/language errors need to me checked. also we need more photos and details of Education institutions etc. Thanks.. --Sloughian (talk) 01:38, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Slough's Historic location

I have just reverted an edit which indcated Slough was 'historically in Buckinghamshire'. I am also posting here to encourage discussion on the Talk Page rather than in edit summaries. This edit was incorrect as the current town and/or borough comprises settlements originally in Middlesex that were subsumed into Slough as it expanded past them. This is all explained elsewhere in the article and in the History of Slough article. Positioned in the lead this unqualified statement is therefore inappropriate.Tmol42 (talk) 17:45, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Have clarified further following a helpful re-edit, may not please everyone I guess!Tmol42 (talk) 17:58, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Many thanks to all for the improvements. But does this need to be in the lead? If you had only just heard of Slough, would its historical counties really be among the things you most needed to know? Grblundell (talk) 19:55, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't disagree but having reverted and come here to try and cool things, the revision was made by the IP who was previously involved with the changes while I was writing the above so as this was constructive I was trying to encourage some consensus, hense my attempt to comprimise by qualifying the edit to be more accurate and also my added comment anticipating your comment! Frankly I am pretty neutral on which approach is preferable both arguements have validity in my eyes, a conurbation crossing historic boundaries is of some note but where to note it is a moot point. Tmol42 (talk) 20:31, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't see why we can't mention historic counties in the lead, as long as it is just a mention, no more detail than that. Oliver Fury, Esq. message • contributions 20:42, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

They are still current counties, not just historic, although from the various edits it seems clear that those with some sort of vested interest in the bureaucracy of current local government refuse to accept that. 87.115.56.207 (talk) 19:21, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

You have provided no evidence for your contentions which have already been aired before see above. WP has already decided on how settlemnts that have moved from one county to another should be dealt with and this article, follows these conventions. See WP:UKCOUNTIES. If you disagree youm should raise it on the Uk Geography project Talk Page.

Meantime please note accusing editors of vested interests is considered as a personal attack and will result in you being blocked. Additionally, you have conducted 3 reverts on this page within the last 24 hours and any further edits will be reported to the 3RR noticeboard.Tmol42 (talk) 15:31, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

It seems to me that those who assert that Slough was "moved" from Buckinghamshire to Berkshire refuse to cite anything which deemed it to be so. So let's see such a citation - If they can find one. 91.125.63.235 (talk) 16:19, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

The act of 1972 would appear to be a good place to start. Mr Stephen (talk) 16:59, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

That would be the act which explicitly stated that it was defining only new administative boundaries, i.e. those administrative boundaries which had only themselves been created in the 19th century. That would also be the act for which the government at the time even went so far as to issue an official statement confirming that it was only such administrative boundaries being redefined, not existing county boundaries. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.115.80.143 (talk) 15:24, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Town Hall

The Town Hall is only obliquely mentioned here, which I am surprised at. I just discovered an article about the architect Charles Holloway James, who apparently "designed the municipal buildings at Slough" (presumably implying the town hall.) I've linked here from his article, but it would seem appropriate to link the other way too.

EdJogg (talk) 12:34, 13 April 2011 (UTC) -- just passing through... :o)

World War II

Because of Betjeman's pre-war poem, Slough, I thought it meet to add in the History section mention of Slough's actual experience of air raids, directly and through the Emergency Hospital for London casualties. I have provided information based on CWGC civilian casualty reports for the Slough Municipal Borough. (The civilian casualties obviously would not include any service personnel killed in the raids.) I hesitate to judge them minor or major raids as I lack information about effects on townscape and industries (I am not local), and am aware some deaths could have been caused by bombs being jettisoned rather than targeted attacks. Users better acquainted with Slough's local history of the period can elaborate on my paragraph.Cloptonson (talk) 19:32, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Thing is while the casualty records point towards there having been air raids I don't think the records amount to a reliable source for what you have written. As we know Wikipedia firstly works off information which is verifiable rather than anecdotes or recollections even first hand ones. I think though it should be simple enough to find a newspaper article etc that will provide an account of events.Tmol42 (talk) 21:12, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

The Germans were clearly not Betjeman fans and hardly bombed Slough at all. https://www.sloughobserver.co.uk/news/18483578.bombs-fell-slough-ww2---see-road-hit/ Another source says that only 60 bombs fell on the whole area that is now Slough, only five of them on the Trading Estate. Seemingly 270 war-related deaths were recorded locally, but many of those may have been London air-raid casualties brought out to the Slough hospital. http://www.postcards-from-slough.co.uk/home/slough-at-war/world-war-two/ The Germans' reluctance to bomb Slough is curious given the Trading Estate's industrial importance. High Duty Alloys, on the Trading Estate, produced the Hiduminum alloy from which Rolls-Royce Merlin aero-engines' pistons were made, and German documents suggest that they were aware of High Duty Alloys and its location. There was a single large explosion at HDA just after 11pm on 13 July 1940, killing 3 workers and injuring 30. It was a completely isolated explosion, there was no other indication of a raid and no enemy aircraft had been detected on radar or heard overhead by locals (except one retired colonel who later said he'd heard an aircraft very high up making two passes), nor had the ack-ack opened up. The RAF's investigation file, now in the National Archives (it was secret till 1971) is titled 'The Slough Bomb Mystery.' The C-in-C Fighter Command, Hugh Dowding, thought the explosion was IRA sabotage. The government's Chief Inspector of Explosives said the crater looked like the result of an air-dropped bomb, but no surviving fragments of a German bomb casing were found. And quite how the Germans could have achieved such a perfect drop from high altitude, and quite why they would have used just a single bomb from a single aircraft on such a worthwhile target, was never established. Dowding did concede that there were two reports of 'X Raids' that night, meaning raiders reported by ground or naval observers but not tracked on radar, one of which could conceivably have reached Slough just after 11pm. But the Slough Bomb Mystery was never really solved. https://cippenham.org/slough-bomb-mystery/ Khamba Tendal (talk) 22:57, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Inclusion of distance from London in Lead

There appears to be the beginnings of an edit war developing with regard to the inclusion or not of information concerning the distance of Slough from London. Can I encourage the editors concerned and other interested parties to come and discuss it here rather than endlessly reverting each other and or adding oblique edit summaries etc. Perhaps I can suggest a prior look at Wikipedia:WikiProject UK geography/How to write about settlements might be useful.Tmol42 (talk) 17:28, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, Tmol42, for directing me to that article. It seems to have a clear direction with regard to the above item with regard to its inclusion in the Lead. Rosemary Cheese (talk) 21:06, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
I consider the present version acceptable. Rosemary Cheese (talk) 21:15, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Shopping

There is no mention of the shopping amenities in Slough. This seems like an omission. FreeFlow99 (talk) 22:22, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 12 external links on Slough. 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/20070616142034/http://www.slough.gov.uk/documents/app5.pdf to http://www.slough.gov.uk/documents/app5.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20131104051209/http://www.slough.gov.uk/news/articles/19344.aspx to http://www.slough.gov.uk/news/articles/19344.aspx
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20150724205823/http://www.maidenhead-advertiser.co.uk/news/article-14142-progress-for-heart-of-slough-project/ to http://www.maidenhead-advertiser.co.uk/news/article-14142-progress-for-heart-of-slough-project/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090726015103/http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk:80/news/stories/331.htm?WT.hp=nf-37600 to http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/news/stories/331.htm?WT.hp=nf-37600
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20150724203905/http://www.maidenhead-advertiser.co.uk/news/article-15508-video-heart-of-slough-project-begins-450m-work/ to http://www.maidenhead-advertiser.co.uk/news/article-15508-video-heart-of-slough-project-begins-450m-work/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120225053917/http://www.c20society.org.uk/casework/press/release/slough-town-hall-listing-refused.html to http://www.c20society.org.uk/casework/press/release/slough-town-hall-listing-refused.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090205203050/http://www.bbc.co.uk:80/gardening/plants/plantprofile_pinks.shtml to http://www.bbc.co.uk/gardening/plants/plantprofile_pinks.shtml
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120902135404/http://www.greenline.co.uk:80/__80256E2700397232.nsf/vWeb/wpNPOK6CBKGE?OpenDocument to http://www.greenline.co.uk/__80256E2700397232.nsf/vWeb/wpNPOK6CBKGE?OpenDocument
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090521040214/http://www.crossrail.co.uk:80/80256B090053AF4C/Files/whatiscrossrail/$FILE/route+linear+map+september+2007.pdf to http://www.crossrail.co.uk/80256B090053AF4C/Files/whatiscrossrail/$FILE/route+linear+map+september+2007.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20141225010839/http://www.cpre.org.uk/campaigns/landscape/tranquillity/local-tranquillity-scores to http://www.cpre.org.uk/campaigns/landscape/tranquillity/local-tranquillity-scores
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110629092105/http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5012592041971395448&hl=en to http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5012592041971395448&hl=en
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120307165422/http://www.upmystreet.com/local/crime-in-slough.html to http://www.upmystreet.com/local/crime-in-slough.html

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 II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:31, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Slough. 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 http://web.archive.org/web/20160102012605/http://www.slough.gov.uk/libraries/485.aspx/ to http://www.slough.gov.uk/libraries/485.aspx/

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 II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:50, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Youtube nonsense

I've requested semi-protection, given the length of time this "isorrow" vandalism has been going on. Pinkbeast (talk) 16:35, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 April 2018

Add to TRANSPORT

Western Rail Access to Heathrow, <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_Rail_Approach_to_Heathrow>, is a £500m rail project announced by the DfT. The proposed rail link would directly serve Slough with four trains every hour - reducing travel times from 45 to six minutes.

Link to Western Rail Approach to Heathrow needs updating to the wikipedia page. Current link does not work

Canal Slough is connected by the (Grand Union) Slough Arm to the Grand Union Canal. The Slough Arm travels from the terminus basin at Stoke Road to the junction at Cowley Peachey, and from there on to the Thames at Brentford or northwards towards Birmingham. Realguides (talk) 14:04, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Note: If you make one more edit in other pages, I am sure you can be able to edit this page, why not give it a try?  — Ammarpad (talk) 03:31, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Done. I've reworded it because I'm like that, and added a cite I nicked from Slough Arm - a 404 but perhaps one of the archive.org bots will sort it out. Pinkbeast (talk) 02:00, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

@Pinkbeast: perhaps one of the archive.org bots will sort it out Or perhaps a human will :). An aside, I think I might have met Richard Hill once donkey's years ago. I was surprised to see a source written by him used here. Adam9007 (talk) 02:19, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

That's good too, thank you. I tend to think of that as one of those things, like sorting out the bare URLs I dump as refs, which I leave to people - ahem - less lazy than me. Sorry about that. Pinkbeast (talk) 19:40, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Update to NEGATIVE PERCEPTIONS OF SLOUGH

Despite historical perceptions, Slough has a crime rate comparable to similar areas. In the year ending September 2017, Slough had a crime rate of 88.12 police recorded crimes per 1000 population. This was less than Stevenage, Cardiff, Bristol and Southampton. In the year ending September 2017, the crime rate in Slough was higher than average for the Thames Valley force area. Slough had the third highest crime rate in the area after Oxford (100.71 police recorded crimes per 1000 population) and Reading (96.12 for the same metric). <https://www.police.uk/thames-valley/N457/performance/compare-your-area/>

Statistics on Slough are out of date. Latest figures from Thames Valley police show Slough's crime rate comparable to other similar sized towns.

"Indigenous"

For the avoidance of doubt, re recent edits, it seems utterly pointless to me to insert a word in order to state that white British people are indigenous to Britain. It's also wrong; the degree of intermingling with the Continent over the centuries means most "white British" people are not remotely indigenous peoples. I suppose there may be someone in the depths of Wales who knows all their ancestors have been Welsh since before the Roman Conquest... but I doubt it. Pinkbeast (talk) 11:00, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

The original poster is merely demonstrating a misunderstanding of the term 'indigenous', instead regarding it as some sort of marker of racial purity. It is not, nor has it ever been. If it were, then there would be no indigenous people on Earth. Indigeneity is about identity and connection to a land before the mass arrival of others. It is about possessing a connection to the land where one lives. Only white British people have this connection to the United Kingdom. Yes, there will be many who know that they have family who came elsewhere, but again, that is not a negator of being indigenous as the word doesn't mean racial purity. In Slough, 2/3 of the population know that their family came from elsewhere. Only 1/3 of the population will have grandparents or great-grandparents who lived in the United Kingdom, and that connection would go back for thousands of years. I fully support the inclusion of the word indigenous, and I hope that by its inclusion, ignorance as to its meaning can be reduced. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.148.30.253 (talk) 09:19, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

I see we are now in the frustrating situation where this nonsense is repeatedly added to the article in spite of clear disagreement by General Ization and myself, with zero talk page discussion by the editor adding it and no talk page discussion in favour _at all_ except the incoherent IP comment above. Pinkbeast (talk) 12:12, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

The logic that you have applied can also be used the other way, the English have had heavy intermingling with the Welsh/Romano-British and thus the majority can trace their ancestry back to the Welsh and perhaps (though I'm not certain to what extent Roman colonization influenced Welsh ancestry) to the pre-Roman Britons as-well. A large amount of Welsh ancestry could be traced back to the Romans too, which would make them not indigenous either even though Wales as a nation formed in Britain with heavy influence from the pre-Roman Britons. Of course the requisite ancestry is arbitrary, we could go even further back to the pre-Indo-Europeans and say that no Brit is indigenous, or even no European or Indian is indigenous because they're invaders from the North Caucasus, but then again, their nations formed in the lands they are in with undoubtedly much intermingling with the indigenous population. Of course to be indigenous means you are native to a land, Wales and England, formed solely in Britain and considering that the Welsh have large amounts of pre-Roman Briton ancestry and the English have large amounts of Welsh ancestry, I'd say they are justified in being considered indigenous by the standard of requiring pre-Roman Briton ancestry.Sudigoth (talk) 00:08, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

References

Lynch Hill School Primary Academy

I have suggested that Lynch Hill School Primary Academy should be merged here, as it is a non-notable primary svhool. Any comments and suggestions appreciated. Fob.schools (talk) 22:37, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Seems sensible. Pinkbeast (talk) 11:38, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Actually it is in the same trust as Lynch Hill Enterprise Academy so I have redirected there Fob.schools (talk) 11:50, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Town?

Slough has a population of over 100,000, so that would make it a city. HardeeHar (talk) 18:48, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

HardeeHar, Not necessarily; city status is not automatically granted in the UK. Adam9007 (talk) 18:50, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Slough councils website repeatedly refer to Slough as a city.

HardeeHar (talk) 09:27, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

HardeeHar, Where does the council website say Slough's a city? Adam9007 (talk) 14:59, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

"Why Slough? has been named the eighth most friendly small city for business in the whole of Europe" HardeeHar (talk) 23:34, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

HardeeHar, Where's your source? Adam9007 (talk) 00:48, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

I was quoting Slough council website, google it its not hard to find HardeeHar (talk) 01:21, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

HardeeHar, i couldn't find it. That's why I need you to give a link. Adam9007 (talk) 01:57, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

https://www.slough.gov.uk/search/default.aspx?q=Why+Slough+&s=slough.gov.uk HardeeHar (talk) 02:04, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Recent split to Borough of Slough

This article has recently been split with a new Borough of Slough being created. Does anyone have any opinions on whether this was wrong or right? Are Langley and Slough seperate towns or is Langley a Slough suburb? Eopsid (talk) 17:50, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

• My opinion is (weakly) that this is right since Slough (the district) contains 1 unparished area and 3 CPs as well as the boundary changes from gaining these areas. Crouch, Swale (talk) 20:07, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

  I don't support the split - the mere fact of there being civil parishes within the borough boundary as well as the unparished area doesn't necessarily mean that there's a clear enough distinction between the unitary authority and the town to justify the separate Wikipedia pages. The situation is similar to Oxford, Gloucester, and Manchester (and probably others too) all of which now include civil parishes outside their pre-1974 boundaries, but we don't have separate "Gloucester" / "City of Gloucester" pages etc. - the "City of X" pages are merely redirects. The broad principles on this are discussed at WP:UKDISTRICTS.

  In the particular case of Slough, I would also challenge the assertion made on the Langley page that it is a "town" - there was historically a parish of Langley, but the main built-up part of Langley parish was transferred into the parish and municipal borough of Slough in 1930. The reduced parish of Langley, just covering the residual rural areas, lingered on for another four years, before being abolished in 1934 with the area being split between neighbouring rural parishes. I don't see that Langley has ever been treated as a separate "town" for either administrative or post town purposes.

  Slough's three civil parishes are Colnbrook with Poyle, Wexham Court, and Britwell. The latter two were created in 1974 from the parts of the old Wexham and Burnham parishes that were being transferred into Slough to cover areas where Slough's urban area had already grown beyond its old boundaries. The borough council has tried to abolish these two parishes, albeit their decision was overturned in court. Colnbrook with Poyle was transferred in 1995 from South Bucks, and whilst I agree this area retains a clearer separate character, it too is classed as part of the Slough Urban Area by the Office for National Statistics.

  To my mind, the Slough and Slough Borough Council pages between them are quite adequate (albeit the latter needs some work as it stands) to cover both the geography of the town and its administration. Having a separate Borough of Slough page doesn't bring any additional clarity, but does lead to duplication and potential confusion. Stortford (talk) 06:32, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

  Agree Langley isn't a separate town but merely a suburb, its part of Slough BUASD. Perhaps the likes of Gloucester should also be split but that's another discussion. Perhaps like WP:UKDISTRICTS recommends Slough Borough Council (as well as other councils that have separate articles from their districts) should be merged to the borough. Crouch, Swale (talk) 08:34, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

  @Stortford: In the essay Wikipedia:Separate articles for administrative divisions to settlements#Tests I've mentioned about boundary changes, generally I'd assume that the 7 parishes being moved to Corby when it became a non-metropolitan district would be a major change and the movement of part of parishes in the designated new town in 1974 for Stevenage would be a minor change. Slough is more difficult because while parts of parishes (or unparished areas) were moved to the district they did become separate parishes which suggests it was a major change though for Slough I'd not recommend a 3rd article for post 1995 though this raises questions about what to do with Cheltenham that had further boundary changes in 1996 but I'd suggest the same thing as Slough if we decide to split. Crouch, Swale (talk) 16:43, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

  @Crouch, Swale - For settlements which share their name with a local authority area (such as Slough), I'd err on the side of having as few articles as is necessary to allow us to allow us to clearly discuss the settlement itself, the geography of the local authority district and the politics of its local council. It's entirely possible that all these aspects could be covered in one article. I'm not sure I follow on what basis a post-1995 Slough or post-1996 Cheltenham page could possibly be the answer - these are boundary changes, and even if whole parishes were involved and the area significantly changed, I don't see why a sentence or two couldn't cover the point - "the borough was substantially enlarged in 1995 with the addition of land / parishes that were formerly part of X" (plus sources) or something like that.

  For Slough, I'd prefer to keep the Slough page for discussing both the settlement and local authority district, on the basis that the marginal difference between the two is slight, but also keep the Slough Borough Council page for discussing the politics of the local council - notwithstanding the advice of WP:UKDISTRICTS, many local authorities do now have a page for the council itself, with standard infoboxes for showing political control, links to historic elections, political leadership etc - such information can some across as overly prominent if it's included on either a page about the geographic borough or the namesake settlement. I'm hesitant to try and turn my opinions here on Slough into an algorithm for determining the general policy though - I suspect there needs to be a bit of consensus building for each specific example, involving editors who are involved with those pages, and considering the amount of notable encyclopaedic material available as to how many articles a place / local authority area need. I don't think we can say that simply because a district contains civil parishes as well as an unparished area (usually covering the pre-1974 district) that there's an automatic need for separate "Town" and "Borough of Town" articles - but the more civil parishes involved. My opinion in the particular example of Slough is that Borough of Slough is unnecessary and should be merged back into Slough, but let's see whether anyone else has strong views one way or the other. Stortford (talk) 19:49, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 March 2024

The Census data on the Slough page for demographics (among other things) is horribly out of date. We now have Census data from 2021 as featured here: https://www.ons.gov.uk/visualisations/censusareachanges/E06000039/

Examples: Change White population of slough from 45.7% in 2011 to 36% in 2021 Muslim and Christian populations now 29.4% and 32% respectively No religion now 13.1%

And so on Whisperingwind28 (talk) 07:42, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Done. I also took the opportunity to trim excess detail, which can be found at the main article. Barry Wom (talk) 11:33, 11 March 2024 (UTC)