Talk:Reading and Leeds Festivals

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

~~ 82.28.32.80 (talk) 12:15, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Headliners II[edit]

Headliners should be confined to only the last bands of each day, not the penultimate bands i.e. 3 bands per year, not 6. I will try and dig up the posters from previous years to rectify this, unless anyone has any objections? Also, any idea as to how this has happened?Joy.discovery.invention (talk) 00:05, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unsorted stuff[edit]

"(now controlled by the entertainment conglomerate Clearchannel)" which keeps apearing next to Mean Fiddlers name Is untrue. MF are now owned by CC and Gaiety Investments Limited (another Irish live music promotion company (they have intersts in the "carling acadamy" chains and a few festivals) 50.1%CC and 49.9% by Gaiety (well technicly its owned by a joint venture company who is owned by them in those ratios). As for Controll MF is still run as an independent company (with Melvin Benn at the head) and CC have very little say over what it dose. Talkshowbob

Note: I've done the missing 90's Main Stage line-ups. If you have any info on the Main Stage line-up for 1990, please email me at regular_john1337@hotmail.co.uk. Cheers.

Could anyone put the line-ups between 1992 and 1998? The huge gap looks horrible.

We need to find them. Secretlondon 17:04, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If anyone could expand upon the history of Leeds festival that would be great.It looks too sparse and there must be more to say about the festival than whats there.

Have completed a full rewrite (though forgot to sign in); probably a few typos that I can't be bothered checking but have changed the format of the article to provide a chronological history of the changing format and musical influences. Also expanded where possible Robdurbar 09:41, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Somneone's added the mainstage bill for 2005. I like the table format and would love to include it for previous years. However do we think that the opening act on the main stage is more of a headliner than the closing acts on the other stages? I see the stages as Radio 1/NME as the second stage, Dance/Lock Up as third and Carling as 4th. I'd suggest that the headliners on at least the first two are as interesting as the early acts on the main stage. Secretlondon 16:20, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Definately, this would be useful. The top three or four bands on the R1/NME are usually far more important to the festival than the bands lower on the main stage; for some idea, Graham Coxon was second on the Radio 1 stage last year, and appears 6th on the mainstage this year, with no real change in his status in the interim. However, I would suggest that a seperate 'R and L Festivals line-ups' page be created if this list is exteneded into the past and onto different stages Robdurbar 17:37, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would be great to go back as far as we could. However it is possible that they could get put on votes for deletion.. How do we decide where to draw the line? I don't think we can add the entire bill - top 3 on radio 1, top 2 on dance/lockup, headliners on carling? Secretlondon 19:01, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, sounds reasonable - will do some research and create the page myself later today if there are no volunteers Robdurbar 08:59, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

OK, have created Reading and Leeds Festivals line-ups. It is currently far from completion, with only the data from the current year's main stage there. I will finish it by the end of the week, but if any one wants to contribute before that, feel free. Robdurbar 09:35, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That was me who added the mainstage bill. Personally I wouldn't see a problem adding the entire bill but not going to argue about it. One thing I discovered whilst at the festival is that they plagiarised our list of headliners from 1999-2004, down to the somewhat odd ordering and selection. Morwen - Talk 09:38, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Yes we were clearly used as a source for the official programme. Secretlondon 23:03, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Ah you weren't logged in. I wouldn't see a problem with adding the entire bill either but I imagined that VfD would see it as festivalcruft or something.. I wonder if we need a wikiproject festivals. Most festival articles are pretty poor and it would be good if we could draw out what the differences between them are - as well as having a standard format. Secretlondon 14:45, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe the entire bill for the most recent addition could appear here. In Feb/March, when new line up begins to be revealed, this would replace the previous version. Robdurbar 11:19, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I think having the entire bill when announced (*no rumours*!) would be great. I've been thinking what a great Wikibook this would make - far better than the official programme - with combined attendence of 120,000+ we could sell a few hundred at least ;) Secretlondon 22:59, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Lol, although the no rumors might prove contentious: official annoucements only, or maybe agreed sources such as NME.com? Robdurbar 23:02, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

They stole our prose too! Morwen - Talk 12:55, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Our sentence:

"Though the 1999 Leeds Festival ran a day behind the Reading leg, a system where the line up of Reading play Leeds the following day, with the bands from Leeds' opening day playing the final day in Reading, soon developed."

Their sentence:

"At the beginning, the Leeds Festival ran a day behind Reading, but a system established itself where the Reading bands play Leeds the following day, and the Leeds' opening bands playing the final day in Reading, soon developed."

Morwen - Talk 18:37, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]


I have programmes and listing of past festivals going back years, so i'll stick those up on the line up section in due course.

logan1138

Great. We've got as far back as 1999 and ground to a halt! Secretlondon 12:15, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

WHY DOES IT SAY THAT rEADING STARTED IN 1971 AT THE TOP OF THE PAGE BUT THE HEADLINING LIST GOES BACK AS FAR 1961? iF YOU KNOW THE ANSWER PLEASE CHANGE ITManiacgeorge 18:55, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Prehaps if you wernt completly retarded you would have actually read the artical and noticed that from 1961 - 1971 the festival wasnt actually held in Reading. The 'start' of the festival at 1961 is referenced to the original festival location not actually in Reading. Also, we didnt need the ALL TYPING IN CAPS to realise what a moron you were. Thanks. -Reue-

Nirvana[edit]

Reverted the addition of them to the 1991 headliners. They played, yes, but they certainly didn't headline - Nevermind had yet to be released and they weren't the famous band they would be a year later. Morwen - Talk 15:47, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Nevermind was released January 11th 1992 they played at Reading August 31st 1992 Nevermind was released so they were pretty famous at that time

Naming[edit]

Apart from historical reasons why is the festival still called Reading and Leeds festical? shouldn;t it be Leeds/Reading as this is alphabetically correct?

I think you just answered it - historically.Old habits die hard - Bit of a geeky point don't you think?

It is officially 'The Carling Weekend: Reading and Leeds Festivals'.


^^^ that is right, as appears on the MF website and festival posters. -Reue-

Rage[edit]

Rage Against The Machine played mainstage in 2000 (photos avialable of them doing so are on their site) but i'm not sure whether or not they 2nd slotted / headlined. Any ideas? (Yeah Rage Against the Machine Headlined 1996 and were 4th from last in 2000 (Rage Against The Machine, Slipknot, Placebo, Stereophonics).(Chazz). Cheers. Does someone who knows about such things want to chnage the 96 headliners to include rage?

Lack of Citation[edit]

I've added a lack of citation header as a lot of the article is unqualified - I realise that a large part of this is due to recent edits refering to the 2006 weekend, but a lot of the statements such as "The same year in 2006, Muse headlined the second day of Reading. Frontman Matt Bellamy later said it was the best gig they had ever played." "Most of the throwing was commited by Slayer fans who felt an "emo" band shouldnt be playing after the heavy metal band. Though it should be noted that the majority of the crowd were supporters of the My Chemical Romance." If you know of sources for the info, please do cite them! Firetrap (talk • contribs) 10:54, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Muse[edit]

On BBC THREE after their show was shown on the highlighs package, Matt Bellamy said in an interview it was the best show they ever played :). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 88.109.221.169 (talk • contribs) .

2007 Rumors[edit]

An IP had edited to add:-

I deleted as there was no source, and Wiki isn't a crystal ball. Y control 08:31, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What about the rumours that RHCP were miming during their set in Reading at 2007, truely an awful piece of music they played that night. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.138.253.163 (talk) 15:18, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Plagiarism[edit]

http://www.tickettout.com/artists/Leeds_Festival_2007_tickets.php?gclid=CPKlwsTt34cCFSd4QgodZ1tztw

Could somebody get this lot to cease and desist with copying your material and not even having the courtesy to reference you?

They are slime of the highest order just by dint of what they are set up to do...

Send more paramedics[edit]

send more paramedics are playing there http://www.readingfestival.com/displayPage.asp?ArticleID=3344&URLID=65

Should this be added? --213.7.48.114 18:00, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Logo2 medium.jpg[edit]

Image:Logo2 medium.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 06:19, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Logo2 medium.jpg[edit]

Image:Logo2 medium.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 06:19, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Headliners[edit]

I think the list should be deleted until it can be verified. I was at the festival in '79, '80 and '81 and know for a fact that Slade, Gillan, and Rory Gallagher weren't headliners. I can't vouch for the other years, but this level of inaccuracy in one three-year period doesn't bode well for the rest of the list. Doozy88 13:16, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bottle section[edit]

Hahahahahaha The "Bottled off" section at the end!

I'm dubious whether or not it belongs in the article though, as its a bit of a joke.

And the bit at the end about this year's "bottlings", my god...

I'm glad you had a good time last weekend, but here's not a place to list the goings on during every single band!!! Is it really noteworthy that Angels & Airwaves got bottled? It might have stood out for you, but I don't think it belongs on the Festival article.

Should we just get rid of the whole section?

And maybe a seperate article for Carling Weekend 2007?

--Grahamhopgood 14:09, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

No no. Each year doesn't need a separate article. Some of the bottlings are notable and sourced - like the 50 cent one - we don't need every random little band of every year - we're not a fan site. Secretlondon 01:39, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah ok, agreed. Should we get rid of the majority of the section? I'd say the only ones worth keeping are Daphne and Celeste and 50 Cent, the rest can go IMO.
But why then is there a separate section for 2007, when the previous festivals seem to be grouped into sections by decade? Surely we can just write the notable features of the festival into the "2000s" section. And why is an entire letter from the organiser in the article? If it's that notable, which it isn't IMO, should we not just give a summary?
--Grahamhopgood 09:37, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
I don't disagree. People are adding stuff as though we are a news service. That all needs removing and integrating if needed. Secretlondon 09:55, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What about Daphne and Celeste? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.99.85.193 (talk) 21:21, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure the Daphne and Celeste section is strictly accurate regarding them being bottled off after two songs - they were definitely bottled but I seem to recall they were only billed for a "15 minute set", and given that I think they only had two songs (neither of which I can remember, thankfully), they may well have completed their scheduled set despite the bottles?

Why is "Both Reading and Leeds will have an increased capacity to 110,000 people and will feature 2 main stages instead of one - this is following the announcement that will be unveiled on 8th Feburary 2018" at the end of the bottled section - this is entirely false. I've made an account just to say that someone should remove this because I've seen multiple people reference this like it's fact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dpop909 (talk • contribs) 19:47, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bridge and other site changes[edit]

I believe more infomation should be added relating to the large number of changes being made to this year's festival. The most noteable of which being the new bridge going to be constructed over the river.

safety and organisation[edit]

we arrived and took our position in the que at approx 7am to be told box office will open between 8-9am,at 9am we were sheperded into a holding area and held until box office opened at 12,only then to find only 20 people let through at one time,considering there must have been over 2000 people there its now going to take a long time to get to the box office! at approx 2.30-3.00pm they decided we had been waiting to long [we had moved about 20 meters]and let everybody through the gate at once to get in line for 6 yes 6 windows at the box office,after being crushed a dozen or more times by mindless idiots at the back,who thought that if they pushed hard enough they would get to the front quicker,a lot of people had to be pulled out, through either being petrified of being crushed to death or simply fainting because of the crushing.the organisers and security were both informed of what was happening,then saw it for themslves, as another surge came and three people went down as a barrier was pushed over,it was only the fact that adozen of us had to push back the other way, to stop these three people getting crushed,a lot of this was brought about by security removing safety barriers which was supposed to be able to make us move quicker,but in fact made the situation a hundred times worse,as now we had no way out other than trying to climb a 6 foot fence! and after 12 HOURS of queing we finally got to the windows. fact 1; no concerns about public safety after removing vital barriers,fact two;no adequite medical personel,fact three; no provision for toilet needs whilst waiting,and i have no doubt, after contacting them if any person from the health and safety executive had been there, they would have closed the box office down without a second thought as it was becoming a very dangerous place to be.the organnisers must take full responsability for the chaos, it could have been made so much safer,if they had thought about it properly,and had safety fencing arranged into lanes for us to go into rather than one big open area were everyone was being directed into. it was just chaos which no one was able to sort out.at least 10 people needed,medical treatment,they were left at the side whilst security staff looked on, unconcerned.82.34.179.163 (talk) 20:23, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is wiki, not a complaints forum. Please use the offical festival forums 86.24.144.182 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 22:59, 11 September 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Vandalism?[edit]

I'm kinda new to Wikipedia editing and such, but I'm not a complete retard...

If you look over the history, you can see 134.225.254.250 repeatedly vandalising this page with obscure comments and also pure malice ("reading festival will only let ppl carrying reading uni cards in" and "music from so-and-so was shit") are two things that spring to mind.

So I realise this IP is owned by reading Uni, and its probably just 1 immature person from 12,000+, but can we not ban just this IP just from editing this one page? How do i request that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.146.231 (talk • contribs) 21:43, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You cannot ban an editor from a single page, you either ban them from all pages or protect the page in question so that non-registered users cannot edit the page. At the moment the IP has only received one recent warning for their actions so a ban would not be granted. Once they have been warned 4 times and are currently active then you can make a request at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism for a block. Keith D (talk) 22:54, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In the 2009 section there was biased information which I have removed regarding the sound system and banning of flags. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.157.129.59 (talk) 19:57, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2009 speculation[edit]

There are absoloutly no sources for this what so ever. It appears to be just 1 disgruntled fan (im guessing with a preference for rock music). The fact that just 1 leg of the festival did not immediatly sellout is not remarkable at all. I moderate on the offical forums and theres no mention on their of any 'speculation' either. Suggest this part is delete. Reue (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 11:48, 12 April 2009 (UTC).[reply]

I agree. Seems very lacking in NPOV to say the least. I've deleted it. Anyone who can construct actual reasons why Leeds didn't sell out immediately in 2 hours is more than welcome to add them. Joy.discovery.invention (talk) 06:46, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The FF'ers[edit]

Changed it from '3000' to '100' because I was there...Definitely was NOT 3000, or anything like that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.134.95.157 (talk) 02:14, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Scorpions Headlined in 1979[edit]

Thin Lizzy didn't play in 1979 - If my memory serves correctly Gary Moore left the band a few days earlier and they had to pull out. Scorpions were drafted in at the last moment, and went down a storm with the largely Metal audience.

I know 'cos I was there.

78.32.193.115 (talk) 20:05, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Times[edit]

When does the f**king noise stop? I'd like to get to sleep. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.164.188.106 (talk) 21:51, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]


L7 1992[edit]

I recently learnt of the incident that happened in 1992 regarding the band, L7 - the lead vocalist threw a bloody tampon into the crowd after it got rowdy. That's a pretty strange occurance. Would it be worth adding a paragraph that mentions that to the article? Haha, thanks. Louisalena (talk) 15:30, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Reading and Leeds Festivals. 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:

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: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 22:07, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Genre[edit]

Is this festival still a rock music festival? It appears to be for all genres now, not just rock. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EpicSmatty (talk • contribs) 18:57, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Reading and Leeds Festivals. 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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:12, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 13 February 2018[edit]

The statement "Both Reading and Leeds will have an increased capacity to 110,000 people and will feature 2 main stages instead of one - this is following the announcement that will be unveiled on 8th Feburary 2018" in bottled off is untrue. The last mention of changes like this are around 2008 at the latest. The lineup wasn't even released on the 8th of February. And February is spelt wrong. Dpop909 (talk) 20:03, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've completely deleted that sentence because it doesn't fit in that section. I have no prejudice against it being re-added in an appropriate section if it can be reliably sourced. —KuyaBriBriTalk 20:32, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Headliners 2009[edit]

"2009: Kings of Leon, The Nonce, Radiohead" hmm, one of these acts MIGHT not have been a headliner in 2009, i wonder which? 2A02:8388:6180:7580:F0F5:A1C7:578B:AA1C (talk) 20:32, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Abandoned tents[edit]

What happens with all that waste? 65.60.208.179 (talk) 15:16, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Reading_and_Leeds_Festivals&oldid=1211448191"