Talk:Reading (disambiguation)/Archive 1

Aoccdrnig to rscheearch at an Elingsh uinervtisy

why did you delete my

Aoccdrnig to rscheearch at an Elingsh uinervtisy, it deosn't mttaer in waht oredr the ltteers in a wrod are, olny taht the frist and lsat ltteres are at the rghit pcleas. The rset can be a toatl mses and you can sitll raed it wouthit a porbelm. Tihs is bcuseae we do not raed ervey lteter by ilstef, but the wrod as a wlohe.

? what proof do you need other than you read it? (w/o problems most likely) plus i would have gladly put where i got that from, but it's just something one of my teachers got a hold of, and i got it from him, so i don't know where it originally came from

Firstly, it just seems like spam as many people will already have received this by e-mail. Secondly, you can't say "Aoccdrnig to rscheearch at an Elingsh uinervtisy" without a proper reference as to which university that might be. Wikipedia is not a place for jokes like this and sources need to be cited. Angela 04:42, Sep 22, 2003 (UTC)

if i found the source would it be ok to post that? and what's that about this being a joke? is it a joke that we don't care about details?

If it is real research, then that could mentioned (it has to be able to be verified though). But it wouldn't be written like this in the article. It wuld have to be reported in normal English, maybe with a small example. Angela

right whatever you say. you know what, im gonna drop this for now cuz its midnight and i got this project to do and i don't really have time for this (right now). i just thought it might be cool to include that...

hehe good thing i had this here cuz i lost the thing but now i have it again hehe

I'm pretty sure it was researchers at Cambridge University... I'll see if I can find the site. It is true though —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 76.170.11.123 (talk) 03:03, 22 January 2007 (UTC).

Mechanics of reading

Hi, I wondered what we could do about the changes in the 'mechanics' of reading caused by hypertext? Surely the reader's thought process is different now that certain words you read are highlighted as links to other pages. Mjklin 14:41, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)

reading skills, scanning, skimming

Where is the Reading Football Club on here?

Redding

The merge with Redding wouldn't have worked because we couldn't merge Otis here. I removed the merge notice. Zeimusu | Talk page 04:56, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

"Reading of a bill" not to style manual

"Reading of a bill",

Reading of a bill (a proposed law) is its normal recital before the body which is to consider it

does not appear to conform to MoS:DP, in particular:

Only use this feature if the item being described actually appears on the page you're linking to...

So I'm going to remove it.--Duckbill 21:59, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Links to Reading

(This section was moved rom my user talk page - because this may be a wider discussion. Ian Cairns 19:01, 1 February 2006 (UTC) )

My feeling was that people who want to link the "Reading" disambiguation page should link Reading (disambiguation) rather then "Reading", even though Reading (disambiguation) is a redirect.

I accept that linking a redirect page does have contra-indications.

Linking a redirect page is bad if there is a page title which more accurately describes the concept in question.

However in this case the redirect page Reading (disambiguation) links to a page title "Reading" which less accurately describes the concept in question.

The page Reading (disambiguation) will always take the reader to the disambiguation page for Reading.

The page "Reading" currently happens to be a disambiguation page, but that could change.

What if, at some future point, a consensus is reached that the page title "Reading" should refer to the article currently known as Reading (activity), and that the article content then includes a message along the lines of "for other uses of the word Reading see Reading (disambiguation)? Any pages which simply link "Reading", where they meant to link the disambiguation page will then link to a specific meaning, with a further action required from the user to get to the disambiguation page.

However if we get those pages to link Reading (disambiguation), then they will be immune to any such changes. Although a further hop is required to get to the page "Reading", this is an automatic hop, which is preferable to a hop which requires user action.

Also, when people want to link a specific meaning of "Reading" (e.g. Reading (activity)), and they don't realise it's ambiguous, they will enter a link to "Reading", which will be a sub-optimal link, which could be improved.

For links to "Reading" which are specifically for the disambiguation page, we have two options:

• Your scheme, to link "Reading". (But see below "my scheme".)

• My scheme, which is to link "Reading (disambiguation)". This has the advantage that that unintentional links to the disambiguation page are easily distinguishable from intentional links, and as such are easier to maintain (fix). Very occasionally someone will enter an intentional link to the page "Reading", which isn't appropriate to be changed to anything else, for example they are referring specifically to that page for some technical reason (such as for this comment), and those ones have to be treated as a special case, but those pages are rare.

(Note I have at no point in this comment entered "Reading" as a link, because it would add to the list of exceptions.)

If people intentionally link "Reading" when their intent is to link the disambiguation page, then the page "Reading" is likely to end up on Wikipedia:Disambiguation pages with links. The way to fix those links is to make them go to somewhere more specific, which in this case is Reading (disambiguation) — which is what I have been doing.

--Duckbill 16:33, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Reply on its way. Ian Cairns 19:01, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I've found the thing which supports my position. It's Disambiguation#Links to disambiguation pages:

If you must link to a disambiguation page (instead of a specific meaning), link to the redirect to the disambiguation page that includes the text "(disambiguation)" in the title (such as, America (disambiguation)). This helps in distinguishing accidental links to the disambiguation page from intentional ones.

(Note to self: empty pipe syntax described on same page looks useful for these.) --Duckbill 11:39, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Having supported my position with a reference to an existing document, I've gone round and reverted the links back to Reading (disambiguation). I then noticed that that page is now under RfD, so I'll have to leave that until the RfD resolves.--Duckbill 12:37, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

"Reading Abbey" not appropriate

I am thinking that "Reading Abbey" is not appropriate. Would anyone refer to Reading Abbey as just "Reading"? If not, then it probably shouldn't be on this disambiguation page. If no-one objects I may remove it. Duckbill 23:48, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

"Reading (Thoreau)" not appropriate

I am thinking that "Reading (Thoreau)" may not be appropriate. It seems that there is a chapter called "Reading" in a book by "Henry David Thoreau" called "Walden". OK fine, but:

1. this is a somewhat "micro" piece of information. One wouldn't expect to have an encyclopedia article about a chapter unless it was notable in some way.
2. it's a red link.

Is there any notability in this chapter? If not then the link should be deleted. I may delete if no-one pipes up. Duckbill 23:53, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

"Reading Rainbow" not appropriate

I am thinking that "Reading Rainbow" may not be not appropriate. Would this TV show ever be referred to as just "Reading"? I don't think so. WP:D says "Lists of articles of which the disambiguated term forms only a part of the article title don't belong here." This link would seem to fall into that category. I may delete if no-one objects. Duckbill 23:56, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

IPA looks dodgy

The IPA is shown in this article as /redιŋ/.

In the article Reading, Berkshire, it is shown as /ˈrɛdɪŋ/.

The first vowel sound is different, e vs. ɛ.

The second vowel sound is different, ι vs. ɪ.

The second one has the emphasis mark on the first syllable.

Looking at the specs (International Phonetic Alphabet for English et. al.), I'd say that the one from "Reading, Berkshire" was right and the one here was wrong.

I'll change it. If there's a problem, please discuss here.

Duckbill 23:17, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

"Rufus Isaacs, 1st Marquess of Reading" out of sequence?

We have "Rufus Isaacs, 1st Marquess of Reading" placed above "Reading, Berkshire".

Surely "Rufus Isaacs, 1st Marquess of Reading", being a historical figure, is a somewhat rarely referred-to concept (the Wikipedia article has less than 50 incoming links), and being referred to using the term "Reading" alone would only happen in even rarer cases.

The concept of "Reading, Berkshire", would surely be far more commonly referred-to (the Wikipedia article has more than 500 incoming links), and is commonly known using the term "Reading" alone.

So surely it is more likely that a use of the term "Reading" would be referring to the town than to the person.

So the link for the town should be above the link for the person.

Extending the idea, we should probably re-sort the sections into decreasing order of likelyhood that the term "Reading" alone would be used to refer to those concepts.

So I think that should be:

• activity
• place UK
• place US
• sporting club (I have done a number of "Reading" -> "Reading F.C." disambiguations)
• person (could conceivably be referred to as "Reading")
• literature piece (the term "Reading" appears to form only a part of the term linked (Reading Capital). I am bit dubious if this one should even be here)

This feels like a good change, well justified, and with the justification documented, and in any case relatively harmless, so I will go ahead with it straight away. All comments welcome. Duckbill 17:33, 21 February 2006 (UTC)