From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
WikiProject Disambiguation
WikiProject iconThis page is within the scope of WikiProject Disambiguation, an attempt to structure and organize all disambiguation pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, you can edit the page attached to this talk page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project or contribute to the discussion.

In Our Time[edit]

The BBC programme In Our Time presented by Melvyn Bragg has an episode which may be about this subject (if not moving this note to the appropriate talk page earns cookies). You can add it to "External links" by pasting * {{In Our Time|Reading|p00546nk}}. Rich Farmbrough, 03:19, 16 September 2010 (UTC).


Which of the places are pronounced "Reeding", and which are "Redding"? -- (talk) 21:36, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress[edit]

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Reading (process) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 22:59, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

New redirects[edit]

If we are going add pipes and redirects against the MOS, then I'd like a more detailed explanation of why that is. -- Fyrael (talk) 03:25, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

This is fairly common to do to gather data. What percentage of the thirteen thousand (!) people who land on this page every 90 days are looking for reading (process) as opposed to Reading, Berkshire? A similar process is in place at other places where the lack of a primary topic is in doubt; see Talk:Bieber (disambiguation) for a very good example of the strategy helping to define a primary topic. If this is not in our current WP:D page or somewhere in a guideline, it should be, because this is--though rare--generally accepted practice. Red Slash 15:37, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
Okay, so I gather that what you're doing is generating statistics for those two new redirects, which should only be linked to from the DAB page, in order to see how much traffic for each of those topics comes directly from disambiguation. Does that sound about right? If so, I won't stand in your way. -- Fyrael (talk) 16:07, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
Right. After some data is accrued (three months' worth or so), we won't have any need of it and the normal links can be restored. Thanks for your work helping on the encyclopedia! I'll try to put something in the disambiguation WP page to justify this. Red Slash 19:53, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
Maybe a hidden note/comment for both entries on this page would be a good idea too. I'll add it. -- Fyrael (talk) 21:12, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

────────── @Fyrael and Red Slash: It's been a year since you said "three months". The hidden comment is still there. Are the redirects still going? What's the story? Please {{Ping}} me to discuss. --Thnidu (talk) 21:28, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Thnidu, unfortunately A) I completely forgot about this, and B) in December, someone decided to ignore the hidden note and undo what I had done. However, we still got four solid months of data out of it (Aug-Nov). The results for the visual activity link were 2667 over those four months, and for the Berkshire C link, 3986. After the redirect got changed, the city's redirect still got ~2 results per day (probably through the search bar), but even if you subtract 2 results per day for all the city's hits, the resulting percent of hits for the city (versus combined city and visual activity hits) is 58%. This is consistent with keeping a disambiguation page. I've gotten the data I need; there seems to be no basis to request a move, so my hypothesis has failed--which is fine! Face-smile.svg I'll remove the remaining link immediately. Thanks for your patience. Red Slash 00:28, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
@Red Slash: Thanks for clearing this up. --Thnidu (talk) 05:06, 30 June 2015 (UTC)