5627:" is such a fundamental aspect of not just nearly every culture and civilization in the world today, but so many previous cultures and civilizations, going back thousands of years, even ones where only a small percentage of the population could actually do it. It is the thing that you are doing right now that is the reason we are even able to communicate our opinions to each other and have a discussion about this. I see that the last time this came up two and a half years ago, there were some who objected based on the existence of a couple of places - one in England and the other in Pennsylvania. These places are not insignificant, it is true. However, I would argue that the concept of reading is so utterly fundamental in its importance, so worldwide in its interest, that it would overwhelm even Athens and Rome in how significant it is, and Reading, Berkshire and Reading, Pennsylvania are nowhere near as important as Athens and Rome. Not even close. "
5599:
Apple's case, the fruit is a hugely encyclopedic and important topic, much more so than this "reading" article, and its competition is a corporation that has been around a mere 30 years. The reading (process) article isn't as encyclopedic/important as Apple-the-fruit, and multiple cities with hundreds of years of history that will assuredly have hundreds of years more have a better assurance of long-term significance than Apple Inc. So yes, it's a useful comparison, but it's the start of the argument, not the end. I'm not sold that pageviews, the "default" decider of such primary topic wars, has been overturned here. It is perfectly common for core, fundamental ideas of human existence to have disambiguation pages at their base name;
4349:
that you are doing right now that is the reason we are even able to communicate our opinions to each other and have a discussion about this. I see that the last time this came up two and a half years ago, there were some who objected based on the existence of a couple of places - one in
England and the other in Pennsylvania. These places are not insignificant, it is true. However, I would argue that the concept of reading is so utterly fundamental in its importance, so worldwide in its interest, that it would overwhelm even Athens and Rome in how significant it is, and Reading, Berkshire and Reading, Pennsylvania are nowhere near as important as Athens and Rome. Not even close.
5652:. Apparently you weren't. You seem to be conflating two similar-but-distinct things: Reading-the-topic and Reading-the-Knowledge (XXG)-article. Reading-the-topic is important, and you don't need to convince me how important it is or quote flowery statements about the importance of reading. I already agree with all that. However, Knowledge (XXG) policy as well as this debate are on Reading-the-Knowledge (XXG)-article. All of my above comments are on the article, but you seem to be interpreting them as on the general topic. Disambiguation is not strictly done by comparing an importance-o-meter on the underlying topic, lest the likes of
4818:" in and on itself, unquestionably means literal reading, unqualified. No society, culture or civilization that can claim they don't know "reading," in fact reading is so fundamental to literacy that without it we couldn't be here at all even if Reading, Berkshire is the capital of the world. There's also a particular argument I want refute: in the previous move request a claim was made that Knowledge (XXG) is not dictionary and this remained unchallenged giving it semblance of validity. The argument looks meaningful on the surface but it's thoroughly hollow in content and forgets the spirit of why NOTDIC was written.
229:
5824:. Reading (process) fails both primary topic tests. Page views show that many readers are looking for one of the towns. They may not even have considered the literacy meaning, especially as the words are pronounced differently. As Reading, Berkshire dates from the 8th century, its significance is also long-term. On a more practical note, the status quo helps editors to find and fix wikilinks to the "wrong" Reading, thus keeping everything correctly linked up for our readers.
682:
650:
4562:
significance. Both cities could fall into big sinkholes tomorrow, and lots of people would be sad, and some regional economies updated for a while, but in a couple of generations it would be dimly remembered historical curiosity. If a virus tomorrow wiped out the human capacity for reading, we'd be plunged into a second stone age (or maybe bronze age if we were lucky) within one generation and we wouldn't recover for centuries at least.
388:
283:
367:
262:
501:
476:
584:
6704:
5109:- it's not even the most-read "Reading" article. The Berkshire locale is. This proposed move will make it more difficult for our readers and editors to navigate our encyclopedia. If you want a better disambiguator, try "(cognitive process)" or "(activity)". But don't make the encyclopedia harder to use. (Btw, I'd love to see the outcome of a special redirect experiment such as that suggested by
810:
2485:
to that's untrue, myopia is "genetics". There has been research conducted that reading or more specifically intelligence is linked to myopia, and they are hypothesizing that reading is the genetic trigger to myopia; for example, just has your muscles adapt when they are used, you eyes will reshape and thus refocus to the distance you view things at the most. Anyway, here are some links
5007:
unambiguous "reading." So your comment and effort you made in fixing those dablinks are both another points on why this move should be made, so that henceforth anyone who link to "reading" will link to correct place per natural expectation. If this succeeds I will surely help as much as I can in resolving them, but number of dablinks shouldn't be barrier to rectifying anomaly. –
574:
547:
3622:. In short written titles, the (broad) geographical sense is not distinguishable from the action of comprehending writing. That makes this just ambiguous enough to justify the present location of the disambiguation page. Note that this page definitely needs a better parenthetical disambiguator in the title, but the present move request can't really cover this effectively.
220:
4864:: Just to point out a couple of issues with the statements made by nominator: 1) the 2015 discussion did not end with no consensus. There was a consensus for no move. 2) the closing admin in 2015 came to the opposite conclusion about quality of arguments stating, "I note that oppose !votes invoked policy and evidence, whereas some support !votes give no real rationale."
398:
6572:
Some of the sections, such as "Reading skills" and "Assessment" are better covered elsewhere. And, some potions should be transfer elsewhere. The entire opening paragraphs have no citations, but perhaps the wiki-links are meant to cover that. Overall I found about 23 instances without citations; so it appears to lack sufficient credibility, or usefulness.
6602:. This would enable our readers to find information more easily. It may be that many readers go to Reading when they really want more in-depth information about reading acquisition or teaching reading, etc., and don't know where to find it. Many readers, perhaps a majority, read Knowledge (XXG) on a smart phone so they may not see the "Reading" menu.
6152:- would you mind reconsidering your !vote based on the following: 1) it's been shown that the Berkshire town article overall gets more views than the process article, and especially when you add in the Pennsylvania article and others, there's no way that the process article gets more views than the other "Reading" articles combined, as called for at
2150:"The Only Way Students Learn to Read English As a result, the ONLY way students can learn to read English is to learn the spelling of all 20,000 or more words in their reading vocabulary one-at-a-time by rote memory or by repeated use of the word. This learning can come through either the phonics or partially through the whole word teaching method."
759:
4784:
over and needs no qualifying, but anything else do need one before it could be understood. In fact, whatever is named "reading", it must have gotten that inspiration from actual "reading". I perused the above two discussions in 2013 and 2015 and found the arguments forwarded not only lacking in policy-based reasons but hollow and essentially
2848:
enough to do research peer reviewed research to supportthe existing
Dyalexia Article and sub articles, and do not have the time to carry out the major revision that the many of the reading articles in the Reading Category require. So It ti time for you to stop criticsing from the side lines and begin to do some real editing work.
3008:. This editor's contributions are always well provided with citations, but examination of these sources often reveals either a blatant misrepresentation of those sources or a selective interpretation, going beyond any reasonable interpretation of the authors' intent. I searched the page history, and found 3 edits by Jagged 85 in
293:
2142:
countries, and looking at the list by literacy rate, I see no correlation between writing system and literacy rates. Clearly, the type of writing system is not the main predictor of literacy. I propose that the argument for changing the spelling of
English be deleted, or at the very least moved to an appropriate section.
5419:'s comments above. While I agree the reading process is an encyclopedic topic (this is not a NOTADICT issue), the bottom line is when someone searches with the term "reading", they are not that likely to be looking for the topic about the process; they are more likely to be looking for any one of the other topics named
4595:("highly likely—much more likely than any other topic, and more likely than all the other topics combined—to be the topic sought when a reader searches for that term"), there clearly isn't one here. The different pronunciations are unfortunately not able to be conveyed visually. 11:56, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
6170:
I'm unconvinced that the process is not primary as I agree with the OP that "literal reading has greater cultural significance and perpetual notability than any other term". The places may have some relevance in some parts of the UK and US but the reading process has global relevance and I think that
5933:
Just to clarify something, the number of page views for each article is not 1-to-1 with the number of times readers tried to reach that article through the single term "reading". For all we know, and I rather suspect it's the case, most of the users that were looking for the
Berkshire article started
5237:
the long-term significance criterion. The guideline goes on to say that where the two criteria indicate different (or no) primary topics, then discussion is required to determine whether and which is the primary topic - they even use Apple/Apple Inc. as the example for that kind of discussion! Please
5029:
and expected it to go to the
Berkshire article. Neither the 2008 move nor a move now would have any bearing on the number of those instances. The difference is that as things currently stand there are tools which alert us to when a disambiguation page starts having a high number of incoming links and
4783:
has greater cultural significance and perpetual notability than any other term in the now weird disambiguation page. The foremost and unambiguous usage of "reading" everywhere in the world, in the past century, the present and future is reading first, then anything else behind. It's the default world
4050:
I still prefer "literacy". To me, it is broad, and includes musical literacy, ancient hieroglyphic literacy, even pictographs and simple code or sign reading. Oddly, "literacy" has a broadness far exceeding that of "literature". "Cognition" has too much to do with mental processing of the information
2785:
Guys, I don't know you, but I think the picture of the dude reading does not really add any particular value to the article beyond the aesthetic one (that implying he is aesthetic if at all). IMO this picture should be removed. Furthermore, it seems to me this picture was added for some personal fame
2450:
The first step revision has taken place, all sections have been revised to a more logical order. Furthermore most images of people reading has been commented out; they are interesting and appealing, but they are also unnecessary for the relevance of this article. They however would be perfect for a
2302:
Also, I've seen some sets of related articles that use nice info boxes that point users directly to closely related topics, in context of the main article rather than at the bottom. I put together a strawman to illustrate the idea and would like for interested editors to take a look and see what you
2214:
Studies have shown that
American children who learn to read by the third grade are less likely to end up in prison, drop out of school, or take drugs. Adults who read literature on a regular basis are nearly three times as likely to attend a performing arts event, almost four times as likely to visit
6658:
The main thing that I want to emphasize here is that the article is very disorientating, with varied level of detail and information. In my opinion, the article structure would make readers very confused and not knowing the general gist (especially for an article for reading itself). Looking through
4022:
I see where you're coming from here, but "literacy" seems like too narrow a scope to me. "Literacy" refers exclusively to the written word, but the article also covers the reading of musical notation and of pictograms. Also, the term "literacy" implies a certain level of skill in the reader, but the
2838:
This not a perceived problem but a real problem as from your commnets you seem to have very litle idea about how humans first learn to speak, and then have to learn how to interpret the visual notation of speech adopted by their culture, which is called reading. Unless you have a full understanding
2765:
There are additional problems in the intelligences section. I don't have time to address them right now, but simply, the "intelligences" listed are not "intelligences" as envisioned by the Howard
Gardener's theory. Verbal-linguistic, visual-spatial, and mathematical-logical are mislabled and there
2484:
Yes, I've heard of eye damage, myopia, eye strain, and so on before. So far the information I'm heard is - well - it's controversial. For instance, public perception has it that myopia is caused by reading - especially reading in the dark where there is eye strain; however, from a physician I spoke
2254:
Perhaps another way to approach this would be to say that the correlation is firmly established, but that at least some researchers and statisticians suspect a causative relationship between reading failure and increased rates of poverty, need of public assistance, high birth rate, death (due partly
2203:
The page for subvocalization and this one contradict. I subvocalize when I read and I have had the reading level of a 12 grader since I was in 7th grade. Others I know also subvocalize and they excel in reading just as much as I do. I'm sorry but that information is heavily biased and promotes speed
2167:
I would go a step further. This isn't just a "biased section"; it's vandalism, plain and simple. There is absolutely no way that this extraordinary rant can be integrated into the rest of the article; this is self-evident, and doesn't require any extensive soul-searching on our part to determine. As
6571:
I am aware of the many contributions made towards this article. However, it seems to me that our readers would be better served if the material was put in other articles (Literacy, Learning to read, Educational assessment, etc.). If so, it would be easier to maintain credible, encyclopedic content.
6350:
I'm breaking this into a new section so as not to disrupt the move discussion. IF the result above is not to move, would any editors object to running a redirect experiment in order to determine exactly how many users actually travel from the disambiguation page to the most common
Reading articles?
5598:
belief that reading is "more important" means that it is also the primary topic is also "pure conjecture." It is undeniably correct that in some cases, the community has deemed a lower-pageview topic to still be the primary topic, but this needs to be defended or explained on specific grounds. In
4561:
the primary topic. It is not plausible that two cities named reading are "at least as important" as the human capability of absorbing knowledge from the written word. Please. As the nom already covered, view rates of articles (the "popularity contest") doesn't tell us anything about global, lasting
3177:
Many of the descriptions throughout this article ignore
Braille as a non-visual language, for example from the last part of the introduction, "The common link is the interpretation of symbols to extract the meaning from the visual notations." This implies that blind individuals who are literate in
3067:
Another common meaning of "reading" is picking up on social cues to detect information beyond the meaning of words. Even the standing definition could apply to much more than written language: "Reading is a complex cognitive process of decoding symbols for the intention of constructing or deriving
2082:
Good question; I was looking for information on a similar topic. I recently read a statement that reading on a computer screen was only 60% as fast as reading on paper (and the article specifically mentioned the Kindle). I think this is completely false and was disappointed to see that no reference
2045:
This article seems to be a mishmash of information, indicated by the fact that "Reading speed" is the second topic and "Miscellaneous" has a large place. I think it makes sense to reorganize the information according to the domains of literacy: phonological awareness, phonics, fluency, vocabulary,
6026:
thing that matters, which again is how many users end up on the
Reading dab page that were looking for each article, seems to have been determined by an experiment just a few years ago and it looks like the cities had enough traffic to make the process not primary by that metric. So, I withdraw my
5694:
the move to an unquestionably more important usage than the locations, on the basis that people who think town articles with that name—they couldn't care less about and will never edit or visit— can nevertheless be used to advance some fractious agenda. Anyone without skin in some game on a policy
4348:
is, well, reading. It is such a fundamental aspect of not just nearly every culture and civilization in the world today, but so many previous cultures and civilizations, going back thousands of years, even ones where only a small percentage of the population could actually do it. It is the thing
3157:
Also, I think a useful section or subheading would be addressing the impact the internet has had on reading. There are tons of popular press articles on the topic (eg Nicholas Carr, "Is Google Making Us Stupid?", and NY Times, "R U Really Reading?"). There is also a fair bit of research on how the
3153:
It seems to me that the content is still quite random. For example, why does the main section "Overview" contain comments about horizontal scrolling and contrast? That seems to not fit there, and also to be an opinion, not a statement of fact. I'd like to remove it and some other extraneous parts,
2260:
There is a further clear relationship between reading failure frequently being the result of learning disabilities, which cuts across socioeconomic lines. History of difficulty in school -- failure to learn, and especially failure to learn to read, results in shame and poor self image, rejection
5623:
So you're reusing my argument. Mine is not conjecture, I explained it with verifiable evidence from the start. Probably you didn't read my nomination statement well in hastiness to comment. Then your claim that "reading" is less important than Apple is even more risible now. Just let me quote one
4216:
The problem with a benefits section is that it will promote the false notion that all are cognitively able to read effectively, and that alternative forms of communication are not required for those who need to use the various alternative forms of communication. Tis problem can be seen as society
3506:
To try to clarify what Red Slash and Powers are saying to you, the stats you've listed are simply page views. They do not indicate in any way how the viewer arrived at the page. Red Slash is doubting how many of the views for Berkshire came about by a user typing in 'Reading', arriving at the DAB
2847:
category as most are more opinion based using non peer reviewd books rather than peer review based research to substanciate and support their claims. So you it appears to be an editor who calims to be a reading expert, so It should be your role to improve this mess in the reading category, I have
2137:
The entire section headed "Skill Development" seems to be an argument for altering the standard spelling of English words to a phonetic system. It is an opinionated rant. Why is this under "Skill Devlopment"? The claim that the problem is the language itself rather than inadequate education is
2086:
I don't know of any online guides to reading by computer screen. I set the fonts that seem most comfortable to me. I don't have a Kindle, but do have a Nokia N800, and read using something called FBreader, though I have also had good results on a desktop computer with Microsoft Reader and Rudenko
6506:
I think you in fact have missed the point that Certes is alluding to, although in fairness they didn't say it explicitly. The big difference between how things were and how things are now is that before as soon as 1 or 2 links to the disambiguation page had been created the page would show up at
6055:
Thought: Because most users use Google and Google is very good at landing users directly on the desired page, page view counts in general are reasonably accurate at telling us the relative popularity of each page associated with a given search term, and therefore quite accurate at telling us the
5544:
per Dohn Joe's pageview links. This just isn't the primary topic by pageviews, not particularly close to it, and while reading-text is certainly a fundamental idea etc., many people are only interested in the surface-level dictionary definition and don't need this article, which is why it's not
5006:
The reason why those disambiguation links accumulated was because of the anomaly of this naming when it was unilaterally moved in 2008. Had it stayed, that couldn't have happened at that tempo. By default, linking to "reading," any average editor will expect it to lead to "reading," the literal
3850:
The rationale is that the common English word is the topic that most of our readers would expect to find at that name. Anyone who was looking for the city under that name would not be surprised; they'd say "Oh, of course! That makes sense that this article is about reading; I'll have to be more
3125:
I re-added the book published by Harvard, under the rereading paragraph. It helps establish the concept and term as being notable beyond just a casual sense, and it is one of few academic works published on the subject. The book goes beyond just listing an authors favorite books, it examines the
2400:
I second your proposition; this article seems very confusing and needs revision - there's simply too much information compressed into too little of a space. I can start by rearranging the sections and cleaning up the text, but that will be a while - in the time in between some comments would be
6047:
Assumption: Google is very good at landing users directly on their sought wp article (skipping our dab pages). This was the point I was making with the Mercury example - while the page view count for the dab page is so relatively low. Most people use Google to search with "mercury" and see the
6002:
The vast majority use Google to search which takes them directly to the WP article they're seeking - so page view counts reflect quite accurately actual relative interest in pages. That's why, for example, the page view counts for the Mercury dab page are relatively low even though it as at the
5938:
of what we are looking for, rather than the actual figure itself, which would be how many users tried to reach the article by just using "reading". And I believe far more users, relatively speaking, are having to go through disambiguation while looking for the process article than the Berkshire
4882:
Move discussions are binary. It's either consensus for move or no consensus for move, that's true always. Everything in between is superficial. I am talking of the situation in whole including the 2008 one-man discussion and the subsequent ones not just fixating on whether the closer typed "no
2473:
Anything on how far something you're reading should be away from you? or if it is damaging to your eyes to read in the dark? I hear that reading in the dark actually doesn't damage or strain your eyes; and reading something in front of you should be around a foot away. Any research/information?
6059:
Assumption: The desired article of the minority of users who are searching on WP with a given term is probably distributed about the same as are users who search with that term on Google. There is no way to know how close those distributions are, much less what to do if they were significantly
6716:
4950:
I think that despite the cities having similar view counts as the process, even readers searching for those cities most likely don't expect to find them at the base title "Reading". Also, as this discussion has taken place multiple times over multiple years, would it not be prudent to run an
2141:
Has the author looked at the Knowledge (XXG) entry for the list of countries by literacy rate? The Reading entry also seems to claim that "Chinese picture-writing symbols" are easier to learn to read than English words. The literacy rate in China is lower than that of most English-speaking
2805:
All of the reading Artiles on wiki lack consistancy, tend to be single country orientated, and therefore lack a global view. There needs to be reading by country catergory to reflect the skill requirments of different writing systsm and the different orthographies whith each writing system.
2621:
The reasoning to place the disambiguation first is to give the reader the power to choose which definition of "reading" to use rather than narrowing them to simply "interpreting symbols to construct meaning". This exposes them to other possible definitions that would otherwise be hidden or
5514:
As someone who lives in the British Isles and is mainly interested in geography even I agree that this is UK geo centric, however I don't think its location is the main reason, just that its a large town (the largest non city in its country), gets a lot of views and is the capital of
2185:"Speed reading courses and books often encourage the reader to continually speed up; comprehension tests lead the reader to believe their comprehension is constantly improving. However, competence in reading involves the understanding that skimming is dangerous as a default habit."
4656:
was put under assessment, making wikilinks to reading rate stop working. I'm moving it back into its own section, under reading skills, since it is not just a means of assessment. The inscrutable note was actually part of the diagram caption and refers to data in the diagram.
4928:. The act of reading is indeed a supremely notable, educationally valuable, and fundamental concept, and one that clearly merits primary topic status. It's also worth noting that the current title clarifier is not just unnecessary but also ambiguous, since something like
5744:
The point is that "Reading" most often is understood in English to refer to the process rather than the capital of Berkshire, even though people in Berkshire might think this if being referred to first when seeing it, the general global audience will think of the process.
4285:
The proposal is well-stated and argued, but opposing statements were well argued as well. In closing this request, I note that oppose !votes invoked policy and evidence, whereas some support !votes give no real rationale. In summation, consensus is against this move.
4173:
You hear a lot about the benefits of reading (especially being read to as a young child), including as it relates to future academic success. I think this definitely merits mention in the article. Anybody have access to academic databases that contain studies on this?
5864:
usage criteria. The addition of the bs "historical significance" criteria to primary topic is one of the worst policy changes WP has ever seen, and results in enormous waste of time like this proposal. The bottom line is this: when people search WP with "reading"
5030:
they can be quickly fixed, while there are no tools available that tell us if an editor simply links to an article they didn't mean to and so there would be extra work required to watch the primary topic article for mistaken incoming links if the move succeeds.
4073:
the mental processing of the information. But anyway, given the disagreement here and the nature of the discussion so far, this is probably best left for a future move request. (Maybe we could open one straight away if this closes with a "no consensus".) —
5781:
What "first comes to mind", to anyone, is irrelevant. What matters is whether the process "is highly likely—much more likely than any other single topic, and more likely than all the other topics combined—to be the topic sought when a reader searches for"
5953:
Readers would surely often use the upper case when searching for the Berkshire one, I would personally use upper case for searching for both, in a way its a shame we can't use DIFCAPS (as pointed out in the last RM) but that guideline is disputed anyway.
6363:
mentioned. Any others that someone would like considered? I'm not sure if there's standard practice (and I suspect there isn't, since this isn't that common) for the actual title of the special redirects, but I'll maybe ask on the disambiguation project
5934:
to search for "reading", saw what they wanted in the suggestions, and went straight there. Those users would not be affected in any way by us moving the process to the base name. I'm not saying that page views should be ignored, just that they are an
3835:
It's bogus because there's no coherent rationale for picking this one topic as primary over the others. Most primarytopic claim RMs are similarly bogus, from people who just don't like disambig pages and prefer to put the ambiguity into the titles.
2839:
of all of these issues and have them presented in global terms in the appropriate Knowledge (XXG) articles, then the content of well researched related Knowledge (XXG) does not relate to these less well researched articles. So the well researched
6051:
Thought: Because Google is already very good at getting its users to the page they seek and that's all out of our control, even though WP searchers are the minority, making sure the WP search process works well for WP searchers must be our main
6491:
at "Reading," (and rightly, will never be). So the fact that link was incorrect has no relation with this move whatsover. If that link was there for the past 10 years, it has been incorrect since so, it didn't became so today as you're wrongly
6010:. Since Google takes care of itself, we want to arrange our articles to work best for the minority that uses WP search (and choose our primary topics accordingly), but it is a tiny minority, I'm sure, compared to those who use Google search. --
2670:
is a disambiguation, or they check every link they add (I try to but it can be tiresome, and I doubt many others do this), there will be a lot of links to fix. Your user page is a perfect example: "This user appears to be able learn though
5495:
does, and we still keep it as primary topic. The concept of reading is so far more important that it defies comprehension. If Reading were located anywhere outside of the British Isles, there's literally no way we'd even be debating this.
5338:
WP:PTOPIC: "A topic is primary for a term with respect to usage if it is highly likely—much more likely than any other single topic, and more likely than all the other topics combined—to be the topic sought when a reader searches for that
6828:
They may be especially useful for the "science of reading" sections and anything mentioning brains or cognition. Some sources also have decent coverage of cross-language transfer with comparisons to native readers' skills and cognition.
5603:
is a disambiguation page, not a redirect to cooking. This is not a problem. Disambiguation pages are fine, there's no harm being done, and as a counterpoint to your Apple example, there are plenty of cases where there's a topic with :
4797:
as the former got 4x the number of views for the latter consistently for several years, but it wasn't so because respect for enduring significance, AT policy and common sense prevailed. Another point to consider is that the current name
4147:
expecting to get the city. (Doubtlessly pronunciation has something to do with this.) I finally agree that by pageviews, at least, we have no primary topic. Any future move request would have to rely more on the second criteria at
6975:
5571:
consistently since creation but it was determined to not be primary topic despite its high popularity and the fact that more people are actually looking for the tech company when they search the unqualified term. Then your claim
4830:
and you can see what the page contains. So if there's a town/city named "Inedible" then it will surely be primary topic notwithstanding the word. I hope the community will rectify this anomaly, and the sooner the better for us.
2524:
Reading may refer to the computer acquisition of information, the mechanism in which bills are introduced, certain people, and places. To provide a more flexible position for the disambiguation page, I believe that this article
5295:
You think that the town is just as significant as a process that is known to just about everyone. Reading goes on everywhere, including in Reading, Berkshire. The 163,000 figure is just for the borough, the town actually has
2266:
My point is, there is clearly a case to be made for causation, and the research /statistics supporting this line of thought should be included in the article with notation that this is not proven but suspected, at least by
2188:
Speed reading information I've seen stresses comprehension, with that in mind I do not understand how speed reading could be considered dangerous as a default habit. It'd be a good idea to explain this fully or remove it
2317:
4788:
and amassed together they gave the discussion usual fate of no consensus, which should have reverted to the actual first used title, but wasn't done. It is noteworthy that, if we follow appeal to pageview argument then
2215:
an art museum, more than two-and-a-half times as likely to do volunteer or charity work, and over one-and-a-half times as likely to participate in sporting activities, according to Jamie Littlefield on charityguide.org.
3047:
I changed the wording of the overview section to be neutral regarding how much printed word is read as opposed to electronic displays. To say that "most" reading is still of the printed word would need a citation. --
6659:
the article, some sections need simplifying (Teaching reading), while others need clean up (The Reading Wars: phonics vs. whole language). There is no consistency here. I suggest that the article needs to follow the
5214:
So you have to first weigh them for their long-term significance and eternity of notability, if the result is clear then the remaining process is needless, just as the case here is and the same process that reserve
6465:
There will always be some links to the wrong article on the wiki because people are too lazy to check their links, or even to think through where their links probably go. Also, is this where you meant to put this
6429:
found that the cities had sufficient traffic through the disambiguation page that the process couldn't be considered primary. In that case I'm perfectly willing to accept the results of such a recent experiment.
5689:
Seriously though, using a tool to determine the best outcome is unhelpful, reading past the wikilawyering and !votes is what needs to happen in forming a legitimate view . I won't lose any sleep either way, but
4331:
is long-term significance, for topics with "substantially greater enduring notability and educational value", even if another topic by that name gets viewed more often. That's why, to give just a few examples,
6965:
6759:
If there are no objections, I will split off the Science of reading subsection so it is a separate article. Then I will reduce the subsection in the Reading article and I will add details to the new article.
5160:
for a term with respect to usage if it is highly likely—much more likely than any other single topic, and more likely than all the other topics combined—to be the topic sought when a reader searches for that
5656:
become primary topics. And "Apple" the fruit has more than 4x the pageviews of Reading (process), so my claim is hardly "risible" if interpreted as I meant it - a statement about the relative importance of
153:
3933:
Per our naming conventions, none of those could be named "Reading". If the AP Style guide adds Reading PA, we can choose one as the primary topic, but now, reading as in reading a book is clearly primary.
6060:
different. It might be off in one direction for one article, and in another direction for the next, but in the end it probably averages out, so for all these reasons it's a reasonable assumption to make.
4217:
narrowly focuses on text based communication and fails to provide the alternative methods of communicating their message for those who need them, and promotes purely selfish and discriminatory attitude.
5435:- it's confusing, and leaves us with guidance that suggests titles that hinder the user search process in situations like this. Going by usage criteria exclusively (ignoring historical significance per
2952:
I started a new section called "Goals of reading". Most of the information come from Mortimer J Adler's How to Read a Book, but the section certainly needs work.--ThomasMagnus 21:26, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
6063:
Thought: since most users search with Google, dab pages at base names should get relatively low page view counts. However, they do tell us something about the ratio of WP searchers vs Google searchers.
233:
5986:, but I've got to believe that users trying to look up the city fully expect that they won't find it at the base name. They'll type in "butte" and then click on the suggestion matching what they want.
6980:
5873:. Why would we send all those people to an article we know they are probably not seeking? That's what consideration for "historical significance" gives us: a worsened WP search experience. Just say
6156:; and 2) the towns were not named after the process, but rather "the name probably comes from the Readingas, an Anglo-Saxon tribe whose name means Reada's People in Old English." What do you think?
3979:
is likely to be assumed to be about the place. Finding yourself at what may be considered (erroneously) a mere dictionary word is likely to be confusing. A DAB page is least likely to confuse. --
4757:– To say that I am astonished to find this article at this name is an understatement. As naturally expected this article was created at "Reading" in 2003 even though Reading, Berkshire was created
2227:
And this interpretation is further quite plausible: Educated, more intelligent families tend to have children who avoid behaviors that result in prison time, etc., and who are more cultured, etc.
2138:
utterly unsubstantiated in the article. The author of this section evidently learned to read - so did I, and we managed to do it despite the bizarre and inconsistent quirks of English spelling.
3745:. But I'm not proposing or crusading to do that, just saying that it would not be unreasonable or unusual, and that it would be the conventional way to address what you see as an inconsistency.
6839:
Li H, Zhang J, Ding G. Reading across writing systems: A meta-analysis of the neural correlates for first and second language reading. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition. 2021;24(3):537-548.
3476:
Looks like you're unfamiliar with how disambiguation works here at Knowledge (XXG). After reaching the disambiguation page readers will then choose the page they are looking for. With stats as
2046:
and reading comprehension (the latter should probably be subdivided, perhaps into comprehension processes and knowledge). If there is no objection, I'll do that sometime in the next week.
5277:
agrees with my gut feeling: both get about the same amount of traffic. Considering only those two, in the last month: 50.6% for the process and 49.4% for the town; and on 9 days there were
6041:
I still think it's important for us to come to an understanding of each other on this issue, because it applies to many articles, not just this one. Here are my thoughts and assumptions.
2083:
was included. I have done lots of computer reading and am going to finish Gone with the Wind within the next hour, having started a few days ago, not reading continuously, of course.
6931:
Learning to read, stages to skilled reading could be on the same article. Teaching reading should be its own article due to length. Science of reading could be its own article.
5139:, tell us which is more popular and also tell us how they're named. By doing that sincerely, you'll understand how your argument deviated from policy and appealed to pageview. –
2230:
It's not implausible, either, that reading might very well *cause* the effects noted. But that is not what the cited article claims. It just claims that children who read are
4609:, this would be an obvious move), but since it shares its spelling with several major topics pronounced "redding", we can't say that it's more important than everything else.
3564:. The extremely wide usage, and the page hit statistics indicate to me it would be preferable for readers for the process to be so identified for the sake of disambiguation. --
6120:
gets the most page views on Knowledge (XXG) and brings up the most search entries in a Google search. As Ammarpad said, the places' names are likely derived from the process.
4826:. That's not true for "Reading", it's a developed, rich encyclopedic topic proper and not only here but even in traditional paper ones. The example of real dictionary word is
3005:
3001:
2925:
Prompted by a recent addition, I checked the whole list but I couldn't find anything that isn't either irrelevant or has some sort of axe to grind. A strict application of
6515:(which I assume there's a tool for somewhere) and examine them one-by-one to see if any need fixing. It was discussed above though, so I don't see any purpose in rehashing.
6901:, I'm curious if you have any initial ideas for what could be split off and summary styled. This article is almost charming in how evenly unorganized it is. It seems like
5211:
for a term with respect to long-term significance if it has substantially greater enduring notability and educational value than any other topic associated with that term.
4905:. If you personally feel that the difference between "no consensus" and "not moved" is insignificant, you can feel free to hold that opinion, but don't present it as fact.
4776:
for a term with respect to long-term significance if it has substantially greater enduring notability and educational value than any other topic associated with that term.
3305:– Someone apparently unilaterally decided (no RM that I can see) that the act of a human being seeing and comprehending sets of words is not the primary topic of the word
2494:
5707:. For a non-English speaker, reading gave me the first impression is an action (or process) rather than other things. It is obviously a primary topic in common sense. --
2341:
The content of this article seems very random. The topics don't seem to relate to one another, and sections seem to be unmatched in the level of detail they present.
5605:
70% of views, and a disambiguation page is STILL used as the landing point for the topic (often comes up with fictional characters that share names with real people).
4955:
on the disambiguation page and we use the traffic through that redirect as an indicator of how many readers who arrive at the DAB page continued on to the process page?
2451:
history section and posses potential for a new article. Next step is improving the wording and consistency of this article, in addition to adding a "History" section.
7030:
3584:. To me process sounds more like a manufacturing process or a computer algorithm than what people do when they look at characters and find meaningful words from them.
6272:), and is much more globally significance than Reading, Berkshire. That usage is split does not matter here due to the sheer significance of the process of reading.
3417:
I see your useful statistics. I also fully recognize that we're dealing with a reasonably important city as the leading secondary claimant to the title. But I feel
5025:
I think you've misunderstood the comment. bd2412 is saying that while disambiguating links they have come across very many instances where an editor simply linked
2380:
I'm thinking we need to revisit the content of the entire article, and consider covering the topic at a very high level with sub-articles providing the details.
640:
2309:
147:
349:
7025:
7020:
2255:
to illiteracy impeding good health care -- e.g., decreased ability to take medications as directed due to illiteracy, etc) imprisonment, recidivism, and so on.
630:
458:
79:
3685:
redirecting to it? Absurd. We've never done that, outside of a few outliers, and you know it... and I really wish you'd cease your crusade to change that.
6990:
5153:
Um, pageviews is one of the principal ways to determine primary topic by usage, according to the very same guidance page you quoted from in your nomination:
4231:
Perhaps an additional section "Alternatives to text-based communication" could be added to deal with your (Dolfrog) concern, somehow incorporating a link to
2152:
seem questionable to me and are unsourced. I don't think these sentiments have either scientific support or are in accord with the views of most educators.
339:
6960:
6508:
5082:. I went past the Berkshire town yesterday and wandered about this and surely even people interested in that place will know that "Reading" refers to this.
659:
557:
7005:
448:
2983:
6175:; even at an unusual title the process still gets slightly higher views). Anyone visiting the base name isn't likely to look for the place in Berkshire.
2766:
is no "auditory" intelligence identified by the theory. Further the intelligences listed are mischaracterized. This section is in need of a lot of love.
2358:
skill development (but only discusses initial reading acquisition -- doesn't address acquiring skills related to the types discussed in Types of Reading)
3793:"Reading" appears to be a disambiguation page in 2003 and for many years ; "written comprehension" is probably a better title for this page anyways. --
2655:
at the top with it, but almost nobody has even heard of it - in fact the majority of the world probably wouldn't even know where Berkshire was! We have
2063:
4883:
consensus" or not. On second point, the vote claimed to invoke policy actually didn't, it was appeal to popularity/pageview and the rest piled on it. –
7035:
5078:
Per Huwmanbeing the fact that a good disambiguator doesn't appear to exist is also surely a consideration. We should however include a direct link to
4982:. If this move is carried out, vigilance will be required to insure that incoming links intending that or other meanings are quickly found and fixed.
2823:
The solution to your perceived problem is for you to add "missing" information from other countries, not to balkanize the reading-related articles.
606:
6995:
6511:
and be very promptly fixed. Now in order to catch these wrong links someone has to take it upon themselves to periodically view the newest links to
5487:
by long-term significance. Long before Reading was founded, people were reading; people will still be reading long after Reading is gone. Goodness,
5382:
Yes it doesn't meet PT#1 but the long-term significance criteria is clearly met and no one looking for the towns would be surprised to end up here.
6218:
It's just a statistical fluke that this particular tool has more page views for the process in the past 20 days. If you take the exact same search
5364:, and reading (process) only got 37% of the views in the last 30 days. Reading (process) was the most sought-for topic on only 9 of those 30 days.
315:
85:
7010:
6970:
2220:
But a glance at the Littlefield article cited indicates that no "effects" have been shown at all. Rather, it appears to claim nothing more than
424:
6048:
choices of element, planet, mythological figure in the results, etc. and click on whichever one they seek. So they never even see the dab page.
5563:
This is same appeal to pageview argument which I refuted from onset. It's been made clear, pageview is not what solely determine primary topic.
3536:
per the "long-term significance" criterion of PRIMARYTOPIC. The act of reading long predates Reading and will most likely outlive it as well. --
6856:
Chan, Martin Luther. 2024. "Learning to Read in Hebrew and Arabic: Challenges and Pedagogical Approaches" Education Sciences 14, no. 7: 765.
6351:
Does three months sound like a sufficient period of time or would we be more comfortable with six? I mostly would like to just see traffic for
2647:
It doesn't matter, the others are trivial (and "the computer acquisition of information, the mechanism in which bills are introduced" are both
4235:. But merely describing benefits of text-based reading does not promote the notion that all people are cognitively able to read effectively.
7015:
4344:
is a religious concept and not a movie. For this reason, I propose that the topic with the greatest long-term significance when it comes to
3507:
page, and then proceeding to the Berkshire page. It doesn't mean that the stats are irrelevant, just that they don't show the entire picture.
6985:
6780:
6187:
6132:
5695:
talk page, charged debates with teams making outlandish assertions and accusations without reference to RS and V, would think the same. —
3068:
meaning." What would be the best way to include the interpretation of other symbols such as bodily/facial gestures, apparel, or tone? --
2907:
2067:
30:
6833:
Kim, S.Y., Cao, F. How does the brain read different scripts? Evidence from English, Korean, and Chinese. Read Writ 35, 1449–1473 (2022).
597:
552:
6044:
Assumption: Most users use Google to search and land on our articles. A relative minority uses the internal WP search (aka WP searchers).
4689:
Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a
4272:
Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a
3244:
Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a
2234:
to have the cited qualities: this is the same as claiming *correlation* -- something far easier to infer from data than is *causation*.
7000:
4409:
3623:
3975:. Reading is very well and widespread known as a place. Many other subjects are named deriving from this place. A wikipedia link to
2148:
I agree and was struck by the apparent bias of that section, so I have added a POV marker to that section. Various statements such as
306:
267:
3875:
is very clear indeed. If it isn't then we need to tweak it. I also point out that as this is reverting a recent undiscussed move, the
3794:
2969:
2555:
2904:
I am going to go ahead and remove the whole lot. It seems like a slur against drug users, implying they are less bookish or educated.
411:
372:
99:
4574:
6724:
3309:. I believe it is absolutely the primary topic, above all other combined possible uses (and there are several, including some like
2875:
of articles which may be worth looking at when developing this article There is another collection which could also be of interest
507:
481:
104:
20:
6862:
Notes that even for native speakers, not vocalising slows down the pace of reading - probably due to the absence of vowel letters.
687:
This article has previously been nominated to be moved. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination.
6622:
I have begun the merging process. I will favour material that is relevant, encyclopedic and having references. Comments welcome.
4293:
4191:
3957:
is the most important of the terms needing disambiguation, but I don't think it rises to the level of being the primary topic. —
3342:
3553:. Although it is one of the most important human activities, Reading (upper case) can also apply to a number of cites including
74:
6955:
6177:
6149:
6122:
2997:
2727:
44:
5431:
to the article about the process. This is a great example of why I was against adding the historical significance criteria to
242:
6556:
3004:), and practically all of his edits have to do with Islamic science, technology and philosophy. This editor has persistently
2746:
The "Intelligence" section is in desperate need of some citations. I've tried looking but the closest I managed to find was:
2622:
underrepresented. You are right in that this article holds the most natural name space, which is why it was decided to place
6171:
is enough to put this at the base name, in addition to the page views (19,418 for the process and 18,458 for Berkshire in a
4713:
65:
5765:
I understand that point. What I don't understand is the relevance of that point to determining whether the process is the
4591:. Making sense of the written word may be considered logically or philosophically primary, but in the special WP sense of
3088:
A topic like this would need its own page, there is a lot of work on the topic has been done and it deserves its own page.
3126:
phenomenon in general, by a literature professor. Also don't throw around the word "advertising", it's uncalled for, see
2867:
I have been collating a series of PubMed online Research paper collection, mainly about dyslexia, which can be found at
2573:
It takes time, I have to let the bots fix the links to this article before changing the redirect. I'll do it on July 16.
6668:
6541:
The section is too short and neglected. It also doesn't mention the crucial aspects. I reckon it needs to be reworked.
5301:
6324:
4680:
4628:
4601:. This is definitely the primary topic for the "reeding" pronunciation (if, like Wiktionary, we distinguished between
4263:
3235:
2876:
2872:
4027:
instead? I think that would include all of the pertinent activities covered in the article, and I like it better than
3338:
3313:
that are seriously significant, but which still do not come close to being the primary topic). The current article at
168:
6255:
5729:
5297:
6390:
3163:
135:
5688:
I have a script reloading the article every two seconds, it will be teh primary topic soon enough </sarcasm: -->
185:
4902:
3872:
3467:
about how many people were searching for the city with just the single word "Reading". We have links, you know.
3317:
is pretty pitiful but the topic therein is clearly more notable than all others, I think. But what do you thin-k?
3193:
Agreed. The trivial fix to that sentence is "... interpretation of symbols to extract the meaning from the visual
109:
6386:
6379:
5696:
4089:
RMs only last a week (normally). If more discussion is wanted, an RfC would be the next step. They last 30 days.
3898:. Although the seeing and comprehension of sets of words is the most important dictionary meaning of "reading",
3159:
2756:
6660:
6153:
6113:
5861:
5770:
5766:
5432:
4703:
4483:
4440:
4328:
4149:
3915:
3489:
3446:
3397:
199:
6784:
5842:
retains ambiguity and is, therefore, the wrong title for this article. In my opinion the page should be titled
4752:
4321:
3299:
3139:
3078:
2911:
2791:
2707:
2691:
2660:
2631:
2578:
2538:
2502:
2456:
2437:
2090:
I can't figure out where to put information like the above in Knowledge (XXG). Perhaps it doesn't belong there.
423:
topics on Knowledge (XXG). If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
6336:
4690:
4638:
4273:
4125:
3871:. Frankly I find it surprising that we're having a discussion at all. I would have thought that the intent of
3245:
2071:
248:
6425:
Oh....thank you for linking that. I hadn't realized that this experiment was already run in 2015. Looks like
4978:
for ages, and whenever any number of links builds up, there is always a strong contingent of links intending
4957:
Edit: looks like a previous experiment determined that the cities had plenty of traffic through the dab page.
2087:
Reader, among others. The latter two are good because they also support text to speech, but require Windows.
6867:
Asaad, H., Eviatar, Z. Learning to read in Arabic: the long and winding road. Read Writ 27, 649–664 (2014).
6664:
6414:
6398:
5963:
5910:
5754:
5545:
surprising or weird that more readers are interested in the topics like the various cities with this name.
5528:
5467:
5391:
5313:
5091:
4974:. I have no strong feelings about the proposal either way, but I have been disambiguating incoming links to
4662:
4413:
4396:
3627:
3103:
3027:
That's an old and archived RfC. The point is still valid though, and his contribs need to be doublechecked.
2965:
2938:
2559:
2123:
2109:
6544:
3879:
result that seems likely should be to move back to the original, which has been stable for some years now.
3337:: When most people hear "reading", they think of the act of picking up a book or newspaper and reading it.
2957:
2749:
2723:
2551:
512:
486:
3798:
3093:
2828:
2752:
190:
6251:
6022:
You seem to be talking about the opposite of what I'm talking about, but it doesn't much matter now. The
4024:
2475:
129:
55:
6936:
6811:
6605:
I welcome your suggestions. If there is an agreement to do the merger, I am happy to begin the process.
6360:
6332:
5843:
5653:
5574:"many people are only interested in the surface-level dictionary definition and don't need this article"
5373:
5361:
5351:
5286:
4811:
4724:
4571:
4470:
4354:
4077:
4034:
4000:
3960:
3561:
2771:
2190:
605:
on Knowledge (XXG). If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
314:
on Knowledge (XXG). If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
6799:
5054:
3418:
2961:
2261:
from peers, increased behavior issues, increased juvenile delinquency, juvenile incarceration, etc etc.
70:
2368:
effects of reading (social effects, such as higher literacy rates results in lower prison populations)
2169:
6744:
6720:
6307:
6072:
6014:
5925:
5881:
5851:
5790:
5736:
5451:
5066:
4408:
Reading shows up commonly in disambiguation pages with links, generally meant for Reading, Berkshire
4290:
4187:
3610:
3267:
3216:
2680:
2600:
1638:
Guided reading, reading workshop, shared reading, leveled reading, silent reading (and self-teaching)
2595:
I think it should go back to plain old 'reading' myself. All the other meanings are pretty trivial.
2363:
reading assessment -- related specifically to assessing progress during initial reading acquisition.
2314:
Here is a mock up of what the reading article might look like with this navigation template added:
219:
125:
6806:). Is it a definable concept? If not, then the redirect should be done or red links to be unlinked
6548:
6394:
6277:
6098:
5891:
5502:
5335:"You think that the town is just as significant as a process that is known to just about everyone."
4487:
4158:
4056:
4009:
3984:
3919:
3703:
3431:
3323:
3135:
3069:
2991:
2901:
statements about having a high reading level making you less likely to take drugs or go to prison.
2787:
2767:
2731:
2703:
2627:
2574:
2534:
2498:
2452:
2433:
796:
161:
6290:
6269:
5649:
5480:
5342:
A topic which gets only 50% of the page views, and which on some days is the less-read topic, can
5266:
4819:
4707:
4448:
3899:
3720:
should become the disambiguating page, with links to Apple Inc, Apple (fruit), and Apple Corps. --
2091:
6917:
6883:
6803:
6765:
6707:
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between
6685:
6644:
6627:
6610:
6580:
6552:
6497:
6407:
6356:
6294:
6209:
6161:
5956:
5903:
5812:
5747:
5666:
5635:
5610:
5581:
5550:
5521:
5463:
5384:
5306:
5270:
5243:
5224:
5183:
5144:
5118:
5084:
5079:
5012:
4979:
4929:
4888:
4851:
4836:
4803:
4658:
4545:
4528:
4462:
4392:
4240:
4207:
4202:
I agree in principle. The existing "Cognitive benefits" section could be broadened and expanded.
3841:
3817:
3750:
3672:
3557:
3497:
3481:
3454:
3405:
3385:
3310:
3183:
2934:
2652:
2390:
2119:
2105:
589:
420:
204:
5219:
for fruit despite being overwhelmed by Apple company in terms of 'pageview' you're talking of. –
4451:. As far a encyclopedia topics go, Reading, Berks, and Reading, PA, are at least as important:
4143:, I recently concluded a test of primacy, and indeed it appears that loads of people do type in
3127:
3000:). Jagged 85 is one of the main contributors to Knowledge (XXG) (over 67,000 edits, he's ranked
6873:"for all levels of skill, phonological awareness contributes significantly to reading accuracy"
175:
6728:
6352:
6268:
The process of Reading has "substantially greater enduring notability and educational value" (
6117:
5839:
4952:
4807:
4799:
4739:
4614:
4511:
4454:
4367:
4308:
4222:
4028:
3954:
3884:
3485:
3477:
3442:
3393:
3378:
3314:
3286:
3089:
3032:
3017:
2883:
2853:
2824:
2813:
2699:
2623:
2530:
2518:
2095:
795:
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
788:
298:
51:
5238:
familiarize yourself with WP's policies and guidelines before starting or commenting on RMs.
2930:
2926:
2118:
Nowadays we could use Adobe Acrobat reader, which is a great tool for Screen Reader folks 😀
6932:
6902:
6898:
6807:
6595:
6520:
6471:
6456:
6434:
6369:
6227:
6032:
5991:
5944:
5829:
5712:
5369:
5347:
5282:
5035:
4992:
4962:
4951:
experiment like I've seen on a couple other pages, where a new redirect is used in place of
4937:
4910:
4869:
4718:
4565:
4350:
4094:
4004:, as "process" does make it sound like machinery, or computing, or some technical thing. --
3939:
3911:
3723:
3589:
3567:
3512:
3354:
3053:
771:
403:
201:
6204:
And again, adding in the Pennsylvania article, no article gets more than 40% of pageviews.
5874:
5725:
5436:
5273:(pop. 163,000) just as significant. Most bad links to the DAB page are intended for there.
4474:
4458:
3381:
2241:
is not appropriate here, since this word means causal relationships, not mere correlation.
6740:
6300:
6090:
6069:
6011:
5922:
5878:
5847:
5787:
5769:. For it to be relevant, you'd have to define "primary topic" quite differently from what
5733:
5448:
5062:
4426:
4382:
4287:
4183:
3606:
3258:
3212:
2676:
2596:
2153:
5132:
4115:
2656:
4466:
3601:. At least two significant topics that share the same title. The disambiguation page at
3388:
2666:
Also, think about people trying to internal link to this article. Unless they know that
6732:
6426:
6273:
6094:
5979:
5887:
5648:
I was nicely assuming you were actually responding to the Knowledge (XXG) concept of a
5497:
5233:
I'm sorry, that's completely incorrect, in so many ways. The usage criterion is listed
4806:
is also a process and can be named as such. There's no way to immediately tell whether
4153:
4052:
4005:
3980:
3903:
3699:
3664:
3426:
3318:
2987:
2843:
article does not realte to well to so many of the less well researched articles in the
5368:. There is absolutely no way that reading (process), or any other meaning, is PTOPIC.
3647:, so too should this title direct readers to the common English meaning of the word.
1144:
649:
6949:
6907:
6879:
6761:
6681:
6640:
6623:
6606:
6576:
6493:
6402:
6205:
6157:
5808:
5662:
5631:
5606:
5577:
5546:
5416:
5239:
5220:
5179:
5140:
5114:
5008:
4884:
4847:
4832:
4541:
4524:
4236:
4203:
3852:
3837:
3827:
3813:
3812:– a bogus primarytopic claim is not the only way to improve a title you don't like.
3772:
3746:
3686:
3668:
3660:
3648:
3541:
3493:
3468:
3450:
3401:
3201:
3179:
3107:
2386:
2328:
2282:
2060:
is there any good info about how to best read in a computer? font type, size, etc. ?
2047:
141:
3698:
Not true. Article writers have often done this, but someone quickly changes it. --
6219:
6201:
6172:
6008:
5983:
5866:
5424:
5365:
5274:
5136:
5106:
4610:
4507:
4363:
4218:
3880:
3131:
3028:
3013:
2879:
2868:
2849:
2809:
6845:
6825:
I used ChatGPT to search for these. So there may be better and/or older studies.
5594:
Your "refutation" is not very convincing to me, and I could equally suggest that
5427:, so it would be a great disservice to our users to take everyone searching with
5304:
318,014 though but I still don't see how its even close to being as significant.
2490:
6703:
6516:
6482:
6467:
6452:
6430:
6365:
6223:
6028:
5987:
5940:
5825:
5721:
5708:
5492:
5444:
5440:
5170:
help to support the determination of a primary topic in a discussion...include:
5110:
5031:
4983:
4958:
4906:
4865:
4443:. Although the seeing and comprehension of sets of words is the most important
4090:
3935:
3907:
3585:
3508:
3049:
602:
387:
366:
282:
261:
5462:. I agree with other commenters that there is no clear primary topic by usage.
4023:
article also covers the acquisition of reading by beginner learners. How about
3197:
notations", but the more is required, including a short Braille section with a
2272:
Obviously, appropriate citations would need to be provided. I'll look for some.
1014:
Foundational reading skill instruction practices, kindergarten through grade 12
583:
500:
475:
6112:. Clearly meets both the historical significance and common usage criteria of
5564:
4790:
4637:
Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a
4124:
Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a
3158:
presence of hyperlinks, for example, makes reading more difficult or easier.
2659:
for these things; reading should be moved back to 'reading', and a hatnote to
579:
393:
311:
288:
6834:
6293:
with respect to long-term significance. People have been reading long before
5576:
is nothing but a sheer conjectural surmise without any verifiable evidence. –
4506:. More participation required, AjaxSmack's stats certainly make a good case.
6868:
6840:
6698:
Wiki Education assignment: Language and Literacy Acquisition and Development
5877:
to the well-meaning but ill-conceived "historical significance" criteria. --
5516:
4802:
is not only clearly ambiguous but to some extent incorrect. This is because
3114:
page, which shows all the different articles that could be titled "Reading."
2897:
A bizarre paragraph near the end makes some unreferenced and to some extent
2242:
416:
5871:
as many are looking for the one in Berkshire as are looking for the process
5838:
While I agree that no topic is primary for the term, I strongly agree that
6857:
6594:
Further to my above comments, perhaps the best solution would be to merge
3441:
Well apparently 123961 people have, as the page views are almost 1:1 with
3178:
Braille cannot read. This is a bias that I would like to see removed. --
1548:
Using embedded pictures, and mnemonic alphabet cards when teaching phonics
397:
4827:
3537:
2840:
2299:
Whoever added the new graphic images, good choices! They look terrific.
6202:
more than 20,000 more views than the process article over the past year.
5775:
one potential criterion to commonly avoid is what "first comes to mind".
2750:
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,21993021-2702,00.html
6599:
6512:
6004:
5974:
I think a good parallel for this situation, but on a smaller scale, is
5807:
readers outside the UK are unlikely to search for the Berkshire topic.
5728:? Or do you not know and understand what PRIMARYTOPIC and paritculary
5058:
5026:
4975:
4815:
4748:
4743:
4606:
4602:
4345:
4317:
4312:
4232:
4144:
3976:
3826:
You only think it's bogus because you don't like it. It's not bogus.
3763:
article, not primacy (or lack thereof). So you're saying that because
3602:
3422:
3295:
3290:
3208:
3111:
2844:
2695:
2672:
2667:
2526:
2514:
2318:
User:Rosmoran/sandbox/reading/example reading article with nav template
2006:
1993:
1980:
1967:
1953:
1938:
1924:
1911:
1897:
1883:
1870:
1856:
1841:
1826:
1811:
1796:
1782:
1768:
1753:
1738:
1723:
1708:
1694:
1681:
1667:
1652:
1637:
1622:
1607:
1592:
1577:
1562:
1547:
1532:
1517:
1502:
1487:
1472:
1457:
1442:
1427:
1412:
1397:
1382:
1367:
1352:
1337:
1322:
1307:
1293:
1279:
1264:
1249:
1234:
1219:
1204:
1189:
1174:
1159:
1129:
1115:
1101:
1086:
1071:
1056:
1041:
1027:
1013:
998:
983:
968:
953:
939:
925:
910:
895:
880:
866:
853:
830:
784:
779:
This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
739:
721:
703:
24:
4523:
per AjaxSmack's well-reasoned rationale & previous RM's comments.
3759:
But you suggested "consistency" as a reason to change the name of the
2292:
Great images; idea about navigation box for reading and related topics
573:
546:
6976:
Knowledge (XXG) level-4 vital articles in Society and social sciences
5886:
A note that Born2cycle already made a bold strong oppose !vote above
4341:
3764:
3742:
2486:
6056:
likelihood each page is the one being sought relative to the others.
5921:
Oops. Thanks. Fixed. My point stands. The process is not primary. --
5730:
Knowledge (XXG):Disambiguation#Not_"what_first_comes_to_(your)_mind"
5447:
above. For all these reasons, this move would be a very bad idea. --
3351:
Er, maybe, but when people hear rɛdɪŋ, they think something else. --
2929:
would remove the lot. Other views, please, before implementing this
6680:
Thank you. I will take a look at these concerns when time permits.
6663:
more throughly as in my view the article is the most deficient on.
203:
5975:
5568:
5488:
5216:
4794:
4333:
3768:
3760:
3738:
3717:
3682:
3640:
5439:) also helps protect against the wrong link problem explained by
5600:
4337:
3851:
specific, or visit this disambiguation link to find the city."
3741:
would be a redirect, but that it would be a disambig page, like
2377:
The relationship among most of these topics is at best scanty.
2306:
Here is a strawman to give you an idea of what I'm proposing:
3110:. However, I think you're also confusing this article with the
6940:
6925:
6887:
6815:
6788:
6769:
6748:
6689:
6672:
6648:
6631:
6614:
6584:
6560:
6524:
6501:
6475:
6460:
6438:
6420:
6373:
6314:
6281:
6259:
6231:
6213:
6195:
6165:
6140:
6102:
6075:
6036:
6017:
5995:
5969:
5948:
5928:
5916:
5895:
5855:
5833:
5816:
5793:
5760:
5739:
5716:
5699:
5670:
5639:
5614:
5585:
5554:
5534:
5509:
5471:
5454:
5397:
5377:
5355:
5319:
5290:
5247:
5228:
5187:
5148:
5122:
5097:
5070:
5039:
5016:
4997:
4966:
4940:
4914:
4892:
4873:
4855:
4732:
4666:
4618:
4583:
4549:
4532:
4515:
4496:
4429:
4417:
4400:
4371:
4298:
4244:
4226:
4211:
4196:
4163:
4098:
4084:
4060:
4041:
4013:
3988:
3967:
3943:
3928:
3888:
3855:
3845:
3830:
3821:
3802:
3775:
3754:
3732:
3707:
3689:
3676:
3651:
3631:
3614:
3593:
3576:
3545:
3516:
3501:
3471:
3458:
3436:
3409:
3363:
3346:
3328:
3276:
3220:
3187:
3167:
3143:
3097:
3082:
3057:
3036:
3021:
2942:
2915:
2887:
2857:
2832:
2817:
2795:
2775:
2760:
2735:
2711:
2684:
2635:
2604:
2582:
2563:
2542:
2506:
2478:
2460:
2441:
2394:
2331:
2285:
2245:
2193:
2172:
2168:
of ten seconds from now, I am removing the offending content.
2156:
2127:
2113:
2099:
2075:
2050:
804:
753:
676:
213:
205:
15:
6966:
Knowledge (XXG) vital articles in Society and social sciences
6575:
I would be willing to help if others agreed to the strategy.
3771:
should be too? If that's the case, I don't understand why.
6331:
Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this
5178:. Please review the guideline and reconsider your position.
4710:, more global significance and Fyrael's counter arguements)
3102:
Some articles that cover what you're talking about would be
2212:
The section "Effect of Reading" begins with the statement: "
648:
5135:
policy and has been debunked, see above. By your logic see
5105:
The cognitive process is nowhere close to the primarytopic
2877:
Dorsal and Ventral Streams - functional anatomy of language
2410:
Reading skills; sub-section: Development, Assement, Methods
6487:
You clearly missed he point here. The article of the town
4824:
that cannot be meaningfully expanded beyond the definition
4381:, primary topic and concept. A nice and well written nom.
3663:
woud be a more sensible way to approach consistency; like
5483:
were made for. Primary topic can be determined by usage
4779:
It's absolutely beyond doubt, that reading, yes literal
3234:
The following discussion is an archived discussion of a
2690:
Before you make the move, you'll have to CSD delete the
2181:
The section on speed reading could stand to be explained
6447:
6382:
5982:. The city again outstrips the general concept word in
5281:
views of the town article than of the process article.
5131:
This is appeal to pageview/popularity but not based on
4766:
4762:
4758:
3009:
1783:
Reading achievement: national and international reports
735:
717:
699:
6821:
Sources that may improve coverage of non-Latin scripts
4425:. Now we got to get workin' on writin' and 'ritmatic.
3134:
it would be obvious. The edit was made in good faith.
160:
6981:
C-Class vital articles in Society and social sciences
6323:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a
5624:
commenter who put it more succinctly some years ago:
4627:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a
4114:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a
5901:
The hits you gave are for the DAB page not process.
4486:
as is obvious from these article pageview stats. —
3484:
123961, it's clear that it's 50:50 between the two.
725:
601:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
415:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
310:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
6639:I have finished the merge and welcome suggestions.
4693:. No further edits should be made to this section.
4276:. No further edits should be made to this section.
3248:. No further edits should be made to this section.
2353:
types of reading (proofreading, close reading, etc)
743:
174:
6445:...and within hours our article about reading has
6339:. No further edits should be made to this section.
4641:. No further edits should be made to this section.
4128:. No further edits should be made to this section.
2694:redirect, move the disambiguation, CSD delete the
6249:direct link to the most common name as suggested.
6093:I've unbolded your !vote since you !voted above.
1338:Combining phonics with other literacy instruction
969:Reading to children: necessary but not sufficient
6590:Proposed merger of Learning to read with Reading
4473:has been viewed 29432 times in the last 90 days.
4465:has been viewed 60243 times in the last 90 days.
4457:has been viewed 41497 times in the last 90 days.
3953:per the page views. I agree with AjaxSmack that
2224:between reading and the positive effects cited.
510:, a project which is currently considered to be
33:for general discussion of the article's subject.
6509:Knowledge (XXG):Disambiguation_pages_with_links
4139:Hola, this is your previous RM poster here. At
3149:Content random, poorly organized - new section?
1087:Fluent, comprehending reader: 9 to 15 years old
6846:https://searchworks.stanford.edu/view/13505854
2310:User:Rosmoran/sandbox/reading/reading template
6222:, the process becomes the fourth most viewed.
5625:
5205:
5164:
5154:
4936:a process, albeit one conducted by machine.
4770:
4648:Reading rate - moving back to its own section
2104:Happy to know that! Thanks for your support.
8:
1042:Emerging pre-reader: 6 months to 6 years old
999:Suggested reading instruction by grade level
4948:: In addition to the obvious significance,
3421:is useful here. Who would actually type in
6835:https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-022-10263-9
6542:
5173:Knowledge (XXG) article traffic statistics
4679:The following is a closed discussion of a
4262:The following is a closed discussion of a
3390:viewed 123961 times in the last 90 days.
3383:viewed 141099 times in the last 90 days.
2921:Proposed trim of "external links" section
2626:at the top of list in the disambiguation.
2548:Now can you fix the disambiguation page!
954:Spoken language: the foundation of reading
827:
816:
541:
470:
361:
256:
6869:https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-013-9469-9
6841:https://doi.org/10.1017/S136672892000070X
4810:means reading done by computer, by human
4769:. Article policy makes it clear on this:
2986:has been filed concerning the conduct of
5519:(the equivelant of a US state capital).
4822:is meant for those articles about words
3914:are at least as important. There is no
2863:PubMed Research papers regarding Reading
1668:Reading wars: phonics vs. whole language
1608:Three cueing system (Searchlights model)
1235:The production effect (reading out loud)
7031:Applied Linguistics Task Force articles
6858:https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci14070765
3006:misused sources here over several years
615:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Linguistics
543:
472:
363:
258:
217:
6961:Knowledge (XXG) level-4 vital articles
5774:
5573:
4652:At some point in the past the section
3716:No. Not so absurd as you may suggest.
1220:Dual-route hypothesis to reading aloud
324:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Psychology
6385:for this article, maybe we could use
4327:– One of the two ways to determine a
2416:Health; sub-section: Vising, Lighting
433:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Education
7:
7026:C-Class applied linguistics articles
7021:High-importance Linguistics articles
5491:doesn't get half the pageviews that
4698:The result of the move request was:
4281:The result of the move request was:
3902:. As far a encyclopedia topics go,
3253:The result of the move request was:
2344:Look at the major topics covered:
1623:Three Ps (3Ps) – Pause Prompt Praise
1383:Analytic phonics and analogy phonics
1205:Eye movement and silent reading rate
785:phonics#systematic synthetic phonics
595:This article is within the scope of
522:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Dyslexia
506:This article is within the scope of
409:This article is within the scope of
304:This article is within the scope of
6991:High-importance psychology articles
5479:. This is what the two criteria at
5200:There is a reason this was written
4767:this one-man so-called "discussion"
4449:Knowledge (XXG) is not a dictionary
4336:is a fruit and not a tech company,
3900:Knowledge (XXG) is not a dictionary
2533:. Move will be made, 07 July 2008.
1682:Requirements for proficient reading
707:
247:It is of interest to the following
23:for discussing improvements to the
7006:High-importance education articles
6712:
6708:
3643:is the fruit and not the company,
3463:Nonsense. The pageview stats say
1398:Embedded phonics with mini-lessons
1250:Evidence-based reading instruction
14:
5567:has almost double pageviews than
5137:the usage of Apple and Apple Inc.
4702:Support had stronger arguements (
4340:is a color and not a singer, and
2663:should be (presumably re-)added.
2529:should be moved to a new article
1102:Expert reader: 16 years and older
1072:Decoding reader: 7 to 9 years old
50:New to Knowledge (XXG)? Welcome!
7036:WikiProject Linguistics articles
6715:. Further details are available
6702:
4357:) 21:46, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
3737:Right, I wasn't suggesting that
2893:Reading Makes You Less Likely...
1488:Sight vocabulary vs. sight words
1280:Teacher training and legislation
984:Optimum age for learning to read
808:
757:
680:
618:Template:WikiProject Linguistics
582:
572:
545:
499:
474:
396:
386:
365:
291:
281:
260:
227:
218:
45:Click here to start a new topic.
6996:WikiProject Psychology articles
6150:User:Flooded with them hundreds
5786:. And it's clearly not that. --
4839:) 15:03, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
4255:Requested move 16 November 2015
1057:Novice reader: 6 to 7 years old
635:This article has been rated as
453:This article has been rated as
344:This article has been rated as
327:Template:WikiProject Psychology
7011:WikiProject Education articles
6971:C-Class level-4 vital articles
6941:19:43, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
6926:19:32, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
6391:Reading (city in Pennsylvania)
4672:Requested move 17 October 2018
4667:22:47, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
3425:thinking they'd get the city?
3058:15:41, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
3043:Printed vs. Electronic Reading
2916:00:28, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
2888:18:32, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
2712:22:10, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
2685:23:16, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
2636:21:52, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
2605:08:02, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
1533:Reading and spelling (writing)
1265:Reading from paper vs. screens
787:links to a specific web page:
660:Applied Linguistics Task Force
436:Template:WikiProject Education
1:
6789:12:37, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
6739:— Assignment last updated by
5884:16:07, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
4584:02:01, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
4563:
4550:22:00, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
4533:15:12, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
4516:07:12, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
4497:03:23, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
4430:20:17, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
4418:18:54, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
4401:07:38, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
4372:07:12, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
4135:Postmortem--no primary topic?
4051:beyond the reading itself. --
3392:I don't think we can promote
3168:18:50, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
2943:17:56, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
2479:00:48, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
2395:00:27, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
657:This article is supported by
609:and see a list of open tasks.
525:Template:WikiProject Dyslexia
427:and see a list of open tasks.
318:and see a list of open tasks.
42:Put new text under old text.
7016:C-Class Linguistics articles
6816:16:22, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
6770:15:10, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
6755:Split off Science of reading
6690:13:31, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
6649:16:40, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
6632:17:05, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
6525:17:29, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
6502:16:39, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
6476:15:17, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
6461:14:22, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
6439:21:48, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
6421:21:39, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
6374:21:32, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
6346:Experiment for primary topic
6315:01:58, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
6282:20:45, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
6260:17:16, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
6232:20:26, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
6214:17:25, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
6196:16:07, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
6166:15:41, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
6141:15:15, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
6103:20:50, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
6076:18:24, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
6037:13:28, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
6018:23:23, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
5996:21:19, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
5970:20:32, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
5949:20:25, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
5929:17:03, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
5917:16:24, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
5896:20:50, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
5856:03:06, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
5834:23:48, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
5817:05:59, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
5794:16:58, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
5761:16:29, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
5740:16:16, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
5717:10:34, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
5700:08:39, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
5671:18:34, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
5659:the Knowledge (XXG) articles
5640:05:59, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
5615:21:22, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
5586:06:21, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
5555:02:46, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
5535:10:22, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
5510:23:56, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
5472:07:18, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
5455:18:44, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
5398:10:02, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
5378:04:36, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
5356:04:14, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
5320:16:18, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
5302:Reading/Wokingham Urban Area
5291:15:01, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
5248:13:09, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
5229:07:36, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
5204:which you don't want quote:
5188:03:28, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
5149:19:21, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
5123:18:42, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
5098:13:22, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
5071:04:34, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
5040:19:14, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
5017:05:27, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
4998:03:29, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
4967:16:31, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
4941:16:15, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
4915:18:17, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
4893:16:49, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
4874:16:12, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
4856:16:03, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
4733:23:14, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
4619:22:53, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
4385:2:22, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
4299:21:14, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
3221:13:45, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
3188:02:33, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
3144:05:11, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
3098:22:51, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
3083:22:44, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
2736:22:24, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
2720:Read is a VERB, not a noun
2404:Here is a possible outline:
2128:19:43, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
2114:19:39, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
1160:Active view of reading model
926:State of reading achievement
6986:C-Class psychology articles
6905:is plausible, for a start.
6888:22:34, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
6749:23:41, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
6673:16:38, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
6615:15:36, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
6585:21:21, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
6387:Reading (town in Berkshire)
6068:Hope that helps. Thanks. --
2801:need a WIKI reading project
1884:History of learning to read
7052:
7001:C-Class education articles
6779:Benefits of reading books
6567:Is this article necessary?
6561:11:39, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
6200:The Berkshire article has
3767:is a disambiguation page,
3605:is the sensible solution.
3329:22:51, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
3002:198 in the number of edits
2761:21:46, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
2332:19:27, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
2286:17:29, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
2051:08:21, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
1145:Scarborough's reading rope
641:project's importance scale
459:project's importance scale
350:project's importance scale
6918:
6380:Reading (visual activity)
4793:could have been moved to
4245:15:28, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
4227:03:46, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
4212:17:32, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
4197:16:29, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
4164:00:36, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
4069:I would say that reading
3037:21:06, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
2858:15:59, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
2833:17:46, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
2818:13:13, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
2583:02:33, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
2564:16:12, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
2543:02:03, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
2246:18:14, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
2208:Correlation vs. causality
2194:02:04, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
2100:15:33, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
2076:05:30, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
1353:Effectiveness of programs
1323:Phonics and related areas
1028:Stages to skilled reading
716:, 16 November 2015, from
656:
634:
567:
494:
452:
381:
343:
276:
255:
80:Be welcoming to newcomers
6329:Please do not modify it.
6220:to the start of the year
5053:per nom, primary topic,
4753:Reading (disambiguation)
4686:Please do not modify it.
4634:Please do not modify it.
4322:Reading (disambiguation)
4269:Please do not modify it.
4121:Please do not modify it.
4099:15:17, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
4085:14:41, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
4061:13:03, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
4042:12:39, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
4014:10:33, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
3989:10:30, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
3968:09:43, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
3944:02:11, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
3708:10:36, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
3517:21:05, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
3502:20:31, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
3300:Reading (disambiguation)
3277:13:59, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
3241:Please do not modify it.
3022:17:19, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
2776:11:22, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
2692:Reading (disambiguation)
2661:reading (disambiguation)
2383:Thoughts? Other ideas?
2173:07:30, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
2157:14:01, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
1413:Phonics through spelling
734:, 17 October 2018, from
6399:EA (video game company)
3929:01:29, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
3889:15:35, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
3856:17:00, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
3846:03:05, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
3831:23:40, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
3822:05:03, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
3803:01:06, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
3776:17:00, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
3755:03:05, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
3733:02:22, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
3690:23:40, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
3677:05:07, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
3652:23:23, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
3645:regardless of pageviews
3632:20:30, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
3615:02:03, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
3594:03:35, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
3577:02:26, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
3546:17:13, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
3472:23:23, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
3459:20:48, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
3437:01:19, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
3410:17:00, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
3364:02:26, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
3347:07:22, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
3104:Nonverbal communication
2796:07:58, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
2507:03:51, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
2461:03:26, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
2442:03:38, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
598:WikiProject Linguistics
6956:C-Class vital articles
5629:
5213:
5177:
5163:
4778:
4447:meaning of "reading",
3488:is far from being the
3339:Illegitimate Barrister
2702:. You have consensus.
2495:More links with Google
1130:Simple view of reading
698:, 30 April 2013, from
653:
307:WikiProject Psychology
75:avoid personal attacks
6775:Everyday conversation
6719:. Student editor(s):
6451:intended for a town.
6361:Reading, Pennsylvania
6359:, but I've also seen
5654:Meaning (existential)
5362:Reading, Pennsylvania
5332:Oh, look! a squirrel!
4901:Mmm, nope. There are
4471:Reading, Pennsylvania
3562:Reading, Pennsylvania
3373:. With page views as:
3255:no consensus for move
2066:comment was added by
2056:Reading in a computer
1769:Radio reading service
1754:Reading comprehension
1653:Logographic languages
1518:Reading comprehension
652:
412:WikiProject Education
241:on Knowledge (XXG)'s
234:level-4 vital article
100:Neutral point of view
6297:was a settlement. —
5425:the page view counts
5057:, common sense, and
4786:appeal to page views
3681:Apple (fruit), with
3160:Toxicmegacolonlaptop
2984:request for comments
2199:Subvocalized reading
1695:Reading difficulties
1308:Alphabetic languages
881:Reading vs. literacy
621:Linguistics articles
508:WikiProject Dyslexia
105:No original research
6852:Arabic and Hebrew:
6798:we have a red link
6727:). Peer reviewers:
6395:Lincoln (president)
5724:, are you invoking
5061:between the lines.
4025:Reading (cognition)
2786:reasons. Thanks! --
2781:Guy reading picture
1593:Structured literacy
1190:How the brain reads
834:
558:Applied Linguistics
330:psychology articles
6804:compulsory reading
6717:on the course page
6665:CactiStaccingCrane
6537:Cognitive benefits
6357:Reading, Berkshire
6295:Reading, Berkshire
6027:previous argument.
5844:Reading (literary)
5732:says and means? --
5271:Reading, Berkshire
5080:Reading, Berkshire
4980:Reading, Berkshire
4930:Reading (computer)
4804:Reading (computer)
4482:Thus, there is no
4463:Reading, Berkshire
4391:, no competition.
4001:Reading (literacy)
3558:Reading, Berkshire
3482:Reading, Berkshire
3386:Reading, Berkshire
3311:Reading, Berkshire
3154:pending comments?
2873:Reading Collection
2653:Reading, Berkshire
2651:anyway!). We have
2337:Content of article
1458:Phonemic awareness
1368:Systematic phonics
1116:Science of reading
911:Cognitive benefits
828:
654:
590:Linguistics portal
439:education articles
243:content assessment
86:dispute resolution
47:
6800:mandatory reading
6794:Mandatory reading
6654:About unclear tag
6563:
6547:comment added by
6353:Reading (process)
6312:
6185:
6130:
6118:reading (process)
5898:
5840:Reading (process)
5275:Pageview analysis
4953:Reading (process)
4858:
4812:or by legislators
4808:Reading (process)
4800:Reading (process)
4740:Reading (process)
4731:
4717:
4714:Non admin closure
4504:Relisting comment
4455:Reading (process)
4374:
4309:Reading (process)
4296:
4195:
4182:comment added by
4169:Benefits section?
4029:Reading (process)
3955:reading (process)
3731:
3575:
3486:Reading (process)
3478:Reading (process)
3443:Reading (process)
3394:Reading (process)
3379:Reading (process)
3362:
3315:reading (process)
3287:Reading (process)
3075:
2978:Misuse of sources
2974:
2960:comment added by
2726:comment added by
2700:Reading (process)
2624:Reading (process)
2566:
2554:comment added by
2531:Reading (process)
2519:Reading (process)
2079:
2038:
2037:
2033:
2032:
2029:
2028:
1578:Balanced literacy
1428:Synthetic phonics
829:Section size for
803:
802:
789:Synthetic phonics
774:in most browsers.
752:
751:
736:Reading (process)
718:Reading (process)
700:Reading (process)
675:
674:
671:
670:
667:
666:
540:
539:
536:
535:
528:Dyslexia articles
469:
468:
465:
464:
421:education-related
360:
359:
356:
355:
299:Psychology portal
212:
211:
66:Assume good faith
43:
7043:
6924:
6922:
6916:
6912:
6903:Learning to read
6751:
6725:article contribs
6714:
6713:21 December 2022
6710:
6706:
6596:Learning to read
6486:
6450:
6417:
6410:
6310:
6306:
6303:
6183:
6128:
5966:
5959:
5913:
5906:
5885:
5757:
5750:
5531:
5524:
5506:
5500:
5394:
5387:
5316:
5309:
5094:
5087:
4990:
4903:WP:THREEOUTCOMES
4840:
4723:
4711:
4688:
4636:
4582:
4494:
4493:
4358:
4294:
4271:
4181:
4175:
4156:
4123:
4080:
4079:Mr. Stradivarius
4037:
4036:Mr. Stradivarius
3997:Suggest instead
3963:
3962:Mr. Stradivarius
3926:
3925:
3912:Reading Railroad
3873:WP:Primary topic
3730:
3727:
3721:
3574:
3571:
3565:
3429:
3361:
3358:
3352:
3321:
3272:
3263:
3243:
3206:
3200:
3073:
2973:
2954:
2948:Goals of reading
2738:
2698:, then move the
2549:
2061:
1956:
1941:
1900:
1859:
1844:
1829:
1814:
1799:
1771:
1756:
1741:
1726:
1711:
1670:
1655:
1640:
1625:
1610:
1595:
1580:
1565:
1550:
1535:
1520:
1505:
1490:
1475:
1460:
1445:
1430:
1415:
1400:
1385:
1370:
1355:
1340:
1325:
1310:
1294:Teaching reading
1282:
1267:
1252:
1237:
1222:
1207:
1192:
1177:
1162:
1147:
1132:
1104:
1089:
1074:
1059:
1044:
1016:
1001:
986:
971:
956:
940:Learning to read
928:
913:
898:
883:
835:
817:
812:
811:
805:
797:Reporting errors
761:
760:
754:
684:
683:
677:
623:
622:
619:
616:
613:
592:
587:
586:
576:
569:
568:
563:
560:
549:
542:
530:
529:
526:
523:
520:
503:
496:
495:
490:
478:
471:
441:
440:
437:
434:
431:
406:
404:Education portal
401:
400:
390:
383:
382:
377:
369:
362:
332:
331:
328:
325:
322:
301:
296:
295:
294:
285:
278:
277:
272:
264:
257:
240:
231:
230:
223:
222:
214:
206:
179:
178:
164:
95:Article policies
16:
7051:
7050:
7046:
7045:
7044:
7042:
7041:
7040:
6946:
6945:
6914:
6908:
6906:
6895:
6823:
6796:
6777:
6757:
6738:
6721:Literacystudent
6700:
6661:WP:SUMMARYSTYLE
6656:
6592:
6569:
6539:
6480:
6446:
6415:
6408:
6348:
6343:
6308:
6301:
6154:WP:PRIMARYTOPIC
6114:WP:PRIMARYTOPIC
5964:
5957:
5911:
5904:
5862:WP:PRIMARYTOPIC
5771:WP:PRIMARYTOPIC
5767:WP:PRIMARYTOPIC
5755:
5748:
5697:cygnis insignis
5529:
5522:
5504:
5498:
5433:WP:PRIMARYTOPIC
5392:
5385:
5314:
5307:
5092:
5085:
4984:
4761:. It was only
4704:WP:PRIMARYTOPIC
4684:
4674:
4650:
4645:
4632:
4580:
4489:
4488:
4441:WP:PRIMARYTOPIC
4267:
4257:
4177:
4171:
4154:
4150:WP:PRIMARYTOPIC
4137:
4132:
4119:
4078:
4035:
3961:
3921:
3920:
3725:
3722:
3569:
3566:
3490:WP:PRIMARYTOPIC
3447:WP:PRIMARYTOPIC
3427:
3398:WP:PRIMARYTOPIC
3356:
3353:
3319:
3270:
3261:
3239:
3229:
3204:
3198:
3196:
3175:
3151:
3123:
3072:
3065:
3063:Reading people?
3045:
2980:
2955:
2950:
2923:
2905:
2895:
2865:
2803:
2783:
2753:Indianparttime2
2744:
2721:
2522:
2471:
2339:
2294:
2237:Thus, the word
2210:
2201:
2183:
2135:
2062:—The preceding
2058:
2043:
2034:
1994:Further reading
1952:
1937:
1896:
1855:
1840:
1825:
1810:
1795:
1767:
1752:
1739:Reading fluency
1737:
1722:
1707:
1666:
1651:
1636:
1621:
1606:
1591:
1576:
1561:
1546:
1531:
1516:
1501:
1486:
1471:
1456:
1441:
1426:
1411:
1396:
1381:
1366:
1351:
1336:
1321:
1306:
1278:
1263:
1248:
1233:
1218:
1203:
1188:
1173:
1158:
1143:
1128:
1100:
1085:
1070:
1055:
1040:
1012:
997:
982:
967:
952:
924:
909:
896:Writing systems
894:
879:
822:
809:
799:
777:
776:
775:
758:
681:
637:High-importance
620:
617:
614:
611:
610:
588:
581:
562:High‑importance
561:
555:
527:
524:
521:
518:
517:
484:
455:High-importance
438:
435:
432:
429:
428:
402:
395:
376:High‑importance
375:
346:High-importance
329:
326:
323:
320:
319:
297:
292:
290:
271:High‑importance
270:
238:
228:
208:
207:
202:
121:
116:
115:
114:
91:
61:
12:
11:
5:
7049:
7047:
7039:
7038:
7033:
7028:
7023:
7018:
7013:
7008:
7003:
6998:
6993:
6988:
6983:
6978:
6973:
6968:
6963:
6958:
6948:
6947:
6944:
6943:
6894:
6893:What to split?
6891:
6877:
6876:
6875:
6874:
6865:
6864:
6863:
6850:
6849:
6843:
6837:
6822:
6819:
6795:
6792:
6781:103.232.131.19
6776:
6773:
6756:
6753:
6709:30 August 2022
6699:
6696:
6695:
6694:
6693:
6692:
6655:
6652:
6637:
6636:
6635:
6634:
6591:
6588:
6568:
6565:
6538:
6535:
6534:
6533:
6532:
6531:
6530:
6529:
6528:
6527:
6443:
6442:
6441:
6347:
6344:
6342:
6341:
6325:requested move
6319:
6318:
6317:
6284:
6263:
6250:
6243:
6242:
6241:
6240:
6239:
6238:
6237:
6236:
6235:
6234:
6144:
6143:
6107:
6106:
6105:
6088:
6087:
6086:
6085:
6084:
6083:
6082:
6081:
6080:
6079:
6078:
6066:
6065:
6064:
6061:
6057:
6053:
6049:
6045:
6000:
5999:
5998:
5980:Butte, Montana
5858:
5836:
5819:
5802:
5801:
5800:
5799:
5798:
5797:
5796:
5778:
5777:
5702:
5692:mildly support
5682:
5681:
5680:
5679:
5678:
5677:
5676:
5675:
5674:
5673:
5643:
5642:
5618:
5617:
5589:
5588:
5558:
5557:
5539:
5538:
5537:
5474:
5457:
5423:, as shown by
5409:
5408:
5407:
5406:
5405:
5404:
5403:
5402:
5401:
5400:
5340:
5336:
5333:
5325:
5324:
5323:
5322:
5259:
5258:
5257:
5256:
5255:
5254:
5253:
5252:
5251:
5250:
5193:
5192:
5191:
5190:
5126:
5125:
5100:
5073:
5047:
5046:
5045:
5044:
5043:
5042:
5020:
5019:
5001:
5000:
4969:
4943:
4932:is presumably
4922:
4921:
4920:
4919:
4918:
4917:
4896:
4895:
4877:
4876:
4759:a year earlier
4756:
4755:
4746:
4736:
4728:
4721:
4696:
4695:
4681:requested move
4675:
4673:
4670:
4649:
4646:
4644:
4643:
4629:requested move
4623:
4622:
4621:
4596:
4586:
4578:
4560:
4552:
4535:
4518:
4500:
4499:
4479:
4478:
4477:
4476:
4468:
4460:
4433:
4432:
4420:
4403:
4386:
4325:
4324:
4315:
4304:
4302:
4279:
4278:
4264:requested move
4258:
4256:
4253:
4252:
4251:
4250:
4249:
4248:
4247:
4170:
4167:
4136:
4133:
4131:
4130:
4116:requested move
4111:
4110:
4109:
4108:
4107:
4106:
4105:
4104:
4103:
4102:
4101:
4064:
4063:
4045:
4044:
4017:
4016:
3992:
3991:
3970:
3948:
3947:
3946:
3910:, and (maybe)
3904:Reading, Berks
3892:
3891:
3865:
3864:
3863:
3862:
3861:
3860:
3859:
3858:
3806:
3805:
3787:
3786:
3785:
3784:
3783:
3782:
3781:
3780:
3779:
3778:
3735:
3714:
3713:
3712:
3711:
3710:
3665:Orange (fruit)
3655:
3654:
3634:
3617:
3596:
3579:
3548:
3530:
3529:
3528:
3527:
3526:
3525:
3524:
3523:
3522:
3521:
3520:
3519:
3445:. There is no
3391:
3384:
3376:
3375:
3374:
3368:
3367:
3366:
3303:
3302:
3293:
3282:
3280:
3251:
3250:
3236:requested move
3230:
3228:
3227:Requested move
3225:
3224:
3223:
3194:
3174:
3171:
3150:
3147:
3136:Green Cardamom
3122:
3119:
3118:
3117:
3116:
3115:
3070:
3064:
3061:
3044:
3041:
3040:
3039:
2979:
2976:
2949:
2946:
2922:
2919:
2908:119.224.57.190
2903:
2894:
2891:
2864:
2861:
2836:
2835:
2802:
2799:
2788:Camilo Sanchez
2782:
2779:
2743:
2740:
2717:
2715:
2714:
2704:ChyranandChloe
2645:
2644:
2643:
2642:
2641:
2640:
2639:
2638:
2628:ChyranandChloe
2612:
2611:
2610:
2609:
2608:
2607:
2588:
2587:
2586:
2585:
2575:ChyranandChloe
2568:
2567:
2535:ChyranandChloe
2521:
2511:
2510:
2509:
2499:ChyranandChloe
2476:70.111.251.203
2470:
2467:
2466:
2465:
2464:
2463:
2453:ChyranandChloe
2445:
2444:
2434:ChyranandChloe
2431:
2430:
2429:
2426:
2425:External links
2423:
2420:
2417:
2414:
2411:
2408:
2402:
2375:
2374:
2370:
2369:
2365:
2364:
2360:
2359:
2355:
2354:
2350:
2349:
2338:
2335:
2293:
2290:
2289:
2288:
2279:
2278:
2274:
2273:
2269:
2268:
2263:
2262:
2257:
2256:
2250:
2209:
2206:
2200:
2197:
2182:
2179:
2178:
2177:
2176:
2175:
2162:
2161:
2160:
2159:
2134:
2133:Biased Section
2131:
2068:201.83.178.101
2057:
2054:
2042:
2039:
2036:
2035:
2031:
2030:
2027:
2026:
2023:
2020:
2016:
2015:
2012:
2009:
2007:External links
2003:
2002:
1999:
1996:
1990:
1989:
1986:
1983:
1977:
1976:
1973:
1970:
1964:
1963:
1960:
1957:
1949:
1948:
1945:
1942:
1934:
1933:
1930:
1927:
1921:
1920:
1917:
1914:
1908:
1907:
1904:
1901:
1893:
1892:
1889:
1886:
1880:
1879:
1876:
1873:
1867:
1866:
1863:
1860:
1852:
1851:
1848:
1845:
1837:
1836:
1833:
1830:
1822:
1821:
1818:
1815:
1807:
1806:
1803:
1800:
1792:
1791:
1788:
1785:
1779:
1778:
1775:
1772:
1764:
1763:
1760:
1757:
1749:
1748:
1745:
1742:
1734:
1733:
1730:
1727:
1719:
1718:
1715:
1712:
1704:
1703:
1700:
1697:
1691:
1690:
1687:
1684:
1678:
1677:
1674:
1671:
1663:
1662:
1659:
1656:
1648:
1647:
1644:
1641:
1633:
1632:
1629:
1626:
1618:
1617:
1614:
1611:
1603:
1602:
1599:
1596:
1588:
1587:
1584:
1581:
1573:
1572:
1569:
1566:
1563:Whole language
1558:
1557:
1554:
1551:
1543:
1542:
1539:
1536:
1528:
1527:
1524:
1521:
1513:
1512:
1509:
1506:
1498:
1497:
1494:
1491:
1483:
1482:
1479:
1476:
1468:
1467:
1464:
1461:
1453:
1452:
1449:
1446:
1438:
1437:
1434:
1431:
1423:
1422:
1419:
1416:
1408:
1407:
1404:
1401:
1393:
1392:
1389:
1386:
1378:
1377:
1374:
1371:
1363:
1362:
1359:
1356:
1348:
1347:
1344:
1341:
1333:
1332:
1329:
1326:
1318:
1317:
1314:
1311:
1303:
1302:
1299:
1296:
1290:
1289:
1286:
1283:
1275:
1274:
1271:
1268:
1260:
1259:
1256:
1253:
1245:
1244:
1241:
1238:
1230:
1229:
1226:
1223:
1215:
1214:
1211:
1208:
1200:
1199:
1196:
1193:
1185:
1184:
1181:
1178:
1170:
1169:
1166:
1163:
1155:
1154:
1151:
1148:
1140:
1139:
1136:
1133:
1125:
1124:
1121:
1118:
1112:
1111:
1108:
1105:
1097:
1096:
1093:
1090:
1082:
1081:
1078:
1075:
1067:
1066:
1063:
1060:
1052:
1051:
1048:
1045:
1037:
1036:
1033:
1030:
1024:
1023:
1020:
1017:
1009:
1008:
1005:
1002:
994:
993:
990:
987:
979:
978:
975:
972:
964:
963:
960:
957:
949:
948:
945:
942:
936:
935:
932:
929:
921:
920:
917:
914:
906:
905:
902:
899:
891:
890:
887:
884:
876:
875:
872:
869:
863:
862:
859:
856:
850:
849:
847:
844:
842:
839:
833:(80 sections)
824:
823:
820:
815:
813:
801:
800:
794:
793:
792:
772:case-sensitive
766:
765:
764:
762:
750:
749:
748:
747:
729:
711:
685:
673:
672:
669:
668:
665:
664:
655:
645:
644:
633:
627:
626:
624:
607:the discussion
594:
593:
577:
565:
564:
550:
538:
537:
534:
533:
531:
504:
492:
491:
479:
467:
466:
463:
462:
451:
445:
444:
442:
425:the discussion
408:
407:
391:
379:
378:
370:
358:
357:
354:
353:
342:
336:
335:
333:
316:the discussion
303:
302:
286:
274:
273:
265:
253:
252:
246:
224:
210:
209:
200:
198:
197:
194:
193:
181:
180:
118:
117:
113:
112:
107:
102:
93:
92:
90:
89:
82:
77:
68:
62:
60:
59:
48:
39:
38:
35:
34:
28:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
7048:
7037:
7034:
7032:
7029:
7027:
7024:
7022:
7019:
7017:
7014:
7012:
7009:
7007:
7004:
7002:
6999:
6997:
6994:
6992:
6989:
6987:
6984:
6982:
6979:
6977:
6974:
6972:
6969:
6967:
6964:
6962:
6959:
6957:
6954:
6953:
6951:
6942:
6938:
6934:
6930:
6929:
6928:
6927:
6923:
6921:
6913:
6911:
6904:
6900:
6892:
6890:
6889:
6885:
6881:
6872:
6871:
6870:
6866:
6861:
6860:
6859:
6855:
6854:
6853:
6847:
6844:
6842:
6838:
6836:
6832:
6831:
6830:
6826:
6820:
6818:
6817:
6813:
6809:
6805:
6801:
6793:
6791:
6790:
6786:
6782:
6774:
6772:
6771:
6767:
6763:
6754:
6752:
6750:
6746:
6742:
6736:
6734:
6730:
6726:
6722:
6718:
6705:
6697:
6691:
6687:
6683:
6679:
6678:
6677:
6676:
6675:
6674:
6670:
6666:
6662:
6653:
6651:
6650:
6646:
6642:
6633:
6629:
6625:
6621:
6620:
6619:
6618:
6617:
6616:
6612:
6608:
6603:
6601:
6597:
6589:
6587:
6586:
6582:
6578:
6573:
6566:
6564:
6562:
6558:
6554:
6550:
6546:
6536:
6526:
6522:
6518:
6514:
6510:
6505:
6504:
6503:
6499:
6495:
6490:
6484:
6479:
6478:
6477:
6473:
6469:
6464:
6463:
6462:
6458:
6454:
6449:
6444:
6440:
6436:
6432:
6428:
6424:
6423:
6422:
6418:
6412:
6411:
6409:Crouch, Swale
6404:
6403:User:JHunterJ
6400:
6396:
6393:, similar to
6392:
6388:
6384:
6381:
6378:
6377:
6376:
6375:
6371:
6367:
6362:
6358:
6354:
6345:
6340:
6338:
6334:
6330:
6326:
6321:
6320:
6316:
6313:
6311:
6305:
6304:
6296:
6292:
6291:primary topic
6288:
6285:
6283:
6279:
6275:
6271:
6267:
6264:
6261:
6257:
6253:
6248:
6245:
6244:
6233:
6229:
6225:
6221:
6217:
6216:
6215:
6211:
6207:
6203:
6199:
6198:
6197:
6194:
6193:
6192:
6191:
6186:
6181:
6180:
6174:
6169:
6168:
6167:
6163:
6159:
6155:
6151:
6148:
6147:
6146:
6145:
6142:
6139:
6138:
6137:
6136:
6131:
6126:
6125:
6119:
6115:
6111:
6108:
6104:
6100:
6096:
6092:
6089:
6077:
6074:
6071:
6067:
6062:
6058:
6054:
6050:
6046:
6043:
6042:
6040:
6039:
6038:
6034:
6030:
6025:
6021:
6020:
6019:
6016:
6013:
6009:
6006:
6001:
5997:
5993:
5989:
5985:
5981:
5977:
5973:
5972:
5971:
5967:
5961:
5960:
5958:Crouch, Swale
5952:
5951:
5950:
5946:
5942:
5937:
5932:
5931:
5930:
5927:
5924:
5920:
5919:
5918:
5914:
5908:
5907:
5905:Crouch, Swale
5900:
5899:
5897:
5893:
5889:
5883:
5880:
5876:
5872:
5870:
5863:
5859:
5857:
5853:
5849:
5845:
5841:
5837:
5835:
5831:
5827:
5823:
5820:
5818:
5814:
5810:
5806:
5803:
5795:
5792:
5789:
5785:
5780:
5779:
5776:
5772:
5768:
5764:
5763:
5762:
5758:
5752:
5751:
5749:Crouch, Swale
5743:
5742:
5741:
5738:
5735:
5731:
5727:
5723:
5720:
5719:
5718:
5714:
5710:
5706:
5703:
5701:
5698:
5693:
5687:
5684:
5683:
5672:
5668:
5664:
5660:
5655:
5651:
5650:primary topic
5647:
5646:
5645:
5644:
5641:
5637:
5633:
5628:
5622:
5621:
5620:
5619:
5616:
5612:
5608:
5602:
5597:
5593:
5592:
5591:
5590:
5587:
5583:
5579:
5575:
5570:
5566:
5562:
5561:
5560:
5559:
5556:
5552:
5548:
5543:
5540:
5536:
5532:
5526:
5525:
5523:Crouch, Swale
5518:
5513:
5512:
5511:
5508:
5507:
5501:
5494:
5490:
5486:
5482:
5478:
5475:
5473:
5469:
5465:
5464:Shhhnotsoloud
5461:
5458:
5456:
5453:
5450:
5446:
5442:
5438:
5434:
5430:
5426:
5422:
5418:
5414:
5413:Strong Oppose
5411:
5410:
5399:
5395:
5389:
5388:
5386:Crouch, Swale
5381:
5380:
5379:
5375:
5371:
5367:
5363:
5359:
5358:
5357:
5353:
5349:
5345:
5341:
5337:
5334:
5331:
5330:
5329:
5328:
5327:
5326:
5321:
5317:
5311:
5310:
5308:Crouch, Swale
5303:
5299:
5294:
5293:
5292:
5288:
5284:
5280:
5276:
5272:
5269:. I consider
5268:
5264:
5263:Strong oppose
5261:
5260:
5249:
5245:
5241:
5236:
5232:
5231:
5230:
5226:
5222:
5218:
5212:
5210:
5203:
5199:
5198:
5197:
5196:
5195:
5194:
5189:
5185:
5181:
5176:
5175:
5174:
5169:
5162:
5159:
5152:
5151:
5150:
5146:
5142:
5138:
5134:
5130:
5129:
5128:
5127:
5124:
5120:
5116:
5112:
5108:
5104:
5101:
5099:
5095:
5089:
5088:
5086:Crouch, Swale
5081:
5077:
5074:
5072:
5068:
5064:
5060:
5056:
5052:
5049:
5048:
5041:
5037:
5033:
5028:
5024:
5023:
5022:
5021:
5018:
5014:
5010:
5005:
5004:
5003:
5002:
4999:
4996:
4995:
4991:
4989:
4988:
4981:
4977:
4973:
4970:
4968:
4964:
4960:
4956:
4954:
4947:
4944:
4942:
4939:
4935:
4931:
4927:
4924:
4923:
4916:
4912:
4908:
4904:
4900:
4899:
4898:
4897:
4894:
4890:
4886:
4881:
4880:
4879:
4878:
4875:
4871:
4867:
4863:
4860:
4859:
4857:
4853:
4849:
4846:
4845:
4838:
4834:
4829:
4825:
4821:
4817:
4813:
4809:
4805:
4801:
4796:
4792:
4787:
4782:
4777:
4775:
4768:
4764:
4763:moved in 2008
4760:
4754:
4750:
4747:
4745:
4741:
4738:
4737:
4735:
4734:
4730:
4729:
4726:
4722:
4719:
4715:
4709:
4705:
4701:
4694:
4692:
4687:
4682:
4677:
4676:
4671:
4669:
4668:
4664:
4660:
4659:StarryGrandma
4655:
4647:
4642:
4640:
4635:
4630:
4625:
4624:
4620:
4616:
4612:
4608:
4604:
4600:
4597:
4594:
4593:primary topic
4590:
4587:
4585:
4576:
4573:
4570:
4568:
4558:
4556:
4553:
4551:
4547:
4543:
4539:
4536:
4534:
4530:
4526:
4522:
4519:
4517:
4513:
4509:
4505:
4502:
4501:
4498:
4495:
4492:
4485:
4484:primary topic
4481:
4480:
4475:
4472:
4469:
4467:
4464:
4461:
4459:
4456:
4453:
4452:
4450:
4446:
4442:
4438:
4435:
4434:
4431:
4428:
4424:
4421:
4419:
4415:
4411:
4410:73.154.175.89
4407:
4404:
4402:
4398:
4394:
4393:In ictu oculi
4390:
4387:
4384:
4380:
4377:
4376:
4375:
4373:
4369:
4365:
4361:
4356:
4352:
4347:
4343:
4339:
4335:
4330:
4329:primary topic
4323:
4319:
4316:
4314:
4310:
4307:
4306:
4305:
4301:
4300:
4297:
4291:
4289:
4284:
4277:
4275:
4270:
4265:
4260:
4259:
4254:
4246:
4242:
4238:
4234:
4230:
4229:
4228:
4224:
4220:
4215:
4214:
4213:
4209:
4205:
4201:
4200:
4199:
4198:
4193:
4189:
4185:
4180:
4168:
4166:
4165:
4162:
4161:
4157:
4151:
4146:
4142:
4134:
4129:
4127:
4122:
4117:
4112:
4100:
4096:
4092:
4088:
4087:
4086:
4083:
4082:
4081:
4072:
4068:
4067:
4066:
4065:
4062:
4058:
4054:
4049:
4048:
4047:
4046:
4043:
4040:
4039:
4038:
4030:
4026:
4021:
4020:
4019:
4018:
4015:
4011:
4007:
4003:
4002:
3996:
3995:
3994:
3993:
3990:
3986:
3982:
3978:
3974:
3971:
3969:
3966:
3965:
3964:
3956:
3952:
3949:
3945:
3941:
3937:
3932:
3931:
3930:
3927:
3924:
3917:
3916:primary topic
3913:
3909:
3905:
3901:
3897:
3894:
3893:
3890:
3886:
3882:
3878:
3874:
3870:
3867:
3866:
3857:
3854:
3849:
3848:
3847:
3843:
3839:
3834:
3833:
3832:
3829:
3825:
3824:
3823:
3819:
3815:
3811:
3808:
3807:
3804:
3800:
3796:
3792:
3789:
3788:
3777:
3774:
3770:
3766:
3762:
3758:
3757:
3756:
3752:
3748:
3744:
3740:
3736:
3734:
3729:
3728:
3719:
3715:
3709:
3705:
3701:
3697:
3696:
3695:
3694:
3693:
3692:
3691:
3688:
3684:
3680:
3679:
3678:
3674:
3670:
3666:
3662:
3661:Apple (fruit)
3659:
3658:
3657:
3656:
3653:
3650:
3646:
3642:
3638:
3635:
3633:
3629:
3625:
3624:168.12.253.66
3621:
3618:
3616:
3612:
3608:
3604:
3600:
3597:
3595:
3591:
3587:
3583:
3580:
3578:
3573:
3572:
3563:
3559:
3556:
3552:
3549:
3547:
3543:
3539:
3535:
3532:
3531:
3518:
3514:
3510:
3505:
3504:
3503:
3499:
3495:
3491:
3487:
3483:
3479:
3475:
3474:
3473:
3470:
3466:
3462:
3461:
3460:
3456:
3452:
3448:
3444:
3440:
3439:
3438:
3435:
3434:
3430:
3424:
3420:
3416:
3415:
3414:
3413:
3412:
3411:
3407:
3403:
3399:
3395:
3389:
3387:
3382:
3380:
3372:
3369:
3365:
3360:
3359:
3350:
3349:
3348:
3344:
3340:
3336:
3333:
3332:
3331:
3330:
3327:
3326:
3322:
3316:
3312:
3308:
3301:
3297:
3294:
3292:
3288:
3285:
3284:
3283:
3279:
3278:
3275:
3274:
3273:
3266:
3265:
3264:
3256:
3249:
3247:
3242:
3237:
3232:
3231:
3226:
3222:
3218:
3214:
3210:
3203:
3192:
3191:
3190:
3189:
3185:
3181:
3172:
3170:
3169:
3165:
3161:
3155:
3148:
3146:
3145:
3141:
3137:
3133:
3129:
3120:
3113:
3109:
3108:Communication
3105:
3101:
3100:
3099:
3095:
3091:
3087:
3086:
3085:
3084:
3080:
3076:
3062:
3060:
3059:
3055:
3051:
3042:
3038:
3034:
3030:
3026:
3025:
3024:
3023:
3019:
3015:
3011:
3007:
3003:
2999:
2996:
2993:
2989:
2985:
2977:
2975:
2971:
2967:
2963:
2959:
2947:
2945:
2944:
2940:
2936:
2935:Old Moonraker
2932:
2928:
2920:
2918:
2917:
2913:
2909:
2902:
2900:
2892:
2890:
2889:
2885:
2881:
2878:
2874:
2870:
2862:
2860:
2859:
2855:
2851:
2846:
2842:
2834:
2830:
2826:
2822:
2821:
2820:
2819:
2815:
2811:
2807:
2800:
2798:
2797:
2793:
2789:
2780:
2778:
2777:
2773:
2769:
2763:
2762:
2758:
2754:
2751:
2747:
2741:
2739:
2737:
2733:
2729:
2725:
2718:
2713:
2709:
2705:
2701:
2697:
2693:
2689:
2688:
2687:
2686:
2682:
2678:
2674:
2669:
2664:
2662:
2658:
2654:
2650:
2637:
2633:
2629:
2625:
2620:
2619:
2618:
2617:
2616:
2615:
2614:
2613:
2606:
2602:
2598:
2594:
2593:
2592:
2591:
2590:
2589:
2584:
2580:
2576:
2572:
2571:
2570:
2569:
2565:
2561:
2557:
2553:
2547:
2546:
2545:
2544:
2540:
2536:
2532:
2528:
2520:
2516:
2512:
2508:
2504:
2500:
2496:
2492:
2488:
2483:
2482:
2481:
2480:
2477:
2468:
2462:
2458:
2454:
2449:
2448:
2447:
2446:
2443:
2439:
2435:
2432:
2427:
2424:
2421:
2418:
2415:
2412:
2409:
2406:
2405:
2403:
2399:
2398:
2397:
2396:
2392:
2388:
2384:
2381:
2378:
2372:
2371:
2367:
2366:
2362:
2361:
2357:
2356:
2352:
2351:
2348:reading rates
2347:
2346:
2345:
2342:
2336:
2334:
2333:
2330:
2326:
2323:
2320:
2319:
2315:
2312:
2311:
2307:
2304:
2300:
2297:
2291:
2287:
2284:
2281:
2280:
2276:
2275:
2271:
2270:
2265:
2264:
2259:
2258:
2253:
2252:
2251:
2248:
2247:
2244:
2240:
2235:
2233:
2228:
2225:
2223:
2218:
2216:
2207:
2205:
2198:
2196:
2195:
2192:
2191:70.132.22.157
2186:
2180:
2174:
2171:
2166:
2165:
2164:
2163:
2158:
2155:
2151:
2147:
2146:
2145:
2144:
2143:
2139:
2132:
2130:
2129:
2125:
2121:
2120:Imransagor338
2116:
2115:
2111:
2107:
2106:Imransagor338
2102:
2101:
2097:
2093:
2088:
2084:
2080:
2077:
2073:
2069:
2065:
2055:
2053:
2052:
2049:
2040:
2024:
2021:
2018:
2017:
2013:
2010:
2008:
2005:
2004:
2000:
1997:
1995:
1992:
1991:
1987:
1984:
1982:
1979:
1978:
1974:
1971:
1969:
1966:
1965:
1961:
1958:
1955:
1951:
1950:
1946:
1943:
1940:
1936:
1935:
1931:
1928:
1926:
1923:
1922:
1918:
1915:
1913:
1910:
1909:
1905:
1902:
1899:
1895:
1894:
1890:
1887:
1885:
1882:
1881:
1877:
1874:
1872:
1869:
1868:
1864:
1861:
1858:
1854:
1853:
1849:
1846:
1843:
1839:
1838:
1834:
1831:
1828:
1824:
1823:
1819:
1816:
1813:
1809:
1808:
1804:
1801:
1798:
1794:
1793:
1789:
1786:
1784:
1781:
1780:
1776:
1773:
1770:
1766:
1765:
1761:
1758:
1755:
1751:
1750:
1746:
1743:
1740:
1736:
1735:
1731:
1728:
1725:
1721:
1720:
1716:
1713:
1710:
1706:
1705:
1701:
1698:
1696:
1693:
1692:
1688:
1685:
1683:
1680:
1679:
1675:
1672:
1669:
1665:
1664:
1660:
1657:
1654:
1650:
1649:
1645:
1642:
1639:
1635:
1634:
1630:
1627:
1624:
1620:
1619:
1615:
1612:
1609:
1605:
1604:
1600:
1597:
1594:
1590:
1589:
1585:
1582:
1579:
1575:
1574:
1570:
1567:
1564:
1560:
1559:
1555:
1552:
1549:
1545:
1544:
1540:
1537:
1534:
1530:
1529:
1525:
1522:
1519:
1515:
1514:
1510:
1507:
1504:
1500:
1499:
1495:
1492:
1489:
1485:
1484:
1480:
1477:
1474:
1470:
1469:
1465:
1462:
1459:
1455:
1454:
1450:
1447:
1444:
1443:Related areas
1440:
1439:
1435:
1432:
1429:
1425:
1424:
1420:
1417:
1414:
1410:
1409:
1405:
1402:
1399:
1395:
1394:
1390:
1387:
1384:
1380:
1379:
1375:
1372:
1369:
1365:
1364:
1360:
1357:
1354:
1350:
1349:
1345:
1342:
1339:
1335:
1334:
1330:
1327:
1324:
1320:
1319:
1315:
1312:
1309:
1305:
1304:
1300:
1297:
1295:
1292:
1291:
1287:
1284:
1281:
1277:
1276:
1272:
1269:
1266:
1262:
1261:
1257:
1254:
1251:
1247:
1246:
1242:
1239:
1236:
1232:
1231:
1227:
1224:
1221:
1217:
1216:
1212:
1209:
1206:
1202:
1201:
1197:
1194:
1191:
1187:
1186:
1182:
1179:
1176:
1172:
1171:
1167:
1164:
1161:
1157:
1156:
1152:
1149:
1146:
1142:
1141:
1137:
1134:
1131:
1127:
1126:
1122:
1119:
1117:
1114:
1113:
1109:
1106:
1103:
1099:
1098:
1094:
1091:
1088:
1084:
1083:
1079:
1076:
1073:
1069:
1068:
1064:
1061:
1058:
1054:
1053:
1049:
1046:
1043:
1039:
1038:
1034:
1031:
1029:
1026:
1025:
1021:
1018:
1015:
1011:
1010:
1006:
1003:
1000:
996:
995:
991:
988:
985:
981:
980:
976:
973:
970:
966:
965:
961:
958:
955:
951:
950:
946:
943:
941:
938:
937:
933:
930:
927:
923:
922:
918:
915:
912:
908:
907:
903:
900:
897:
893:
892:
888:
885:
882:
878:
877:
873:
870:
868:
865:
864:
860:
857:
855:
852:
851:
845:
840:
837:
836:
832:
826:
825:
821:Section sizes
819:
818:
814:
807:
806:
798:
790:
786:
782:
781:
780:
773:
769:
763:
756:
755:
745:
741:
737:
733:
730:
727:
723:
719:
715:
712:
709:
705:
701:
697:
694:
693:
692:
691:
690:Discussions:
686:
679:
678:
662:
661:
651:
647:
646:
642:
638:
632:
629:
628:
625:
608:
604:
600:
599:
591:
585:
580:
578:
575:
571:
570:
566:
559:
554:
551:
548:
544:
532:
515:
514:
509:
505:
502:
498:
497:
493:
488:
483:
480:
477:
473:
460:
456:
450:
447:
446:
443:
426:
422:
418:
414:
413:
405:
399:
394:
392:
389:
385:
384:
380:
374:
371:
368:
364:
351:
347:
341:
338:
337:
334:
317:
313:
309:
308:
300:
289:
287:
284:
280:
279:
275:
269:
266:
263:
259:
254:
250:
244:
236:
235:
225:
221:
216:
215:
196:
195:
192:
189:
187:
183:
182:
177:
173:
170:
167:
163:
159:
155:
152:
149:
146:
143:
140:
137:
134:
131:
127:
124:
123:Find sources:
120:
119:
111:
110:Verifiability
108:
106:
103:
101:
98:
97:
96:
87:
83:
81:
78:
76:
72:
69:
67:
64:
63:
57:
53:
52:Learn to edit
49:
46:
41:
40:
37:
36:
32:
26:
22:
18:
17:
6919:
6909:
6896:
6878:
6851:
6827:
6824:
6797:
6778:
6758:
6737:
6729:Jaimekatz926
6701:
6657:
6638:
6604:
6593:
6574:
6570:
6543:— Preceding
6540:
6488:
6406:
6349:
6328:
6322:
6299:
6298:
6286:
6265:
6246:
6189:
6188:
6182:
6178:
6176:
6134:
6133:
6127:
6123:
6121:
6109:
6023:
5955:
5935:
5902:
5868:
5821:
5804:
5783:
5746:
5704:
5691:
5685:
5658:
5626:
5595:
5541:
5520:
5503:
5484:
5476:
5459:
5428:
5420:
5412:
5383:
5343:
5305:
5278:
5262:
5234:
5208:
5207:"A topic is
5206:
5201:
5172:
5171:
5167:
5165:
5157:
5155:
5102:
5083:
5075:
5050:
4993:
4986:
4985:
4971:
4949:
4945:
4933:
4925:
4861:
4843:
4842:
4823:
4785:
4780:
4773:
4772:"A topic is
4771:
4725:
4699:
4697:
4685:
4678:
4654:Reading rate
4653:
4651:
4633:
4626:
4598:
4592:
4588:
4566:
4554:
4537:
4520:
4503:
4490:
4444:
4436:
4422:
4405:
4388:
4378:
4359:
4326:
4303:
4282:
4280:
4268:
4261:
4178:
4176:— Preceding
4172:
4159:
4141:Talk:Reading
4140:
4138:
4120:
4113:
4076:
4075:
4070:
4033:
4032:
3998:
3972:
3959:
3958:
3950:
3922:
3895:
3877:no consensus
3876:
3868:
3809:
3795:65.94.76.126
3790:
3726:Ohconfucius
3724:
3644:
3636:
3619:
3598:
3581:
3570:Ohconfucius
3568:
3554:
3550:
3533:
3464:
3432:
3377:
3370:
3357:Ohconfucius
3355:
3334:
3324:
3306:
3304:
3281:
3269:
3268:
3260:
3259:
3254:
3252:
3240:
3233:
3176:
3156:
3152:
3132:astroturfing
3130:, if it was
3124:
3090:Beefcake6412
3066:
3046:
2994:
2981:
2962:ThomasMagnus
2951:
2924:
2906:
2898:
2896:
2869:user:dolfrog
2866:
2837:
2825:WhatamIdoing
2808:
2804:
2784:
2764:
2748:
2745:
2742:Intelligence
2719:
2716:
2665:
2648:
2646:
2556:87.102.119.5
2523:
2472:
2385:
2382:
2379:
2376:
2343:
2340:
2327:
2324:
2321:
2316:
2313:
2308:
2305:
2301:
2298:
2295:
2249:
2238:
2236:
2231:
2229:
2226:
2221:
2219:
2213:
2211:
2202:
2187:
2184:
2149:
2140:
2136:
2117:
2103:
2089:
2085:
2081:
2059:
2044:
1898:21st century
1724:Reading rate
1175:Automaticity
838:Section name
778:
770:Anchors are
767:
731:
713:
696:No consensus
695:
689:
688:
658:
636:
596:
511:
454:
410:
345:
305:
249:WikiProjects
232:
184:
171:
165:
157:
150:
144:
138:
132:
122:
94:
19:This is the
6933:seefooddiet
6899:Seefooddiet
6808:Estopedist1
6337:move review
5860:Oppose per
5493:Apple, Inc.
5415:per all of
5370:Narky Blert
5348:Narky Blert
5346:be PTOPIC.
5283:Narky Blert
5166:Tools that
5156:A topic is
5055:WP:ASTONISH
4691:move review
4639:move review
4567:SMcCandlish
4351:Egsan Bacon
4274:move review
4126:move review
3908:Reading, PA
3639:. Just as
3480:141099 vs.
3419:WP:ASTONISH
3246:move review
3207:hatnote to
2956:—Preceding
2871:There is a
2722:—Preceding
2550:—Preceding
2232:more likely
2222:correlation
2170:Mattrognlie
2041:Hodge Podge
1954:Photographs
1912:Other terms
612:Linguistics
603:linguistics
553:Linguistics
148:free images
31:not a forum
6950:Categories
6741:LehmanProf
6492:assuming.–
6302:Newslinger
6184:with them
6129:with them
6091:Born2cycle
5869:four times
5848:John Cline
5565:Apple Inc.
5063:Randy Kryn
4844:Relisting.
4791:Apple Inc.
4540:per Ajax.
4445:dictionary
4427:Randy Kryn
4383:Randy Kryn
4288:Cúchullain
4184:Cymru.lass
3999:Rename to
3607:Tassedethe
3555:inter alia
3213:Mitch Ames
3195:or tactile
3010:April 2010
2677:Richard001
2597:Richard001
2491:Ohio State
2469:Eye damage
2422:References
2322:Thoughts?
2154:Armarshall
1981:References
1473:Vocabulary
744:discussion
726:discussion
708:discussion
321:Psychology
312:Psychology
268:Psychology
6733:Nlavinier
6517:-- Fyrael
6489:was never
6468:-- Fyrael
6431:-- Fyrael
6427:Red Slash
6366:-- Fyrael
6333:talk page
6278:pingó mió
6274:Galobtter
6270:WP:PTOPIC
6224:-- Fyrael
6099:pingó mió
6095:Galobtter
6029:-- Fyrael
6007:base name
5988:-- Fyrael
5941:-- Fyrael
5936:indicator
5892:pingó mió
5888:Galobtter
5517:Berkshire
5481:WP:PTOPIC
5360:Throw in
5267:WP:PTOPIC
5032:-- Fyrael
4959:-- Fyrael
4907:-- Fyrael
4866:-- Fyrael
4820:WP:NOTDIC
4708:WP:PTOPIC
4491:AjaxSmack
4053:SmokeyJoe
4006:SmokeyJoe
3981:SmokeyJoe
3923:AjaxSmack
3700:SmokeyJoe
3509:-- Fyrael
3121:Rereading
3106:and just
2988:Jagged 85
2899:insulting
2728:65.5.14.6
2649:processes
2204:reading.
1939:Paintings
783:] Anchor
714:Not moved
430:Education
417:education
373:Education
237:is rated
88:if needed
71:Be polite
21:talk page
6910:Remsense
6880:Komonzia
6848:(a book)
6557:contribs
6549:Szymioza
6545:unsigned
6494:Ammarpad
6466:comment?
6383:was used
6335:or in a
6206:Dohn joe
6190:hundreds
6179:Flooded
6158:Dohn joe
6135:hundreds
6124:Flooded
5809:feminist
5663:SnowFire
5632:Ammarpad
5607:SnowFire
5578:Ammarpad
5547:SnowFire
5417:Dohn joe
5300:and the
5240:Dohn joe
5221:Ammarpad
5180:Dohn joe
5141:Ammarpad
5115:Dohn joe
5113:above.)
5107:by usage
5009:Ammarpad
4885:Ammarpad
4848:Favonian
4833:Ammarpad
4828:Inedible
4542:Dohn joe
4525:SnowFire
4360:Relisted
4283:No move.
4237:RCraig09
4204:RCraig09
4192:contribs
3838:Dicklyon
3814:Dicklyon
3747:Dicklyon
3669:Dicklyon
3494:Zarcadia
3451:Zarcadia
3402:Zarcadia
3180:zandperl
3173:Braille?
3128:WP:FAITH
2998:contribs
2970:contribs
2958:unsigned
2841:Dyslexia
2768:Glortman
2724:unsigned
2657:hatnotes
2552:unsigned
2428:See also
2387:Rosmoran
2373:lighting
2329:Rosmoran
2283:Rosmoran
2064:unsigned
2048:Kearnsdm
2025:326,741
1968:See also
1709:Decoding
867:Overview
519:Dyslexia
513:inactive
487:inactive
482:Dyslexia
186:Archives
56:get help
29:This is
27:article.
6762:John NH
6682:John NH
6641:John NH
6624:John NH
6607:John NH
6600:Reading
6577:John NH
6513:Reading
6287:Support
6266:Support
6247:Support
6110:Support
6005:Mercury
5805:Support
5784:reading
5705:Support
5477:Support
5429:reading
5421:Reading
5298:227,887
5209:primary
5158:primary
5103:Oppose.
5076:Support
5059:reading
5051:Support
5027:Reading
4976:Reading
4972:Comment
4946:Support
4926:Support
4862:Comment
4816:Reading
4814:. But "
4781:reading
4774:primary
4749:Reading
4744:Reading
4611:Nyttend
4607:Reading
4603:reading
4559:Clearly
4555:Support
4508:Jenks24
4423:Comment
4406:Comment
4389:Support
4379:Support
4364:Jenks24
4346:Reading
4318:Reading
4313:Reading
4233:Ableism
4219:dolfrog
4145:Reading
3977:Reading
3881:Andrewa
3869:Support
3637:Support
3603:Reading
3582:Support
3534:Support
3465:nothing
3423:Reading
3335:Support
3307:reading
3296:Reading
3291:Reading
3209:Braille
3112:Reading
3029:Tobby72
3014:Tobby72
2933:step.--
2931:WP:BOLD
2927:WP:ELNO
2880:dolfrog
2850:dolfrog
2845:Reading
2810:dolfrog
2696:Reading
2673:reading
2668:reading
2527:Reading
2515:Reading
2413:Effects
2407:History
2303:think.
2239:effects
2092:Geneven
2022:326,741
1925:Gallery
1906:34,325
1891:47,544
1871:History
1702:10,168
1503:Fluency
1451:16,915
1331:52,884
1316:78,742
1301:90,907
1288:13,385
1258:10,527
1198:15,507
1123:65,008
1035:12,603
992:10,067
947:26,187
934:12,233
874:27,912
846:Section
831:Reading
740:Reading
722:Reading
704:Reading
639:on the
457:on the
348:on the
239:C-class
154:WP refs
142:scholar
25:Reading
6483:Certes
6453:Certes
6052:focus.
6024:actual
5875:WP:IAR
5867:about
5826:Certes
5822:Oppose
5773:says:
5726:WP:IAR
5722:B dash
5709:B dash
5542:Oppose
5460:Oppose
5445:Fyrael
5441:BD2412
5437:WP:IAR
5339:term".
5235:before
5202:first,
5111:Fyrael
4987:bd2412
4765:after
4599:Oppose
4589:Oppose
4538:Oppose
4521:Oppose
4437:Oppose
4342:Avatar
4179:signed
4091:Apteva
3973:Oppose
3951:Oppose
3936:Apteva
3896:Oppose
3853:Powers
3828:Powers
3810:Oppose
3791:Oppose
3773:Powers
3765:orange
3743:Orange
3687:Powers
3649:Powers
3620:Oppose
3599:Oppose
3586:Apteva
3551:Oppose
3469:Powers
3449:here.
3371:Oppose
3271:apolis
3050:Fyrael
2487:Myopia
2325:Best,
2001:9,510
1947:1,022
1932:1,504
1919:5,537
1903:34,325
1888:13,219
1878:8,562
1865:1,076
1850:2,067
1820:1,167
1805:4,443
1790:9,835
1762:1,664
1732:2,159
1717:5,508
1689:7,278
1676:9,341
1661:2,173
1646:5,887
1631:1,467
1616:4,362
1601:2,120
1586:4,738
1571:6,040
1556:1,014
1541:1,118
1526:4,741
1511:1,053
1496:6,005
1466:1,796
1436:4,614
1421:2,123
1406:1,596
1391:3,867
1376:6,436
1361:6,082
1346:5,429
1285:13,385
1273:1,365
1255:10,527
1243:1,574
1228:2,103
1213:3,377
1195:15,507
1183:1,081
1168:3,734
1153:2,715
1138:3,463
1095:2,269
1080:2,072
1065:1,392
1050:3,867
1022:2,581
1007:1,022
989:10,067
977:3,248
962:3,327
931:12,233
919:4,434
889:7,378
861:2,986
848:total
742:, see
724:, see
706:, see
245:scale.
126:Google
6598:with
6448:links
6364:page.
6173:month
5984:views
5976:Butte
5569:Apple
5505:Slash
5489:Apple
5344:never
5265:. No
5217:Apple
5161:term.
5133:WP:AT
4795:Apple
4727:-talk
4700:moved
4334:Apple
4160:Slash
3769:apple
3761:apple
3739:Apple
3718:apple
3683:apple
3641:Apple
3433:Slash
3325:Slash
2513:Move
2419:Notes
2401:nice.
2277:Best,
2267:some.
2019:Total
1998:9,510
1944:1,022
1916:5,537
1875:8,562
1862:1,076
1847:2,067
1827:PIRLS
1817:1,167
1812:PIAAC
1802:4,443
1759:1,664
1729:2,159
1714:5,508
1686:7,278
1673:9,341
1658:2,173
1643:5,887
1628:1,467
1613:4,362
1598:2,120
1583:4,738
1568:6,040
1553:1,014
1538:1,118
1523:4,741
1508:1,053
1493:6,005
1463:1,796
1433:4,614
1418:2,123
1403:1,596
1388:3,867
1373:6,436
1358:6,082
1343:5,429
1328:5,822
1313:1,244
1270:1,365
1240:1,574
1225:2,103
1210:3,377
1180:1,081
1165:3,734
1150:2,715
1135:3,463
1120:6,177
1092:2,269
1077:2,072
1062:1,392
1047:3,867
1032:2,482
1019:2,581
1004:1,022
974:3,248
959:3,327
944:5,942
916:4,434
886:7,378
871:2,965
858:2,986
854:(Top)
843:count
732:Moved
226:This
169:JSTOR
130:books
84:Seek
6937:talk
6884:talk
6812:talk
6785:talk
6766:talk
6745:talk
6711:and
6686:talk
6669:talk
6645:talk
6628:talk
6611:talk
6581:talk
6553:talk
6521:talk
6498:talk
6472:talk
6457:talk
6435:talk
6416:talk
6397:and
6389:and
6370:talk
6355:and
6309:talk
6256:talk
6228:talk
6210:talk
6162:talk
6033:talk
5992:talk
5965:talk
5945:talk
5939:one.
5912:talk
5852:talk
5830:talk
5813:talk
5756:talk
5713:talk
5686:Feh!
5667:talk
5636:talk
5611:talk
5601:cook
5596:your
5582:talk
5551:talk
5530:talk
5468:talk
5443:and
5393:talk
5374:talk
5366:Link
5352:talk
5315:talk
5287:talk
5279:more
5244:talk
5225:talk
5184:talk
5145:talk
5119:talk
5093:talk
5067:talk
5036:talk
5013:talk
4963:talk
4938:╠╣uw
4934:also
4911:talk
4889:talk
4870:talk
4852:talk
4837:talk
4720:JC7V
4663:talk
4615:talk
4605:and
4546:talk
4529:talk
4512:talk
4439:per
4414:talk
4397:talk
4368:talk
4355:talk
4338:Pink
4241:talk
4223:talk
4208:talk
4188:talk
4155:Red
4095:talk
4057:talk
4031:. —
4010:talk
3985:talk
3940:talk
3885:talk
3842:talk
3818:talk
3799:talk
3751:talk
3704:talk
3673:talk
3628:talk
3611:talk
3590:talk
3560:and
3542:talk
3513:talk
3498:talk
3455:talk
3428:Red
3406:talk
3343:talk
3320:Red
3262:Mini
3217:talk
3202:main
3184:talk
3164:talk
3140:talk
3094:talk
3054:talk
3033:talk
3018:talk
2992:talk
2966:talk
2939:talk
2912:talk
2884:talk
2854:talk
2829:talk
2814:talk
2792:talk
2772:talk
2757:talk
2732:talk
2708:talk
2681:talk
2632:talk
2601:talk
2579:talk
2560:talk
2539:talk
2503:talk
2457:talk
2438:talk
2391:talk
2296:Hi,
2243:Daqu
2124:talk
2110:talk
2096:talk
2072:talk
2014:844
1975:323
1962:469
1857:EQAO
1842:PISA
1835:909
1797:NAEP
1777:371
1747:285
1481:996
1110:521
904:902
841:Byte
768:Tip:
631:High
449:High
419:and
340:High
162:FENS
136:news
73:and
6419:)
6401:by
6289:as
6252:提尔巴
6116:as
6070:В²C
6012:В²C
5978:vs
5968:)
5923:В²C
5915:)
5879:В²C
5846:.--
5788:В²C
5759:)
5734:В²C
5661:.
5630:. –
5604:-->
5533:)
5499:Red
5449:В²C
5396:)
5318:)
5168:may
5096:)
4631:.
4581:ⱷ≼
4577:≽ⱷ҅
4118:.
3667:.
3538:BDD
3492:.
3396:as
2675:".
2011:844
1988:33
1972:323
1959:469
1832:909
1787:173
1774:371
1744:285
1699:181
1478:996
1448:192
1298:651
1107:521
901:902
738:to
720:to
702:to
176:TWL
6952::
6939:)
6915:‥
6886:)
6814:)
6787:)
6768:)
6747:)
6735:.
6731:,
6688:)
6671:)
6647:)
6630:)
6613:)
6583:)
6559:)
6555:•
6523:)
6500:)
6474:)
6459:)
6437:)
6405:.
6372:)
6327:.
6280:)
6258:)
6230:)
6212:)
6164:)
6101:)
6035:)
5994:)
5947:)
5894:)
5854:)
5832:)
5815:)
5715:)
5669:)
5638:)
5613:)
5584:)
5553:)
5485:or
5470:)
5376:)
5354:)
5289:)
5246:)
5227:)
5186:)
5147:)
5121:)
5069:)
5038:)
5015:)
4965:)
4913:)
4891:)
4872:)
4854:)
4841:--
4751:→
4742:→
4712:(
4706:,
4683:.
4665:)
4617:)
4564:—
4557:.
4548:)
4531:)
4514:)
4416:)
4399:)
4370:)
4362:.
4320:→
4311:→
4266:.
4243:)
4225:)
4210:)
4190:•
4152:.
4097:)
4071:is
4059:)
4012:)
3987:)
3942:)
3918:—
3906:,
3887:)
3844:)
3820:)
3801:)
3753:)
3706:)
3675:)
3630:)
3613:)
3592:)
3544:)
3515:)
3500:)
3457:)
3408:)
3400:.
3345:)
3298:→
3289:→
3257:.
3238:.
3219:)
3211:.
3205:}}
3199:{{
3186:)
3166:)
3142:)
3096:)
3081:」
3056:)
3035:)
3020:)
3012:.
2982:A
2972:)
2968:•
2941:)
2914:)
2886:)
2856:)
2831:)
2816:)
2794:)
2774:)
2759:)
2734:)
2710:)
2683:)
2634:)
2603:)
2581:)
2562:)
2541:)
2517:→
2505:)
2493:,
2489:,
2459:)
2440:)
2393:)
2217:"
2126:)
2112:)
2098:)
2074:)
1985:33
1929:13
556::
156:)
54:;
6935:(
6920:论
6897:@
6882:(
6810:(
6802:(
6783:(
6764:(
6743:(
6723:(
6684:(
6667:(
6643:(
6626:(
6609:(
6579:(
6551:(
6519:(
6496:(
6485::
6481:@
6470:(
6455:(
6433:(
6413:(
6368:(
6276:(
6262:.
6254:(
6226:(
6208:(
6160:(
6097:(
6073:☎
6031:(
6015:☎
5990:(
5962:(
5943:(
5926:☎
5909:(
5890:(
5882:☎
5850:(
5828:(
5811:(
5791:☎
5753:(
5737:☎
5711:(
5665:(
5634:(
5609:(
5580:(
5549:(
5527:(
5466:(
5452:☎
5390:(
5372:(
5350:(
5312:(
5285:(
5242:(
5223:(
5182:(
5143:(
5117:(
5090:(
5065:(
5034:(
5011:(
4994:T
4961:(
4909:(
4887:(
4868:(
4850:(
4835:(
4831:–
4716:)
4661:(
4613:(
4579:ᴥ
4575:¢
4572:☏
4569:☺
4544:(
4527:(
4510:(
4412:(
4395:(
4366:(
4353:(
4295:c
4292:/
4239:(
4221:(
4206:(
4194:)
4186:(
4093:(
4055:(
4008:(
3983:(
3938:(
3883:(
3840:(
3816:(
3797:(
3749:(
3702:(
3671:(
3626:(
3609:(
3588:(
3540:(
3511:(
3496:(
3453:(
3404:(
3341:(
3215:(
3182:(
3162:(
3138:(
3092:(
3079:話
3077:「
3074:7
3071:4
3052:(
3031:(
3016:(
2995:·
2990:(
2964:(
2937:(
2910:(
2882:(
2852:(
2827:(
2812:(
2790:(
2770:(
2755:(
2730:(
2706:(
2679:(
2630:(
2599:(
2577:(
2558:(
2537:(
2501:(
2497:.
2455:(
2436:(
2389:(
2122:(
2108:(
2094:(
2078:.
2070:(
791:.
746:.
728:.
710:.
663:.
643:.
516:.
489:)
485:(
461:.
352:.
251::
191:1
188::
172:·
166:·
158:·
151:·
145:·
139:·
133:·
128:(
58:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
