Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Disability/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

New Pages

Discrimination against people with HIV/AIDS (18 December 2010)

I think this article is not relevant to this project. It contains no explicit reference to disability at all and conceptually the connection is at best very tenuous. If this one is included then practically all debillitating illnesses would also qualify for inclusion. Roger (talk) 10:27, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree. It's nice to see an article created with good references from the start, though, isn't it! Mirokado (talk) 11:12, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

"...then practically all debillitating illnesses would also qualify for inclusion." I'm a bit confused as to why not, or how one decides where to draw the line. Perhaps a project page presents this comprehensively? --Hordaland (talk) 22:00, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

People who face discrimination due to their having AIDS or being infected with HIV are discriminated against because of the virus they carry, not because they can't walk, see or whatever (have a disability). Disability per se is not a factor in the discrimination. Also HIV/AIDS in any case does not directly cause disability, it is a secondary or even tertiary effect of the disease/infection. This is where I draw the line - the discrimination must be motivated by or aimed against the disabling impairment itself. Roger (talk) 14:26, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you! That made sense. And Happy New Year! --Hordaland (talk) 16:36, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

lurrrving the new WP:Disability icon!!!

Very, very attractive. Feeling giddy to have suddenly seen it!

To whoever did it: Good work!!!!! Kikodawgzzz (talk) 13:19, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, I'm feeling giddy to have seen this. It's being discussed further up on this page. Bib (talk) 16:04, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

"Timeline" in Disability rights movement is getting far too big

Please see my comment at Talk:Disability rights movement#The timeline about the recently added and rapidly growing "timeline" in the article. It has become so large that it totally dominates the artilce. It consists of a detailed list of all kinds of events related to disability rights. I think it should be taken out to a separate article. Oh yes, I almost forgot to mention, it contains material ONLY from the United States, the article needs to be global in scope. Roger (talk) 17:02, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

new push on overall articles work, as per my usual ranty style

WikiProject Disability members and other active contributors to disability articles on Wikipedia should definitely be fleshing out articles like physical disability to be a lot more robust than a few measly lines. Neither physical disability nor any other type of disability is ever a minor topic on any level. I refuse to believe that I'm always going to have to be the one to do such things myself. Come on, all-- I want to see those besides Roger, Mirokado, myself, and a select assortment of other die-hards, really try to buckle down for a bit and slug away at this stuff, at least concerning the major topics like physical disability, disability and so on. I know there are others besides us die-hards out there-- if there's one major tendency I wanna see growing, it's the intensity of this stuff picking up a little bit of steam. I know you all can do it, lurkers. Pardon my bluntness, but really-- it's time. Get to work. Kikodawgzzz (talk) 18:14, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Maybe a Newsletter could help with this? (Examples, and bots.) Bib (talk) 08:40, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

There really are far too few active participants in this project. I see names on the participants list that I have never seen on any of the hundreds of articles I watch. How do we get the word out to the rest of Wikipedia that we exist and we are looking for interested participants? I'm not sure a Newsletter would really help - its going to be just the same "usual suspects" that have to write the newsletter and we'll probably be the only readers too! I am quite frankly amazed at the huge amount of work we handful have been able to do in the short time (9 months) since we established this project. We need to find a way to get some exposure on high traffic pages. Roger (talk) 14:10, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

I've put a notice one the Community portal's bulletin board, but I don't know how much traffic that gets anymore. Apologies; I've been busy with some other projects lately. --Danger (talk) 14:15, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

If an invitation template is created, such as this example, everyone could invite for example 5 people each today or however many one would want to invite. Bib (talk) 11:17, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Request for greater specificity

The to-do list tells us that there are many major disability articles that are stubs - could some one be more specific and tell us which articles are stubs?ACEOREVIVED (talk) 22:28, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

 Done Done. Danger (talk) 23:01, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Citation templates now support more identifiers

Recent changes were made to citations templates (such as {{citation}}, {{cite journal}}, {{cite web}}...). In addition to what was previously supported (bibcode, doi, jstor, isbn, ...), templates now support arXiv, ASIN, JFM, LCCN, MR, OL, OSTI, RFC, SSRN and Zbl. Before, you needed to place |id={{arxiv|0123.4567}} (or worse |url=http://arxiv.org/abs/0123.4567), now you can simply use |arxiv=0123.4567, likewise for |id={{JSTOR|0123456789}} and |url=http://www.jstor.org/stable/0123456789 → |jstor=0123456789.

The full list of supported identifiers is given here (with dummy values):

• {{cite journal |author=John Smith |year=2000 |title=How to Put Things into Other Things |journal=Journal of Foobar |volume=1 |issue=2 |pages=3–4 |arxiv=0123456789 |asin=0123456789 |bibcode=0123456789 |doi=0123456789 |jfm=0123456789 |jstor=0123456789 |lccn=0123456789 |isbn=0123456789 |issn=0123456789 |mr=0123456789 |oclc=0123456789 |ol=0123456789 |osti=0123456789 |rfc=0123456789 |pmc=0123456789 |pmid=0123456789 |ssrn=0123456789 |zbl=0123456789 |id={{para|id|____}} }}

Obviously not all citations needs all parameters, but this streamlines the most popular ones and gives both better metadata and better appearances when printed. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 02:43, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Screen magnifiers and <DOLPHINTEXT> tags

Has anyone with a screen magnifier experienced a problem like this one? I've been using a magnifier for a couple of years, but this problem has only recently started occurring. Apparently, according to this discussion the software is inserting its own tags, something I don't think it should be doing. If there are others experiencing this I'm wondering if it's worth creating some kind of template that users with the software could add to their user or talk pages to let others know of the problem, and hopefully avoid any misunderstanding. I wouldn't like myself - or any other users - to be accused of vandalism when that wasn't the case. Any thoughts on this guys? Cheers TheRetroGuy (talk) 22:01, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Sure creating a template is a good idea. Anyway, the right place to leave this message is Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Accessibility. There are several users there like myself who are knowledgeable about screen magnifiers and such accessibility software. We might be able to do something about it. We will investigate if the cause is Dolphin itself (did you updated it recently?) or a change in MediaWiki. At the very least, we will be able to write a detailed bug report to Dolphin or MediaWiki developers, and ask them to fix this bug. So please ask at the accessibility project. Cheers, Dodoïste (talk) 22:28, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for getting back to me. I'll copy this message over to WP:ACCESSIBILITY and hopefully someone can fix the error. I haven't manually updated the software recently, but it's possible I suppose that it has automatically updated, or that Internet Explorer has updated and caused some kind of clash with an aspect of the software. It first appeared on some of my emails before Christmas, and has only been showing up on Wikipedia for the last couple of weeks. Anyway, thanks again, and see you at WP:ACCESSIBILITY. Cheers TheRetroGuy (talk) 22:43, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

See here for further discussion on this.

Request of judgement on AAC article

Hi everyone,

I'm pretty new to wikipedia editing so apologies if I'm in the wrong place for this sort of question or if I've misunderstood the project entirely...

I'm doing some editing on Augmentative_and_alternative_communication (and as a result - Speech_generating_device) - currently the article is pretty long and I'm trying to gauge if some sections might be worth splitting out (there's lots of rewritting that needs doing anyway and I want to move some of the content to Speech_generating_device in any case.)

My question is do you guys (who are suitably experienced in disability-related Wikipedia articles) think that is would be sensible to spin Augmentative_and_alternative_communication#Specific groups of AAC users out into it's own subpage?

Thanks

Failedwizard (talk) 20:15, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

I see there is already a discussion about the article's length and what to do about it on the article talk page. That is the correct place to discuss your ideas.

Discussions concerning an individual article should always happen on that article's talk page. This page is for discussing matters concerning the project as a whole, or affecting whole groups of articles related to this project. Thanks for notifying us about the issue. Roger (talk) 21:47, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Cheers Roger - I did mean to say 'could you guys come over to the articles talk page and join in' but that kind of got lost in the writing. Thanks for your help! Failedwizard (talk) 16:40, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

New to WikiProject Disability

I've recently joined WikiProject Disability. My initial focus is to contribute to the neutral tone of articles where required. I welcome any suggestions that people may have on which articles I could look at. Russell Dent (talk) 20:43, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Welcome on board. Take a look at WP:WikiProject Disability#Statistics and start with the article with no or low quality ratings. Roger (talk) 21:34, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, will do. Russell Dent (talk) 22:18, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Usage of the word disabled.

Forgive me if this isn't the right place to ask, I'm new to Wikipedia. I've come across one or two examples where the word disabled has been used in disability related articles. Should I change it to "with a disability" or similiar variations rather than the term disabled? Russell Dent (talk) 00:47, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

It would depend on the context and the grammatical structure of the sentence. I don't think a "blanket rule" should be applied and certainly not one motivated purely by political correctness. Roger (talk) 14:30, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Could the to-do list please be less vague?

Could the to-do list please use less vague language? It tells us that there have been many mergers recently and says that some have been controversial, but it does not specify which have been the controversial ones. Also, it says that there are significantly fewer orphaned articles than there used to be, but then it says - "there are still some" - without actually telling us which the ones which remain orphaned are!If the to-do list is going to be that vague, it is not going to be too useful. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 19:42, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

AAC is of high importance

This project has four levels of importance: Top, High, Mid, and Low. Talk:Augmentative_and_alternative_communication has long been tagged as "High" but recently a member of the project changed this to "unrated", arguing only in the edit summary that Disability was a big topic and AAC was unimportant. (To quote him: "There's no way an article such as this about a relatively narrow and esoteric subject gets a "high" importance rating on WP:DISAB") I reverted this, saying that I disagreed and that I thought it should be discussed on the Talk page. Instead of doing that, my revert was reverted and I was told that the criteria had been discussed and (evidently) my view was unimportant because I was not a member of the Project. I am now a member of the project, and I have not seen the relevant discussion though I have looked for it. It is not at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Disability/Assessment for instance.

I could easily argue that AAC is in fact of TOP importance because of the depth of its importance to users of AAC. Not being able to get up a flight of stairs or not being able to see are certainly disabilities, and important ones affecting many millions of people, but for some people, AAC is the only means with which they have to communicate with any other human being. Now, if that's not HIGH priority I don't know what is. Our ability to communicate is what makes us human; being unable to do so (in the absence of AAC) is the cruellest sort of disability, far outweighing the relative inconvenience of being wheelchair-bound or blind. (I don't know quite how to say this other than bluntly. I intend no offence.)

I come to this topic primarily because of my work with Blissymbols and secondarily with SignWriting. I know Bliss users and users of other AAC solutions. I work with the BCI on terminology development for Bliss, and hope one day to encode it in Unicode. My experience shows me that AAC is extraordinarily important. Therefore, I would like to see the AAC topic classed as "High" priority for this WikiProject. Dismissing it as "relatively narro and esoteric" is most unsatisfactory. -- Evertype·✆ 13:42, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi Evertype, this might not be much help but I certainly think that I really struggled to identify criteria for importance when I started editing (in fact I gave up and started looking at other things - I think that we can certainly take that it would be great for the criteria to be more clearly signposted - at the risk of highjacking the comment - if anyone who has a keen knowledge of this issue could also give a quick assessment of the importance of Speech_generating_device as well. I also have some strong opinions on the importance of AAC but I need a bit more information about the criteria from one of the more experienced hands Failedwizard (talk) 16:46, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, the WikiProject importance assessment is made to be vague, originally to prevent such disputes. Anyway, going from "high" to "unrated" seems slightly exaggerated. I'm currently working with people with multiple disabilities, and just like Evertype I believe it should be rated "high". I wouldn't go as far as to rate it "top" though. And "mid" would be OK with me. But not "low" nor "unrated". Cheers, Dodoïste (talk) 12:08, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

It would make sense to me for importance ratings to stay until a consensus was reached on the new rating. Just to fill me in, how does the project make use of importance rankings? Is it just to choose articles that should be worked on next? Personally I think that more specific targets work for me - so my target is to get Augmentative_and_alternative_communication up to good article status, hopefully fairly quickly. Failedwizard (talk) 13:44, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Just to follow this up - the article has now be listed as a good article, hopefully at some point in the future it may move up to featured article status.Failedwizard (talk) 09:17, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Mention on the Radio Four programme "You and Yours"

I heard the subject of disability was one of the subjects discussed on the Radio Four programme You and Yours on May 10 2011. I think the subject was that of whether people who are getting paid money for disability allowance are getting paid enough money. Perhaps one of the items on our to-do list could be to ensure that up-to-date media coverage is featured somehwhere in Wikipedia. I am aware that we are not quite Wikinews but it would still be nice to ensure up-to-date coverage is featured in Wikipedia. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 21:25, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

That is exactly what the News headlines section on the Portal is for. Roger (talk) 09:24, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm back!

Hi everybody! I'm once again ready to contribute to this project on a regular basis. I was forced to take a break / slow down due to pressures of my academic programme, end of semester exams (all of which I managed to pass with distinction), getting organised for the next semester, etc as well as other "meatworld" issues and activities. I notice the Portal's news section has not been maintained as a daily headline source - the workload to do that is probably too high, I used to spend a minimum of 30 to 40 minutes on it every single day. We should nevertheless make an effort to add significant items on a regular basis. Roger (talk) 09:21, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Welcome back. I'm glad your studies are going well. It is actually quite fun finding the news entries however I also don't have the time available to commit to doing it regularly, nor should anyone feel required to do that, but it will be great if you are able to find updates when convenient. --Mirokado (talk) 17:17, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Fred Fay

Sadly, the recent death of Fred Fay, who I understand was a significant early participant in the U.S. disability rights movement, has been confirmed. I wonder if perhaps someone here could take a look at his bio, as it is a little lacking in sources, and probably merits expansion. Thanks in advance, AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:17, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Help getting some Paralympic articles Good Article ready

Hi. I've been working on editing a few articles about Australian Paralympians and the Australian Paralympic movement. These articles are:

• Louise Sauvage
• Priya Cooper
• George Bedbrook
• Frank Ponta

These articles are all in decent shape and are well cited. Two of them have a number of good pictures. It would be really fantastic if some one could come in and help improve these articles to get them up to a place where they could be nominated for Good Article. If anyone is interested in doing that, it would be really appreciated. :) There are very few articles about disabled athletes that have become GAs. :) --LauraHale (talk) 08:12, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

I'd love to help out, and might yet be able to, but I've got a few things on at the moment - if you don't hear more from me, definitely ping me when any go to GA nomination - I'd like to start doing some reviews in that area. :) Failedwizard (talk) 09:43, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Hellen Keller

I monitor/revert vandalism done to this page and noticed a talk page message left by user Chloeemmahart. She feels that some of the terminology is, "soo out of date, it is now offencive to those of us with a disability or know people with a disability". The wording seems to have been brought up twice on the talk page with no response but in general, it seems that most talk page sections are started by new users and rarely responded to. I'd like to address the word usage if it's actually an issue but I don't know very much about the subject. Can someone lend a hand with this request, please? OlYeller^Talktome 13:13, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up. Graham87 was slightly ahead of me with the copyedit, but I've made a quick change and written a reply on the talk page, should be sorted. But it's nice to see Wikipedia working as it should Failedwizard (talk) 13:54, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Assistive_technology

I've been merrily hacking away at the Assistive_technology article - it's still very rough and it could do with a few more editors helping out or giving opinions :) let me know if anyone fancies a push on it :) Failedwizard (talk) 21:49, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Please comment at Pathlight School's ongoing peer review!

Fellow Wikipedians, I humbly present my latest contribution to Wikipedia and this WikiProject, an article about Pathlight School, a Singaporean special school for autistic children! All of you are invited to comment at its ongoing peer review to help the article become Wikipedia's first special-education-related GA, thus supporting the quest to counter systemic bias on Wikipedia! I hope you enjoy reviewing this short, but interesting, article, as much as I enjoyed writing it! --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 04:05, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Congratulations to all involved in getting the article to GA. It's a well deserved rating. Roger (talk) 15:45, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Just popping up...

...to apologise for being MIA so much. Unfortunately academic work and other meatworld pressures have drastically cut into my Wikiwork. I just have a suggestion about the News headline box on the portal page (that used to basically be my baby). If we cannot properly maintain it we should consider removing it. IMHO having stale items from many months ago listed as "news" on a Portal reflects poorly on the Project running that portal. Roger (talk) 15:55, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Automatic archiving

I have enabled automatic archiving. The first run of the bot will archive everything older than 90 days (mostly older than 6 months) and is what I would have done anyway now by hand. Please respond here if you want to do anything differently for subsequent actions, or indeed remove the regular archival although I would not support that.

We can perhaps reduce the limit to 30 or 60 days, the aim being that we can concentrate on active discussions while still being able to read older ones. --Mirokado (talk) 18:46, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Sandboxen

I've started WP:WikiProject Disability/Sandbox as a home for sandboxen, please see that page for how I suggest we use this. Of course update it or comment here as you think appropriate... --Mirokado (talk) 23:34, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Tweaked the wl here and below after a move. --Mirokado (talk) 13:24, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Red Links

The very pleasent User:Topbanana over at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Red_Link_Recovery did a search of the red links in our Project for me (request), the results are that category:Disability_articles_by_quality contains 494 articles which contain 1412 red links - there is a full list at User:Failedwizard/Disability_redlinks, which I will be working my way though as a slow-burning project over the next little while, if anyone would like to help out (or look if you pet article is on the list) that would be lovely... Failedwizard (talk) 13:07, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for this - you could not posssibly sort out at that many red links on your own, so I shall be happy to lend a hand. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 10:10, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

I have just seen that category:Disability_articles_by_quality contains quite a lot of stubs, too. Alas, when I clicked on the stubs, I found the vast majority of the articles were ones about which I know very little (there was a reference to feeble-mindedness, but I thought that was treated as a pejorative term these days. Perhaps we could enlist the help of those in this project to help bring some of these above stub status. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 10:17, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

I think that would be pretty awesome as well - actually quite a lot of the red links in the listings are doubles - or are from infoboxes that arn't applicable to the project - it's been pretty interesting to work though- quite often you find other problems on low-traffic articles that one wouldn't have already found - feel free to get stuck in and edit the list as you see fit :) Failedwizard (talk) 10:26, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

UPDATE! We just had a new list generated and it's about a third the size - anyone who wants to come and play can do :) Failedwizard (talk) 17:37, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Sandbox page for Automobile modifications for drivers with disabilities

I have just created Wikipedia:WikiProject Disability/Sandbox/Automobile modifications for drivers with disabilities (see Talk:Subaru TransCare for background) so we can work up an article about disabled driving modifications. I think it will be sensible to post here when we create a new sandbox article, but probably we want to use the corresponding talk page for discussions about each draft article. --Mirokado (talk) 23:44, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

would this logically be part of Assistive_technology? I can see a couple of arguments for and against... Failedwizard (talk) 09:32, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

I would think it certainly comes under Assistive_technology#Mobility_impairment, but the structure of that section is already a set of main articles, so I think another main article would be best in this case. --Mirokado (talk) 13:36, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

I've added Category:Assistive technology to the draft. BTW the category could use some sorting, some articles should be re-allocated to relevant subcategories. Roger (talk) 16:03, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

It might be worth starting with a bit of discussion about the defination - there's a lot of technology in that list that assists, that isn't what I might expect from assistive technology... :s all we all happy with the definition on the page? Failedwizard (talk) 12:48, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Does anyone feel like joining me in working on the draft? I do much better writing here on WP if I there is at least one other editor active on the article together with me. Roger (talk) 08:27, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Would love to, but my work todo list exploded this week - might be on fairly limited wiking for a while :( Failedwizard (talk) 09:57, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

alt-text

Hi all,

I added alt-text to the images on Augmentative_and_alternative_communication as part of a group preparation for an FA review. However this is my first time doing alt-text so I'm looking for someone experienced to check the relevant alt-texts in article over to make sure I followed the guidelines correctly. Any ideas where I might go? I had a look at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Accessibility but that appears to be low on active members... Failedwizard (talk) 16:35, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

GA review for Speech generating device?

Hi all,

After a little bit of work Speech generating device is now a good article nominee - if any of you guys would like to review it, that would be very cool indeed :) Failedwizard (talk) 12:53, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Was reviewed over the last few days and has passed. Failedwizard (talk) 19:53, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:Disability disorders

Category:Disability disorders has been nominated for discussion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you.

Notifying the owning project. --Mirokado (talk) 00:42, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Edit dispute at Spina bifida

Please see Talk:Spina bifida#"Notable people" versus "Notable cases" and weigh in with your opinions if you like. Roger (talk) 19:20, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Please, please add your voices, this matter could turn out to be an important "milestone" in the struggle between the Social model of disability and the Medical model of disability here on WP. This is really important! Roger (talk) 20:13, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

List_of_disability_rights_activists

So, I've been looking at List_of_disability_rights_activists, which is a bit of an unsourced mess. I propose blanking the existing content and replacing it with this section (and spinning off that section with an appropriate {main} tag as you might expect. Any opinions? Failedwizard (talk) 17:35, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

I see nobody has edited that list in years! IMHO sometimes "List of" articles are not worth the bother, they tend to attract all sorts of cruft which takes a lot of maintenance edits to clean out. I'd rather see it put up for deletion. Take a look at Category:Disability rights activists, If someone is in the category there is an article about them with presumably reliable sources that demonstate that the person is in fact a notable disability rights activist.

The Disability rights movement article's biggest problem IMHO is the massively bloated very detailed "Timeline" section that totally dominates the article and consists almost exclusively of material from the US. I'd rather like to see that section split off as a separate article. Roger (talk) 17:57, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Will put up for deletion shortly then... (it was my first thought but was slightly worried it would be controversial...) I was also unsatisfied by the timeline issue... particularly since so much of it was taken from [1] - if I get a spare moment tonight I'll poke at spinning it out... Failedwizard (talk) 18:03, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

I've proded List_of_disability_rights_activists and I've span out the timeline as a draft User:Failedwizard/timeline from Disability rights movement would anyone object to it going in the mainspace? Failedwizard (talk) 11:02, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

I have completed the split process. Disability rights movement now discusses the phenomenon while Disability rights timeline contains the blow-by-blow detailed history. Roger (talk) 11:37, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Fabulous - I'll make a note to go over the timeline article in the future. Want to focus on the disability redlinks and the AAC stuff for the moment... Failedwizard (talk) 15:06, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

As an update - the awesome User talk:T. Anthony rebuild the list (as far as 'P') and it now looks a *lot* better - I've removed the prod. However, this has left us with the list being different to this section, so I'll give that a cleanup shortly...

I've boldly merged them, would be great if someone could look over my shoulder and check my working. We're quickly reaching the point were Disability_rights_movement is looking like a manageable size for someone to give it a good going over if they were looking for a small project... Failedwizard (talk) 11:15, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

How does the list compare to Category:Disability rights activists? Sorry I'm not able to get stuck into helping, I'm in the middle of university exams. I'll have more free time in a few weeks. Roger (talk) 14:48, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

I think the joining of the two needs a good looking at - there appears to be a few places where the category has been added to the article without it being quite supported and so on... Failedwizard (talk) 17:02, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

I've added more from the category, and the Canadian subcategory, that I could source. As well as some not in the category, but that seem to fit the list better than some in the category. I'm sure it's still incomplete, but I don't intend to be the last word or anything.--T. Anthony (talk) 04:30, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

One of the really great things about WP is seeing the progress that has happened while I was sleeping - Timezones Rule! LOL. Great work T. Anthony and Failedwizard. Nothing on WP is ever "the last word" or Complete^TM. I gotta get back to my books, I have a nasty exam paper tomorrow and a truly evil one on Thursday. Roger (talk) 08:37, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

So what do with think is the best next move on this, would it be to start working though the catagory and start adding the well-sourced ones to the list, so should it be to do something similar with merging this section into this list, leaving the Disability_rights_movement ripe for proper development? Failedwizard (talk) 19:33, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Sounds like there wasn't much of a problem with it, will give it a go in a little while... Failedwizard (talk) 13:46, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

So I boldly did that - let me know if that raises any issues - when reading though the article it's obvious that it's very US-centric (there is a short paragraph on the UK) could we rename it to 'disability rights movement in the US' as part of a general tidy up? I think it's the sort of article it would be nice to put a bit of polish to and then put up for GA nomination... Failedwizard (talk) 14:12, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

So the list has changed a little recently (I've only just noticed) - would someone with a bit more experience mind having a look at it :s Failedwizard (talk) 08:26, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

More categories for discussion

• Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 February 2#Category:Films involving amputees
• Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 February 3#Category:Limbless people

--Mirokado (talk) 22:02, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Categories, Dab pages

I have enabled explicit classes for Categories and Disambig pages. There is no need to specify class or importance for Categories, the class is applied automatically. Not yet sure about dab pages, not found one...

The motive for this was that we need to be able to track categories better than we have been doing, particularly when they are put up for renaming or deletion when sometime the first we know of a change is once it happens to an article we are watching. Dab pages are probably even more elusive.

Our statistics should show the new categories after the next update. See also Category:Category-Class Disability articles and Category:Disambig-Class Disability articles.

There are further subcategories that it may be sensible to add, although perhaps once the subcategories get very specialised in the domain of another project we might not need to add them. There may be other categories I have missed completely. Please update further as necessary. --Mirokado (talk) 16:59, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

I've now enabled the remaining workspace keywords, it remains to be seen how useful they would be but they will probably do no harm. They will only come into play on pages whose talk page has the project banner added. --Mirokado (talk) 02:06, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Now added support for class=Redirect or class=redirect. First example is Talk:Smart wheelchair. --Mirokado (talk) 20:39, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

) thanks for clearing up after me there :) Failedwizard (talk) 22:38, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Please comment at Movement for the Intellectually Disabled of Singapore's ongoing peer review!

Fellow Wikipedians, I humbly present my latest contribution to this project, an article about the Movement for the Intellectually Disabled of Singapore! MINDS turns 50 this year and getting their article to GA status would be a great way to appreciate their support of intellectually disabled Singaporeans. Could you support the quest to counter systemic bias on Wikipedia by commenting at the article's ongoing peer review? Hope you enjoy reviewing this short, but interesting, article, as much as I enjoyed writing it. Thanks! 谢谢！Terima kasih! நன்றி! --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 06:55, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Some recent movements - invitation for comment

I've been pottering around a bit over the last couple of days - I merged both smart_wheelchair and Wheelchair_support_surface into wheelchair, and I've had more of a bash at assistive technology - I've also proposed putting the Stephen_Hawking article through the Good Article process. Any comments on any of this? Failedwizard (talk) 12:48, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for doing that, I see no problem with the merges themselves, but please read Wikipedia:Merge#Performing_the_merger to see the necessary administrivia. In addition to the template(s) for the redirect and updating any project banner on the talk page (not mentioned there), which I have just done, we need to add the {{copied}} template to the destination talk page. Please can you do that for both the recent merges? It will be good practice for you as it is a bit fiddly the first time. That same page also shows how to manage a merge proposal... --Mirokado (talk) 14:09, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Cool - thanks :) I've just added the copied templates to wheelchair and also assistive_technology - thanks for both letting me know and also encouraging me to go through the process myself. (Also thanks Dodger for clearing up some of the smart_wheelchair text after me) Failedwizard (talk) 14:39, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

I've done an edit to the seating system section; the term "support surface" is an invention by the original editor of the article (see the talk history of the pre-merge article), in the trade it is called "seating system". Roger (talk) 15:05, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Just discovered you.

Hello all. I've recently been making my first serious contributions to Wikipedia with new articles and a few edits around visual impairment organisations in Merseyside. I've only just discovered the existence of this Wikiproject, so have added the appropriate tag to a few pages. If anyone fancies taking a look at the ones I started, Bradbury Fields and Royal School for the Blind (Liverpool) I'd really appreciate any feedback :-) Jonathan Deamer (talk) 20:08, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for this, and welcome - I hope that you enjoy editing Wikipedia. I shall comment on the articles when I have had a look at them, ACEOREVIVED (talk) 21:20, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I now have looked at these articles, and left my comments on your userpage. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 22:14, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Welcome! Please add your username to the list of participants. Roger (talk) 09:48, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Style guide for disability sport

I'm working on a style guide related disability sport at History of the Paralympic Movement in Australia/Wikipedia/Style Guide. I'm not as familiar with practices in describing people who have disabilities on Wikipedia as I could be. If anyone has the time and could do a quick edit to make sure the way Wikipedia's practices are described is accurate, I'd be really grateful. :) --LauraHale (talk) 23:04, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Hello Laura. Where would you like discussion about this to take place? My first comment is that it is completely unconventional to embed the whole content of an article inside the infobox as is the case in that style guide. I think you should follow more the layout of Wikipedia:WikiProject Olympics/Manual of Style (Games summary – Nations) or whatever in writing further style guides. --Mirokado (talk) 00:03, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Commenting here is fine. :) The talk page of the style guide is also fine. I haven't put the information on the page into any one wiki manuals of style. :/ The purpose of the information is less for setting Wikipedia policy than it is for making sure people who are contributing as part of the History of the Paralympic Movement in Australia project being organised by the Australian Paralympic Committee as a GLAM project can navigate between the APC standards and Wikipedia standards. I had problems finding a standard to follow in general. :/ Most MOS appear to be extremely specific to the needs of whoever created them. --LauraHale (talk) 00:23, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

This topic should actually be at WT:WikiProject Olympics/Paralympics. The Paralympics Task Force uses WikiProject Olympics style guide. Roger (talk) 11:17, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Haven't historically found the Wikiproject to be very active, and often not much help. My primary concern is in how disability sport is described (and not all disability sport is Paralympic sport.) along with how people who have disabilities should be described. Hence my inquiry here as I thought some one might have an idea how what the standard phrasing practices are. It is pretty easy to make unintentionally offensive missteps, like suggesting some one is confined to a wheelchair. --LauraHale (talk) 11:25, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Oh I see what you mean! Maybe it would be a good idea for us here to develop some guidelines such as: Don't say "wheelchair bound" or "confined to a wheelchair" rather say "wheelchair user" or "uses a wheelchair". However such a guide could easily become overly prescriptive and also risks becoming a minefield of political correctness. On the other hand, perhaps it would be best to review and copyedit articles on a case-by-case basis. Roger (talk) 11:42, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree that it would be a good idea to have disability in sports, as covered at the paralympics, covered by this WikiProject group. I also agree that it is better to says "uses a wheelchair" (or, perhaps better still, to describe some one as a "wheelchair user") rather than to say that some is "wheelchair bound". ACEOREVIVED (talk) 11:48, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

This initiative seems to have stalled. I think turning into a joint Task force under this project, WikiProject Sport and the Paralympics project would be a way to get it moving along; and also gain input from relevant editors who don't watch this page. Roger (talk) 15:47, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

For reference...

Stephen Hawking is now a good article. It's our second most popular article by traffic so I'm planning on implementing the reviewers areas for improvement and then sending it to peer review, just to get a few more experienced eyes on it. All comments, of course, welcome... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fayedizard (talk • contribs) 19:02, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Brilliant! You've been very busy, I'm impressed. Where is the review page? Roger (talk) 18:36, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Merge discussion for Low vision

An article that this Wikiproject has been involved in editing, Low vision, has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Jonathan Deamer (talk) 20:40, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Parkinson's_disease

I feel I should be careful with adding articles to the project - am I right in assuming Parkinson's_disease is within our scope? Fayedizard (talk) 08:45, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Also Huntington's disease and Multiple_sclerosis don't appear to be in project... Fayedizard (talk) 08:51, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

But not so careful as to be "timid". I feel articles about any medical conditions/syndromes that result in lasting functional impairment (per the social model of disability) should be included in our project. If most people who have the condition would be regarded as disabled for a significant period during the progession of the condition, then the article is clearly of interest to us. We can debate the marginal ones on a case by case basis. All those you've mentioned above clearly qualify, IMNSHO. Roger (talk) 09:42, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Done :) Fayedizard (talk) 11:09, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

A new article that needs help

I discovered this article about an amputee soccer team in Haiti. The article appears to be entirely the work of one inexperienced editor. There is a list of sources - most of them seem to be proper RSes but they need to be converted to properly formatted inline cites. Let's see if we can turn an article that is standing on the edge of deletion into something good.

This article also seems to be the only place on WP that mentions Amputee soccer, which according to the article has a fully fledged international structure including a World Cup tournament. We need to change that redlink to blue. Roger (talk) 09:32, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Article alerts

I have registered the project with the article alert bot, which provides a daily summary of article work flows. Auspiciously this first report includes the promotion of Stephen Hawking to GA status! Well done Fayedizard! Also, Hilda has nominated Movement for the Intellectually Disabled of Singapore for Peer Review.

This is perhaps particularly useful in notifying us of requests for deletion etc of items we are not watching. I hope some of the project members will watch this page...

The pages tracked are those with the {{WikiProject Disability}} template on the talk page, so please add that to relevant pages. --Mirokado (talk) 19:32, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Fabulous, what a great tool for focusing on the project! newbie question, should I do anything more complicated than just watchlisting the page to get the updates? Fayedizard (talk) 19:46, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

I think watching the page is probably enough, there are options to enable an RSS feed etc in the footer. If the project becomes so active that there are several screenfuls on that page we may need to consider something more clever... ..Mirokado (talk) 20:00, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for setting this up Mirokado, I'm watching it. Roger (talk) 16:41, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

I've now added new article alert (waiting for the first update), for more information please see the project page. We will need to improve and fine tune the rules in order for this report to be fairly comprehensive without too many false hits. You are welcome to update the rules or suggest suitable keywords or exclusions here and I will deal with them. Thanks to User:tedder for maintaining the bot so actively! --Mirokado (talk) 23:53, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

The first update has now arrived. Despite the untuned rules I think this will be useful and even some of the false positives make good reading. Each list has 7 days' worth of articles, so I guess it is best to look from the bottom up when evaluating articles. --Mirokado (talk) 18:16, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Non-24-hour sleep-wake disorder

The article Non-24-hour sleep-wake disorder should be included in this project. Thanks, Hordaland (talk) 00:50, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

You have already added {{WikiProject Disability}} to the talk page, so the renamed page is automatically part of the project. Incidentally, I clearly should have gone to bed two hours ago... --Mirokado (talk) 00:57, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you! And good night. --Hordaland (talk) 03:55, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Abortion movement

Hi all - I've started a thread at Down_syndrome to consider moving the 'Abortion rates' and 'Ethical issues' sections from the Down_syndrome article to the Disability_rights article - reasons include that the sections contain information and arguments that are common to many different forms of disability, and it would be nice if they where more centrally dealt with. any comments? Fayedizard (talk) 17:48, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

New disability categories

I am a member of the HOPAU project, short for "History of the Paralympic Movement in Australia, which deals with articles related to the Paralympic movement in Australia. Our main discussion point is a Google Groups mailing list. We have had a discussion about the creation of new categories to categorise Australian Paralympic competitors by their disability class and how they acquired their disability. This has morphed into a proposal for two sets of categories:

• Categories by Paralympic competitor class (since most sportspeople with disabilities that meet our notability guidelines will have been in the Paralympics): : [[: (i.e. Category:Sportspeople with a vision impairment [to replace Category:Blind athletes, since not all sportspeople with a vision impairment are blind], Category:Amputee class sportspeople, Category:Cerebral palsy class sportspeople, Category:Les autres class sportspeople, Category:Sportspeople with an intellectual disability, and Category:Wheelchair sportspeople)
• Categories for how people acquired their disabilities: e.g. Category:People who acquired a disability due to a road accident, Category:People who acquired a disability due to an industrial accident, Category:People who acquired a disability due to a recreational accident, Category:People with congenitally acquired disabilities, etc).

What do you all think of this idea? Graham87 13:08, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Welcome to the project :) It certainly seams sensible to be that sportspeople with disabilities might well follow the paralympic classifications for categories... It's a nice definite thing that can be stuck to and verified for the majority of the sportspeople. I find the causes categories less obvious, but I'm rather inexperienced with a catagories anyway so there may well be a whole set of benifits here that I'm missing... Fayedizard (talk) 18:50, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

The paralympic class categories should be quite easy to impliment as such information is reliably available. Sourcing for the causes categories will be problematic, such specific information is quite hard to find, insofar as it is available at all! We'll probably end up with only a few people meaningfully categorised. I really doubt it would be worth implementing. Welcome on board! Roger (talk) 19:28, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks very much for the warm welcome and your thoughts, everyone. To be honest I was a bit dubious about the categories for the causes of disabilities when the idea was first proposed, and I think that the idea could still be refined. But it seems (according to the mailing list thread linked above) that the Australian Paralympic Committee is often asked for information and stories about athletes whose disabilities were caused by particular circumstances like vehicle or workplace accidents (see Tony's message). Is this sort of info of wider public interest? I think that it could be useful in articles like that of Steven Fletcher, whose categories don't mention his car accident at all. We can't put him in Category:Road accident victims because the accident didn't kill him. But it can also raise some thorny issues: how would we categorise people with retinopathy of prematurity like Stevie Wonder, for example? His condition was caused in part by the time of his birth but was not congenital. And a category like Category:People who acquired a disability through old age would fill up very fast! Graham87 06:35, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Check the definition of Congenital disorder again - any condition present at or acquired during birth or during the first month of life is congenital - it covers more than just genetic conditions. Cerebral palsy is a well known congenital condition. Don't forget that these categories need to be applicable to non-Aussies too - WP is a global project. If "cause" information happens to be easy to find for Australians but not for people from other countries it would serious bias the category. We should also take a really good look at the category tree from Category:Disability onwards to see if there are suitable existing categories before creating new ones. Roger (talk) 08:51, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

You raise some interesting questions; I'm glad I asked here first before just barrelling in and creating the categories. I get what you're saying about how the cause of many peoples' disabilities isn't known, or would require a lot of research to figure out. Profiles from the Australian Paralympic Committee website (which only cover recent athletes) specify the athlete's disability in this way like this one, but I tend to ignore them and prefer to write a description in the article of how they acquired their disability where I can. As somebody said to me when I discussed this idea off-wiki, there are many many ways someone can get a disability ... is it worth trying to categorise them all? There doesn't seem to be a categorisation system anything like this from Category:People with disabilities, Category:Road accidents or Category:Industrial accidents and incidents, or even Category:Survivors. Leafing through Category:People by status is amusing ... I didn't know that we had Category:Beginners and newcomers! I'll just stick to creating the athlete cats, because they'll be easier to populate and maintain. But Aussies will unfortunately be over-represented anyway, due to HOPAU's work ... just take a peek at Category:Paralympic gold medalists! And thanks for the info about congenital disorders. Graham87 16:41, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

So it looks like there are no objections, in principle, to at the very least, matching up the disability sports categories to the ones developed for the Paralympic movement. I'm very new to categories so it falls to me to ask plot advancing questions... such as, what's the next step here? is it a simple as renaming a couple of things or do we need to get some bots involved? Fayedizard (talk) 07:51, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

I was going to just create the disability sports cats today with some initial articles, but other things got in the way; I should be able to do them on Wednesday. I've never populated an entire category system like this before ... but I know that some people like using HotCat for this purpose. Graham87 15:04, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Just thought of an important matter that may have been overlooked: Is WP:WikiProject Olympics/Paralympics fully informed and in agreement with this plan? They are the primary wikiproject in all matters related to Paralympics. Roger (talk) 20:54, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Oops, not until now. I've just informed them of this discussion. I'll wait a few more days for comments before proceeding. Graham87 01:29, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Please have a look at WP:CFD and the instructions at WP:CFD#HOWTO. It looks as if these changes should be proposed there, but the discussion here has clearly been helpful in sorting ideas out. --Mirokado (talk) 08:33, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

I've finally created the category tree at Category:Paralympic competitors by disability category. I also split Category:Blind athletes into Category:Sportspeople with a vision impairment and Category:Paralympic competitors with a vision impairment. Any help filling the new categories out would be appreciated. Graham87 11:29, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Graham. I have added project templates to the talk pages. Except for Category:Sportspeople with a vision impairment, the cats "belong" to Olympics/Paralympics but they are also of interest to Disability. --Mirokado (talk) 17:46, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Pruning and grafting the category tree

I've re-arranged some of the categories under Category:Disability. Specifically I have grouped Category:Disability media and Category:Disability in the arts under Category:Disability culture. Please take a look at these categories and give your opinion here. Roger (talk) 09:42, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Excellent, I was hoping somebody else would have a look at the category tree too. Please add {{WikiProject Disability}} to the talk page of each of "our" categories so that we will get the notifications if anybody starts discussing them or whatever. I have updated category:Disability culture as an example. There is no need to specify class for a category, that is picked up automatically from the namespace. --Mirokado (talk) 10:40, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Could we get a bot to tag all the categories under Disability? Doing it manually would be a huge job while a bot could do it quickly and completely. We had a similar bot action early in the project, IIRC you helped set it up. The discussion about it is in the archive. Roger (talk) 12:08, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

A bot would probably find too many cats. If it zaps every category which is under the Disability top category it will add the template to detailed subtrees which are better handled by other projects. There are also several sorts of systematically-generated subcategory (of whatever by country for example) where we probably don't need to add the template for every instance once the higher-level category is covered. I'll try to look in the archive later... --Mirokado (talk) 12:46, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

The Portal

Does our Portal still serve a useful purpose? It has not been updated in a very long time. Does it still get a significant number of views and are the viewers following links to some of out articles? If the answer is "no" I propose that we either delete or make a concerted effort to rennovate it. Roger (talk) 09:00, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

I think we should keep it. The portal is complementary to the project and and is the outward-facing aspect of coordinated maintenance of disability articles. It enables us to present themes, feature articles and so on within the area of disability in the same way as the front page does for the whole of Wikipedia. Of course the portal as a whole needs further updates: they will come with time.

We are getting about 30 hits a day to the portal front page. This compares with 120 for Sociology (I looked a few days ago, the server is not at present responding). This is I think enough to justify keeping the portal and also enough to encourage us to improve it as opportunity arises.

Some of the benefits of the portal are not easily measured. For example while improving Rambhadracharya the editor added him to the portal and as a result of that I joined in the editing of that article.

Technicalities: I last updated the main page itself when the support for our mobile site was updated: that page is concerned mainly with presentation of various transclusions and a design aim is to make it unnecessary to change it when transcluded content is changed or added. With the separate counter pages for the feature panes this implementation is in fact more advanced than the default templates. So "unchanged front page" is in fact a success not a failure!

I have been a little reluctant to add material myself, partly to avoid just inventing work for my own amusement and also because the content would become biased by my perceptions of what is worth mentioning and my general lack of knowledge of the subject. However I can certainly start again to add items. There are several other sports people who could probably be added, for example, but I would prefer a broader balance of featured subjects. --Mirokado (talk) 23:42, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

I think the News and To Do components should probably be removed (or rather just commented out) as they are not being maintained. I tried to do it but the layout got messed up. Roger (talk) 11:02, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Now commented out. --Mirokado (talk) 21:14, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Sidebar template needs trimming

Please see Template talk:Disability#Cleanup needed where I propose that the sidebar could do with being trimmed. The template contains too many links that are not globally significant. It's length also creates layout problems in shorter articles. Roger (talk) 10:57, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:HighBeam

Wikipedia:HighBeam describes a limited opportunity for Wikipedia editors to have access to HighBeam Research.
—Wavelength (talk) 17:39, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Power-assisted walking

I have just been despamming Standing wheelchair among other tidying up and have removed the following ext link as "insufficiently relevant" for that article. It looks as if it might deserve to be an ext link or reference elsewhere though, can anyone suggest where?

• Honda's Prototype Walking Assist Devices Demonstrated in U.S.

Do we already have an article covering such powered walking aids? --Mirokado (talk) 22:00, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Sexuality and disability

It's a real pity that such an important subject is "covered" by a misearble three-sentence stub article - please help to expand it. Roger (talk) 11:12, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

More worringly for me... there are a whole group of articles at the dark end of the spectrum...

• Attraction to disability
• Sexual_abuse_of_people_with_developmental_disabilities
• abasiophilia — the fascination for disabled people who use leg-braces or other orthopaedic appliances
• agalmatophilia — the desire for mannequins or for statue-like immobility, feigned or caused by illness or paralysis
• amputee fetishism — the desire for partners with missing limbs (also known as "acrotomophilia")
• teratophilia — the desire for deformed or monstrous people

It's entirely possible that the group needs an overhaul... my jobs list is currently unpleasantly full at the moment (back after a break to push Hawking again and then to deal with DS and Dyslexia) but I can be a watchlisty person if that would help...Fayedizard (talk) 13:01, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Sitting disability

PLEASE SOMEBODY see my contribution to the "sitting disability" talk page and use it to improve the Sitting Disability article. I can give you citations if you need them, but I am not experienced enough (or have enough confidence) to contribute to the article outright. Anna in Victoria 04:54, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi Anna - I popped over to Sitting_disability and responded on the talk page :) Fayedizard (talk) 20:45, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

AfD Deaf literature for children

Cast a vote: [2] OttawaAC (talk) 00:40, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

The article has been added to this project now - so the AfD should appear in the bot… Fayedizard (talk) 20:50, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

WikiProject_Dyslexia

So I was browsing Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Dyslexia (which appears to be sadly inactive) and it occurred to me to wonder if articles that are in that project would automatically be of interest to this project as well? Many articles are in both projects, but none of the following are

• Wikipedia:WikiProject Dyslexia
• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Dyslexia
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Dyslexia/Dyslexia assessment
• Category talk:Developmental dyslexia
• Characteristics of dyslexia
• Genetic research into dyslexia
• Orthographies and dyslexia
• Logographic cues
• Management of dyslexia
• Theories of dyslexia
• Learning styles
• Dyslexia interventions
• Irlen filters
• History of developmental dyslexia
• Category talk:Dyslexia

• Category talk:Dyslexia research
• Category talk:Theories of dyslexia
• Category talk:Visual thinking
• Category talk:Dyslexia researchers
• Dyscalculia
• Category talk:Alexia (condition)
• Pure alexia
• Dysgraphia
• Category talk:Aphasias
• Category talk:Dyslexia support by country
• Dyslexia support in the United Kingdom
• Dyslexia support in the United States
• Category talk:Orthography
• Category talk:Reading skill advocates
• Reading (process)

• Category talk:Dyslexia in fiction
• Recording for the Blind & Dyslexic
• Strephosymbolia
• The Secret (1992 film)
• List of artistic depictions of dyslexia
• Violet Brand
• In Her Shoes (novel)
• The Princess and the Cabbie
• In Her Shoes (film)
• Taare Zameen Par
• Lexia Readable
• Centre for Studies on Inclusive Education
• Backwards: The Riddle of Dyslexia
• The Focus Foundation
• Donald Shankweiler

Should they all be? Should some of them be? Would it make any difference if they were? Interested in general nearby opinion... (If we decide that they should all be included in this project I'd be really interested in playing with a bot to move them over... ) Fayedizard (talk) 19:31, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

(tweaked the above into list format, otherwise unchanged, hope that is OK) --Mirokado (talk) 12:15, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Probably the simplest way to do it would be to add Category Dyslexia to Category Disability, that would bring it and all its subcats into our project with a bot run set to add the project template to all pages under Category Disability. It would also pick up any other "stray" pages that haven't been tagged yet too. We did such a bot run in the early days of the project. There will be a topic about it in the Talk archive. Roger (talk) 21:08, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Now that there is daylight shining on my desk I notice that Category Dyslexia is already a subcategory of Category Disability via the Disability by Type category. So that takes care of the initial steps. Roger (talk) 07:20, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

The dyslexia article is not a media exercise, to make it more media friendly it is about a disability, so do your research before making any edits, there has been some very irresponsible edits made by members of this so called project, who so far have failed to understand that this is an encyclopedia not a newspaper article concerned with window dressing. I begin to wonder if some here have ever read a research paper. dolfrog (talk) 02:00, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Please be more courteous on this talk page. As far as I can see you have reverted referencing improvements, which heaven knows the article needs. Why? A sentence with six (!) references was moved out of the lead. The lead is supposed to summarise the rest of the article, not be the only place that things requiring lots of references are mentioned, so it is at least correct to place the refs elsewhere in the article. Why does one sentence need six references? If it is controversial there should be more content giving context for each reference. Why did you move the refs back? Apart from those issues, what did you not like about the edit you reverted? What does "more media friendly" mean? What change do you think of as "window dressing"? We need something other than invective if we are to discuss your concerns. --Mirokado (talk) 02:44, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

The need for the number of references is due to the dyslexia industry which for marketing reasons need to haver a single cause of dyslexia, they even own their own research journals top promote their marketing needs. So this is not contraversal more preventing remedial program marketing organisations from promoting their products, and methodologies. Organisations such as the Orton Gillingham organisation and its marketing arm the International Dyslexia Association, the UK British Dyslexia Association, and the Davis organisation in Australia. So the history of dyslexia research is important, and is still ongoing, as they still do not fully understand the neurological causes of dyslexia yet, the auditory processing, the visual processing, the attention disabilities and how they combine and interact. There are two types of dyslexia, developmental dyslexia which has genetic origins, which is what most of the content of the dyslexia article is about, and Alexia or acquired dyslexia which results from brain injury, stroke, or progressive illness. So the current dyslexia article needs to be split into two articles an initial dyslexia article describing the two forms of dyslexia, and a second about developmental dyslexia. There are further subtypes of Alexia due tot the differences in the locations of the lesions via stroke and head injury or atrophy with regard to dementia. Dyslexia is a man made problem, and there are various clinically diagnosable issues that can cause the dyslexic symptom, and the issues which can cause dyslexia can be language dependent due to the nature of a languages structure or orthography and the nature of its writing system. It has taken me over 6 years to compile my dyslexia research paper collections which are listed on my user page, and they are far from complete. I did start to begin proposals for editing the dyslexia articles in the dyslexia project back in 2010, but found working alone not an option due to my lack of copy editing skills due to my own communication disability auditory processing disorder, which is the cause of my own dyslexia. So i can provide the information, the researdch papers but I cannot write an article, my word recall problems make it is way too stressful. So if others are willing to work as part of a team then we may get somewhere. dolfrog (talk) 04:16, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi Dolfrog, it's great that you can bring up these points - it's always well worth getting these opinions. I confess that I am confused by your revert(s) - my understanding is that you have reverted the movement of a sentance from the lede to the main body of the text. This is a piece of copyediting I did because [[|Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Lead_section|Wikipedia's Policy on lede sections]] says "Significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article." and I felt that the sentence in question was both significant and demonstrably not in the main body of the article. Can I get your take on why you felt that the information should be in the lede but not in the main body?

I should state, as well, that my efforts on the dyslexia article have been almost entirely concerned with copyediting - I'd like it to be on the front page of wikipedia sometime soon but there are many steps on the road to getting there - and we need to be careful of WP:FRINGE, Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources_(medicine) and many other polices designed to make the article as accessible as possible - I think the current target should be to make sure the article matches Wikipedia:Good_article_criteria, which is why I suggested a peer review on your talk page in the last couple of days.Fayedizard (talk) 10:04, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

there was a dyslexia wikiwar a couple of years ago which i accidently stumble upon. Two editors who it would appear had different remedial programs to promote. They both left, one was found out, and the other just stopped editing and the end result was the current article, well most of it. AS i have explained numerous times I have no copy editing skills and abilities due to my auditory processing disorder, which is the cause of my dyslexic symptom. The dyslexia article does need radically revising, but the starting point is divide the current article into two, by creating a new "developmental dyslexia" article for all of the content regarding developmental dyslexia, and for the dyslexia article to become the new main article covering all forms of dyslexia, both developmental dyslexia, and Alexia or acquired dyslexia. This was were the Wikipedia dyslexia project was going until i discovered that i am not able to copy edit to Wikipedia standards. I can however provide all of the necessary research citation support.

I see you have noticed some of the sub articles need to help break down waht was becoming an unmanageable article, and that I could only copy the content from the main article and not do any copyt editing or make further additions, such is life living with APD. by this time all other editors had stopped editing. So there is plenty of scope for you to get these article up to standard before revising the main article as further content could be added and edited in these sub articles. The Wikipedia dyslexia project could be an ideal sandbox to look at this. I think some have added some unrelated content to the project since I last took a real interest a couple of years ago. You have to realise that dyslexia is language dependent, and that even variation in the english language can change the issues that can cause dyslexia.

I would also prefer it if you would stop refering to wikipedia user guides as for me they are no go areas due to their lack of understanding of my disability in the way they present information using only words and text, no or very few pictures, diagrams and charts etc. Most of their content is common sense anyway. So this is not just about editing the dyslexia article it is also about understanding dyslexia, and how to communicate with dyslexics, like me, who will be most of the visitors wanting to read the article to help understand themselves, and explain their disabilities to others, even the so called professionals who should know, but are not adequately trained. So it is important ot get the correct information in the right places, including the lead. dolfrog (talk) 11:24, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Can we please not have a content dispute concerning a single article cluttering up this WikiProject Talk page. If you really must discuss the matter at length please do so on the article's own talk page. Thank you. Roger (talk) 15:31, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

taken the whole thread to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Dyslexia#From the disability project for any further discussion dolfrog (talk) 17:25, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Dyslexia

Small problem with your editing of the dyslexia article you have made it too technical for most readers, which can defeat the object of these articles to explain issues in lay terms. So i thnk you need to go back to the dyslexia projects aim of having three main dyslexia articles, a slimmed down main article dyslexia, a new develepmental dyslexia article (most of old content of earlier dyslexia article) and the Alexia (acquired dyslexia) article. Dyslexia is only a symptom ,and have many variations, of underlying causes, too many to detail in single article. So there needs to be a single main article, with many sub articles and sub categories, and as research identifies more sub types and varaiations the more articles need to explain thes complex issues for all tpes of reader, expert and beginner, esepcially those who are dyslexic, like me.

dolfrog (talk) 06:10, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi Dolfrog, I did some more editing today with this mind, and I've popped by your talk page as well :) I understand that you're taking a very useful 'global' view of the dyslexia coverage on wikipedia (there are an amazing number of articles) and we should definatley keep that perspective. My focus has so far been on the main article - I have a slight worry that spreading our limited amount of editing resource amoung many articles will mean we'll have real trouble making progress :s Fayedizard (talk) 20:41, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

you need to stop being as newspaper editor. You seem to have no idea about dyslexia, or the wide range of issue involved, you only want to make the article a news story not the reality. How would you decimate the highly rated Alzheimer's disease to meet your media type ideals. Stop playing media games and become a research based editor coving all the issues that is the only way. dolfrog (talk) 02:10, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Hello again, I hope you are well. As I mentioned on my talk page, I'd like to respond to some of your queries with a general statement of my personal policy on editing. I do not disclose my name, age, race, gender, level of ability, or sexual orientation on Wikipedia (my nationality is relatively guessable, but people do often comically guess wrong) - I do not wish to be judged by any of them - none of them define me as a person. I'm aware that many editors edit under their real name - I've met some, they are generally lovely people, but they have made that choice on it's own merits, as it applies to them, and I respect that. However, one of my favourite things about wikipedia is that one can know so little about other editors, and yet respect them so much - everyone judged on the strength of thier character. At this wikiproject, we have editors, such as yourself, who have chosen to reveal their disability. We have editors who use wheelchairs, who are blind, who have serious long term health conditions and those are merely the ones who have publicly stated on their userpages. I respect each and everyone of them as editors, and also as people who will declare and identify and take strength from that declaration. But I also respect and love that wikipedia is set up so that all editors who do not wish to risk being judged on their name, age, race, gender, level of ability, or sexual orientation do not have to be, and the relevant adage hold true.

So this is my long-winded response to your query about my possession of dyslexia. I do not discus disability on-wiki in any form as it may or may not relate to me (at meetups, there is obviously a different dynamic going on and people can tell, for example, my race). My work here is to improve articles with reference to wikipedia's policies and procedures. Now, having set out my stall here (and potentially widened the scope of discussion in this section) I'd like to talk about some of your, quite responsable, points about the dyslexia article in the other section, so as to keep that one focused. Fayedizard (talk) 09:49, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

OK so what do you know about dyslexia, what is your interest in dyslexia? dolfrog (talk) 10:48, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Disability in literature

This is an invitation to participate in drafting an overview article - WP:WikiProject Disability/Sandbox/Disability in literature . I placed a list of sources on the draft page. Please feel free to have a go at it. (This message is crossposted at WT:WikiProject Literature) Roger (talk) 11:35, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

BTW there is another long-forgotten draft in the Sandbox please take a look. Roger (talk) 13:34, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

I have created a proposed structure for the article - sectioniing it by culture and historical era. Roger (talk) 11:25, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Is there anybody here who'd like to have a go at this? Roger (talk) 15:18, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

I need to get though the below (and I'd like to crack at Chen Guangcheng this weekend as part of my top-ten push.) But I think we've got potential - if there are a couple of other people willing to commit to a say, two-hour window next week where we throw a lot of energy at it as a group, then I'd happily join in…Fayedizard (talk) 15:52, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

About Sidebar content (again)

Please see Template talk:Disability sidebar#Global organizations and contribute to the discussion. Thanks Roger (talk) 14:24, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

GAN 1962 Commonwealth Paraplegic Games

1962 Commonwealth Paraplegic Games held in Perth has been nominated for Good Article. In the interest of full disclosure, the participant must complete a Good Article in order to be eligible to go to the London Paralympics (see outreach:W2G for more details). John Vandenberg ^(chat) 03:53, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

So what sort of deadline are we looking at here? Paralympics is fairly soon (well - soon compared to the queue for GA) - but might be able to do something…Fayedizard (talk) 15:54, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

The competition finishes on the 30th of June. Graham87 03:57, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

That *is* rather close - I've pinged a guy who might be good for you - but if you don't get anything by Saturday then I'll step up (I don't normally like to review disability articles because I feel a little close to them) Fayedizard (talk) 18:31, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! Graham87 00:56, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

I did a modified copy edit, fixing spacing, punctuation etc. but I can't review the content or organization, or do a source check. Good luck! MathewTownsend (talk) 12:31, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Mat! That looks like it's going to make my job much easier :) Fayedizard (talk) 15:11, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Review done - or at least the first pass at one (there's a couple of open questions), posting here just because a) it's always nice for a reviewer to have someone check their work and b) there might be a few project-lurkers who might pop over help out with some of the issues raised. Fayedizard (talk) 12:48, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks very much, Faye! Graham87 06:08, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

So this passed recently - well done all involved. Normally I would go and congratulate on a user's talkpage, but so many people where involved in this that I wouldn't know where to start and I'd be terrified about missing people out out. Well done all! Fayedizard (talk) 21:33, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Redlinked category:Motivational speakers with disabilities

Can someone take a look at Gérald Métroz, the bio is categorised, Swiss motivational speakers, Swiss people with disabilities, but the intersect category is redlinked - indicating either that there never was such a category, or it has been renamed or deleted. My recollection was that there was such a category before - or at least category:Motivational writers on disability? or something similar. Can someone better informed check this. Also Normand Leveille of the Centre Normand Léveillé in Quebec should have an appropriate category to recognise his work, but what? In ictu oculi (talk) 09:39, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

In answer to your first question, such a category has never existed, as far as I can tell; there's nothing in the deletion logs for either of the two titles you've listed and this search does not show any deletion discussions relating to categories with those keywords. As for you're second question, I don't really know either. By the way, please use the new section button! :-) Graham87 06:02, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

I removed the nonexistent category from the article. AFAIK we don't have any "<Occupation> with a disability" categories at all, unless we count the subcategories of Category:Disabled sportspeople, but they are not realy "by occupation" categories as no disability sports are professional (yet). Roger (talk) 08:03, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Wheelchair basketball is a professional sport in some countries. --LauraHale (talk) 08:23, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for replies. My memory has kicked back in - there wasn't a category, there was simply a parallel, Nick Vujicic who like Gérald Métroz overlaps the motivational speaker category. As for Normand Leveille the best I can come find is Category:Physiotherapists which seems pretty weak. In ictu oculi (talk) 11:40, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

I have removed the restriction "without them being disabled" (which was my first attempt to describe the existing contents) from Category:People involved with disability since that effectively gave us nowhere to categorise someone who has an active role related to disability but also happens to be disabled (and was a bit like Chess players with brown hair). Does the current wording need further clarification? Anyone who is disabled as well can also appear under Category:People with disabilities. Category:People involved with disability is currently a top-level place holder. Once there are enough members it may be possible to refine it further. We may also need a subcategory for (or to exclude) promotional or ambassadorial as opposed to more directly active involvement if it turns out that nearly every prominent disabled person has such a role.

I have added Léveillé to Category:People involved with disability: I would like to see an update with source to the article clarifying whether Léveillé "is disabled" or "was disabled for some time" before adding him to Category:People with disabilities... --Mirokado (talk) 20:31, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

WikiProject article assessment

I've been doing article assessments for WP Disability, and I need some clarification on how to categorize articles as "top" importance versus "high". Sometimes it's pretty plain, sometimes it isn't (to me at least). Has there been a discussion on how to restrict articles categorized in the "top" importance? I've come across a few articles, such as "Blindness", "Visually impaired", that to me, would be top level... they are very general topics, "high level", would branch off into sub-articles and sub-sub-articles...I guess to me, the drill-down factor is enough to make them top-level articles. The major categories of disability, (Blindness, Deafness, Paralysis, Psychiatric disability, Learning disability, and so on) IMO, belong in top level for their relevance and also the fact that so many readers navigate through them. Any thoughts for or against that line of thinking? I want to bring up a couple of other issues:

• Categorizing medical conditions. I don't think it would be time well spent to add a WP Disability assessment to every medical condition that happens to be chronic, there are wayy too many. Perhaps some very common disabling conditions (Polio, Bipolar disorder, MS), but otherwise I would rather just add a banner to medical symptoms that in themselves are disabling but are also broad enough that they apply to multiple specific medical diagnoses, for example, Paralysis.

  Am I just overthinking these criteria?

Thanks... OttawaAC (talk) 17:18, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

When we originally started this Project - and had only 4 or 5 members - we basically "defaulted" to the same hierarchical thinking - Originally only Disability, Social model of disability and Medical model of disability were given a Top rating, but I suppose now that we're a few years later and much larger we could re-think the issue. We actually have a sub-page for this - Wikipedia:WikiProject Disability/Assessment with its Talk page, though it's rather dusty and neglected.

The Importance rating can be (and has been) a cause of considerable friction. Someone with a personal attachment to a particular topic often regards it as more important than others do. I've even had accusations of personal insensitivity thrown at me, along the lines of: "How dare you give <terrible progressive disabling disease> a Low importance rating! My mother died of it! My wife has it and my poor baby has just been diagnosed with <terrible progressive disabling disease>! You are a terrible person! I'm reporting you to the Wikipedia Authorities!" The same disagreements happen around disability charity organisations,people involved with thm overrate their significance. Some WikiProjects don't use Importance ratings at all - they find the disagreements outweigh the limited usefulness of the ratings. Roger (talk) 19:37, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

improving wp:pages or improving wp:accessability?

I am new here. My question. The project main page says, first sentence: The aim of Wikiproject Disability is to co-ordinate the improvement and creation of articles related to Disability. Does that mean the project is not about ímproving accessability of Wikipedia? -DePiep (talk) 18:46, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

The project that covers Accessibility of Wikipedia is (quite unsurprisingly) WP:WikiProject Accessibility. We cover Disability in the broad sense. Roger (talk) 19:13, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

quite unsurprisingly you say. Well, of course you knew there exists: WP:WPACCESS W:ACCESS WP:BLIND WP:ALT WP:EIS and their peculiarities. I did not. Meanwhile, while you were watering your cynicism, I did this improvement. -DePiep (talk) 19:53, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Roger is User:Dodger67. -DePiep (talk) 20:10, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Is there a point to this? Why are you responding so negatively to my telling you where to find the WikiProject you were apparently looking for? Roger (talk) 20:25, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

You use different names. What do you not understand about confusingness? -DePiep (talk) 21:44, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

1: You use multiple names. 2: you say it is quite unsurprisingly that there is a WP project name or so. Well, to me it is surprising. I am here for a question, and yous complain that I do not understand. - Great. (You did not respond to the link did you? Why not?)-DePiep (talk) 20:44, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

1: It's called a custom signature - See WP:CUSTOMSIG. It's a common widely accepted practice here on Wikipedia. It is not the same thing as using multiple usernames, which is normally not allowed.

2: You asked a question which I read as you were looking for a WikiProject about improving the accessibility of Wikipedia. I told you where to find it and made a simple remark about the name of the project. You then responded very negatively, I have no idea why. I don't know what "link" you expected me to respond to. I'm now going to bed, it's almost midnight and I have to travel in the morning. Roger (talk) 21:37, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

You replied: "(quite unsurprisingly)". That is a negative judgement, and cynic. -DePiep (talk) 21:49, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Good morning fellow editors :) DePiep - was there something in particular you were looking for the wp:accessability project for? There's obviously a lot of overlap between projects and it can be difficult to work out which projects are active... Fayedizard (talk) 10:03, 19 August 2012 (UTC)