Template talk:Disability sidebar

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Disability sidebar template.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

FINALLY created a Disability Template. This is long, long overdue. Help expand please! Kikodawgzzz (talk) 02:08, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Change the name

I think we should change this template's name to "Template:WikiProject Disability Sidebar" so that it is consistent with the other templates in the Disability Project, such as the Template:WikiProject Disability Navbox. Roger (talk) 12:08, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We should refer to Wikipedia:Manual of Style (infoboxes) and the rest of Project:WikiProject Infoboxes and make our project consistent with Wikipedia usage and guidelines. thus name it "Template:Infobox Disability" (I presume this is supposed to be an Infobox?) There are probably similar pages for the other components. I suggest, concentrate on getting the Navbox sorted out, then rename this.

(For navboxes, see Wikipedia:Navigation templates, which does not seem to recommend a particular structure for their names.)

— (updated) Mirokado (talk) 17:40, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See also Help:Infobox which includes instructions for creating one. — Mirokado (talk) 17:53, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is not an infobox. An infobox is a template that contains summarised information about the subject of an article. For example a biography infobox contains details of the person in the form of brief facts and statistics. Roger (talk) 20:31, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. Very confusing. Help:Infobox#What do infoboxes do? explains and you are right. It looks as if Wikipedia:Navigation templates is relevant for this as well as a Navbox, in which case your idea sounds good. If you rename it there will be a redirect from the old name anyway so there should be no problems. So no objection from me... — Mirokado (talk) 21:25, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Renamed to {{Disability sidebar}} for consistency with title case, {{Disability navbox}} and many other projects, also tidied up related pages. --Mirokado (talk) 11:08, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Some entries too specific

This template should contain general links or specific links of worldwide significance. The country-specific links in "Disability activist groups" are not appropriate here and I have removed them. I have removed the whole section "Disability assistance groups" since it was mentioning just three specialised organisations, all related to cerebral palsy thus against WP:UNDUE. In both cases we can either find or create an article which mentions such groups and link to that, just as we have done for Disability in the arts and Disability in the media. We will never be able to mention every individual organisation in either category. It is important to keep these links generic since they are supposed to be a top-level navigation aid. --Mirokado (talk) 23:39, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Interpreter" pictogram

I think we should consider changing the 'interpreter' pictogram in the graphic to something else.

Now, I should make clear I am not one of those people who gets upset over deafness being treated or termed as a disability. It clearly is, and I've taken a lot of heat in the past from Deaf people for saying as much. But the use of the pictogram representing 'interpretation' implies that interpretation (or, possibly, sign language in general) is the disability, rather than the lack of hearing.

I can see how some users might find that implication offensive. Surely there's some other symbol we can find to represent deafness?

-- Powers ^T 13:07, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I disagree. I can't imagine anybody really thinking that interpretation or sign language is a disability. The symbols were chosen (after extensive discussion and refinement on the project talk page) to represent four major areas affected by disabilities: physical impairment, intellect, and the senses of hearing and sight. The wheelchair, the sign language icon and the white stick have very positive connotations of triumph over difficulties; mobility, communication and interaction with the environment. All three illustrate technology (intellectual technology in the case of sign language) used to overcome the problems being faced. The icon with the least additional connotations is the outline of the head representing mental disorders, but at least it is looking forward, sharing the motion on the leading diagonal.

We do not need in my view to make changes just because of a theoretical problem, since we can always imagine reasons why somebody might be offended by anything. If anybody has questions about any of the symbols we can of course try to explain what they represent, and of course respond suitably (which might include finding no substantial cause) if anybody claims to be in fact offended by something. --Mirokado (talk) 17:03, 5 June 2011 (UTC) (added link to previous discussion) --Mirokado (talk) 17:14, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But that's just it. To Deaf people, sign language is not a "triumph over difficulty"; it's just the natural language they use. But even so, if we're wedded to using a depiction of a sign, it seems like the sign for "deaf" or "sign language" would be better than the sign for "interpret". Powers ^T 14:07, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It would be nice to see some additional views on this topic. Powers ^T 13:59, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A Disability Program (with financial and employment components)

I was thinking of having the Assured Income for the Severely Handicapped be part of this template, under the socioeconomic section. Do you think it is a good topic to put it in the template? Rockies77 (talk) 04:18, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No it's too narrow in focus. The article is about only one progaram in one part of a single country. This box should only list globally significant articles. Roger (talk) 10:52, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup needed

This template is getting a bit bloated and includes some entries that are not of truly global significance. I propose that we trim it down to list only the most essential articles. When used in short articles this template's length creates excessive whitespace. Roger (talk) 10:52, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Let's start with collapsible groups which make the default presentation take less space in the article. I have also reimplemented using hlists which provide improved accessibility. We may not need much pruning now... --Mirokado (talk) 22:34, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Global organizations

I have added United Cerebral Palsy as an organization to this template and twice Dodger67 (talk · contribs) has reverted it with his explanation in the edit summary and no discussion on this page, or my talk page. I do not intend to get into an edit war over this, but in both cases his facts have been erroneous. UCP is an international organization with affiliates in Australia, Canada, the United Kingdom and the United States and has programs in Indonesia, Pakistan and Nicaragua. Despite its name, UCP apparently serves people with any intellectual or physical disability. Thus, it meets the same criteria (including size and scope) as the other organizations that are listed there. It is my intention, after sufficient time for discussion here, to reinstate the edit.Argos'Dad 13:52, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I didn't notice this edit earlier. If you compare the UCP to the organisations already listed in the section it is immediately apparent that there is a big difference. The existing entries are concerned with Disability per se, not only one (or even a few) disabilities/conditions that cause disability. DPI is the "United Nations" of disability organisations and SDS is the biggest worldwide academic society that deals specifically with Disability as a phenomenon per se. (I have doubts about Visitability's elegibility to be listed as it seems not to operate outside of the US and Britain.) If every organisation comparable to UCP were to be added the list would end up with dozens (or even hundreds) of entries, which is obviously an untennable situation. Roger (talk) 14:20, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think there may be preconceived notions about what does or does not belong in the template. Remembering that no one owns this template, I do not see any guidance in policy or guidelines that create the types of restrictions that suggested. I agree that there must be some limits, so I would propose that the organizations included should be A) multinational (3 or more countries) or global, B) serve or advocate regarding disabilities generally (in addition to any specific focus they may have), and C) be of sufficient size to be sustainable for years to come. How does this approach work for others?Argos'Dad 21:26, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What you are suggesting would be fine as a starting point for something like a List of multinational disability organisations (which incidentally I don't think we have yet) but any organisation appearing in a navigational aid on dozens of articles really needs to be one of a kind, otherwise the (inevitably) selected organisations are given WP:UNDUE prominence. The relevant guideline for navboxen is WP:NAVBOX, see also the guidance essay WP:NAV. --Mirokado (talk) 22:33, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your response. I have reviewed the guideline that you suggest governs this template (WP:NAVBOX) and I see none of the points that have been made here are supported by it. In fact, a fair read of that guideline would likely not support any organizations being included in this navbox. Yet, there are organizations included, so I intend to add organizations that meet the criteria I have proposed unless someone can show me where it is not permitted or there is a consensus otherwise.Argos'Dad 20:17, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia guidelines are not prescriptive so you cannot expect them to mention every conceivable eventuality which might occur in any of the millions of Wikipedia pages. They do act as a guide assisting the formation of consensus, though.

Please read WP:BRD if you have not already done so. That is not a policy or guideline, but it is very commonly followed and not following it can easily result in breaches of policy or unfollowed guidelines. We are currently discussing the addition of extra organisation links to the template and there is explicitly no consensus to add them until such consensus is reached. Although boldly adding the extra link to start with was fine, adding links without consensus would be unconstructive, so please do not do that.

As far as UCP is concerned, their website is currently down so I can't respond in more detail this evening. More I hope tomorrow evening. --Mirokado (talk) 01:08, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have updated the article a bit more, the website is back up. The "international" in the lead and mentions of affiliates outside the USA are unsourced, I have added {{citation needed}} for that. I find no mention of activities outside the United States in their website. Of course I can easily have missed something despite looking reasonably carefully, please provide link(s) if you can, but the website is not that of a recognisably international organisation, let alone multinational. --Mirokado (talk) 00:44, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I added the source from their website. Whether the organization is international or multinational is a question of fact, not our interpretation of their website. Argos'Dad 12:04, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Icon

Icons when used should provide additional relevant information that words can't. The wiki project of the template is never relevant in the mainspace Gnevin (talk) 13:07, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]