Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Disability/Sandbox/Vehicle modifications for users with disabilities

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

ENGVAR and name[edit]

Another article's ENGVAR is of no real consequence when selecting/determining the ENGVAR of an article. In any case ENGVAR is determined during writing, not "decreed" beforehand. I prefer "Vehicle" because control mods exist not only for cars - even aircraft have them. "Vehicle" is also a neutral word in terms of ENGVAR. Roger (talk) 06:46, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

We can remove that, I only added it because of "Automobile". We can see how it looks with "Vehicle". That is not strictly limited to motor vehicles so I felt it would be too broad. --Mirokado (talk) 10:04, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
I would in any case be happier writing naturally to start with (which will mean parts of the article starting off in British english). Perhaps an appropriate native writer can copyedit the article later if a particular sort of English becomes an issue. --Mirokado (talk) 11:12, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
Commonwealth English comes naturally to me too. Roger (talk) 15:39, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Predetermined instructions[edit]

I'm not happy with all the predetermined instructions that are already placed on the draft page, I feel that it inhibits collaboration. IMHO it is inappropriate for stuff such as the ref style to be "dictated" before any content even exists. I'd prefer to have all those instructions moved here to the Talk page where they can be properly discussed. Roger (talk) 07:18, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

OK I'll move them, perhaps to suggestions here. Basically I wanted to encourage fully-referenced content right from the start, with references that are not just bare urls. --Mirokado (talk) 10:10, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
Agree - proper references from the start, though I must warn you I'm not very familiar with some of the templates. Roger (talk) 15:35, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Date format[edit]

At some (preferably early) stage we will need to settle on a date format. MOS:DATE requires either 15 January 1972 (International) or January 15, 1972 (American). There are templates {{use dmy dates}} or {{use mdy dates}} to help bots choose the correct format for automated edits. MOS also requires that access and archive dates in references be either consistent with the article format or 1972-01-15 (ISO) format. --Mirokado (talk) 11:13, 23 October 2011 (UTC)



The appendix is the standardised final part of the article. MOS:APPENDIX describes this. I've copied that list with irrelevant items removed and suggestions relevant to this draft:

  1. See also
  2. Notes and/or References
    I recommend Notes if needed followed by References as this will save renaming Notes later if we need both, see WP:FNNR
    I recommend a ; Citations separator before any citations used by inline references
  3. Further reading
    For example, book citations not yet used by inline references
  4. External links
    Commons category boxes etc go here before the list of external links
  5. Navigation templates
  6. Defaultsort
  7. Categories
  8. Stub template(s)
    Preceded by two blank lines
  9. Interlanguage links
    Normally added by bots, we can add them manually if necessary

--Mirokado (talk) 11:22, 23 October 2011 (UTC)


Some suggestions about references...

I would like all the article content to be fully referenced from the start. I would prefer it if each reference is checked and completed at the time it is added and really do not want to see any bare urls in the draft, let alone in the article. This does not seem unreasonable, it takes far less time to complete a reference when it is already in front of the original author, which of course it has to be if it is a reference, than for somebody else to check the details later, not having that book so unable to add page numbers, and so on.

system, presentation

WP:CITE says what is generally needed but does not specify a particular citation style. My suggestions with reasons are:

  • use {{cite web}} and friends to generate uniform references
    • use named refs if an inline ref is used more than once
  • use {{cite book}} and friends for book, encyclopedia citations
  • use {{sfn}} and friends to generate inline references to books, if any, particularly books with line numbers
    • one detailed citation shared by each inline ref to a particular book
    • inline refs to the same book and page are consolidated automatically
    • the citations can be placed logically in the References section to provide a convenient list

The cite * and sfn families of templates play nicely together. The generated presentation consistently ends with a full stop


Using list-defined references can simplify the article source text but means editing two places in the article for a new reference

  • generally, use list-defined refs when:
    • the density of refs in a paragraph makes the source text itself difficult to read
    • when the ref is used more than once, so every usage is generated consistently
    • anyway if there are very few other ref definitions in paragraph text left
  • generally, use in-place ref definitons:
    • for convenience, somebody can move them later if necessary
    • each item of a list has its own ref, particularly if that is not used elsewhere (this makes updating the list easier)

The different ways of using these templates can coexist in an article, so trivialities of making everything really tidy need not inhibit content creation.


There are practical reasons for suggesting a source style for the citation templates and lists are easier to manage if all the entries are consistent. It is not really critical that everything be done consistently all the time (experience suggests that will not happen anyway and editors concentrating on the content should not be distracted by such trivia) but at least I would like us to agree on a style to which definitions can be transformed if it seems desirable to do so:

  • diff listings are easier to read if the whole definition is on one line, also the editing view contains more of the list if each entry is on one line
  • the source listing is easier to read if line wrapping occurs predictably, thus I suggest a space before each parameter, but to avoid other unnecessary spaces
  • parameter order
    • I find it easier to edit when the order of parameters is roughly that of the presentation
    • Also nice if the order of parameters for cite book and sfn correspond
    • Thus I suggest starting with |last= |first= and |year= or |date= (also bibliographic information is more detailed, and sorting is easier, if we use last= first= rather than author=)
    • The diff listing is simpler if we convert [theurl thetitle] into {{cite web ... |url=theurl |title=thetitle ...}}, so I suggest |url= |title= next as a general habit
    • Ending with |work= |location= |publisher= |isbn= |accessdate= and |quote= or |postscript= etc as necessary

These are suggestions and what I will do by default. I entirely understand that there are other ways of doing things too. --Mirokado (talk) 13:05, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

What about mods for passengers?[edit]

Some modifications are for passengers, not only drivers, e.g. wheelchair ramps and systems for securing a wheelchair and occupant to the vehicle floor. Roger (talk) 15:31, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Sources for a section about aircraft controls[edit]

Roger (talk) 17:07, 23 October 2011 (UTC)