Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Dyslexia/Proposed organization

This is the talk page.

Comments on proposed organization

Just a few thoughts:

I think "subtypes" of dyslexia should be part of the "Definitions" article - I don't think there is enough to sustain a different article; alternatively, it may belong under an "Assessment" article or section-- because that's usually when it comes up. (someone goes for testing; after testing they are given some sort of diagnosis which specifies some "type" )

Educational & Legal issues probably deserves its own article, which can have subtypes referring to specific countries -- but it is a big project because it requires some research & assembly of facts.

I agree that symptoms could definitely be a different article -- and it actually might be moved to a list format -- because that is all is. It needs some sort of introductory paragraph or disclaimer explaining that there is disagreement about precise symptoms -- and it could use a reference list to basic symptoms lists maintained by reputable organizations.

It's possible that stuff about overlapping conditions also belongs in the symptoms article - it can be very difficult to differentiate sometimes. Armarshall 08:34, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding subtypes:

I'm not sure I agree that subtypes and definitions should be combined into the same article. I don't object to combining them at this point because we can always change it later if we need to, but here's why I think they may need to be separate:

First, the definitions article will by necessity be largely about differences in how dyslexia is viewed from one country to another. I don't think the subtypes are parallel to the definitions in that respect. Also, we will need to link to the subtypes from other articles where definitions won't be applicable. For example, when we discuss interventions, we'll want to link to specific dyslexia subtypes when an intervention is specific to that type. It would be "cleaner" to link to the top of the article rather to a subsection.

Regarding educational and legal issues: Agreed. I made note in the re-org that we'll plan for this to be a new article (unless someone strongly disagrees in which we can, of course, discuss it further).

It's certainly possible that overlapping conditions should be in the symptoms article. I don't have an opinion at this point, so I included it in the plan.

I've either incorporated your comments into the organization plan, or made note where we are thinking differently. I'm hoping others will chime in soon. :-)

Best,

Rosmoran 20:08, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Overall plan looks good some combination of symptoms/subtypes/definitions would be a good idea, the symptoms if mainly a list would definitely need to be part of a larger article. On the other two remember they don't have to be standalone articles , cross reference secitons. Say one definition includes, the another excludes, a subtype; link the two sections to allow the main flow of the article to continue with our getting bogged down on who agrees with it. --Nate1481(^t/_c) 10:17, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]