Talk:Toddler

Medicine Start‑class Mid‑importance

	Medicine portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine articles
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Runabout Baby

Is it not true that "Runabout Baby" is another term for Toddler in British English? Ancheta Wis 21:51, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If it is, I've never heard of it. Would suit my offspring though! -- Jellyman 08:21, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Born in the UK and lived here all my 35 years, never heard the term "runabout baby" in any English or Welsh region. Only reference I can find for it on Google is to describe a pushchair ("Runabout" is a pushchair brand name) and one mention in an article by an American child psychologist [1]. Definitely not English English. I guess it could be Scots English but I think that's unlikely. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Evilandi (talk • contribs) 15:54, August 24, 2007 (UTC)

Speaking

I believe the milestones listed in the article for speaking and understanding language are far too low. See, for example [2] or "By eighteen months of age, most children can say eight to ten words." [3] A child who can say eight to ten words probably "knows" at least thirty, and certainly far more than the "2 or 3" cited in the article. -- Dominus 17:17, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have adjusted this to conform to the information in The Baby Book, by Sears, Sears, et. al, p. 452-453. I suspect that the table requires additional adjustment. -- Dominus 23:54, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Toilet training

This is a very good and concise article. It is true that "in most Western countries, toilet training starts as early as 18 months for some while others are not ready to begin toilet training until they are three". This is a cultural fact that cannot be omitted when discussing a topic with a strong psychosocial components. However, while in some families, early - even coercitive - toilet training is the rule, this practice has been found to cause a substantial degree of toilet aversion (and retentive constipation) in young toddlers. Therefore, I would suggest that the article acknowledge this fact, given that young parents are often unaware of it.

Eguirald 14:39, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please check the page "Elimination Communication" to learn about gentle methods of non-coercive, non-punitive potty learning from birth. In many countries throughout the world, helping children use the potty is done from birth, without toilet aversion, constipation, punishment, etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Carlyle123 (talk • contribs) 19:51, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I took out the part that says you have to be "physiologically ready" to start toilet training, since babies are born physiologically ready. Again, see "Elimination Communication"...many parents (including me) have babies who were holding their pee/poop until they could be brought to the toilet from the time they were just a few months old. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Carlyle123 (talk • contribs) 20:07, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not an image gallery or repository. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 21:07, 8 November 2006 (UTC) What about bed wetting when can one start training, precisely at what age? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.220.31.101 (talk) 06:53, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image Deletion?

Someone keeps deleting the image I added, Image:Redheaded child mesmerized 3.jpg, without stating any reason. It has been approved as a Quality Image on the Wikimedia Commons, and I think it deserves a place in this article. It is of much higher quality than most other photos here. Thoughts? --Steevven1 ^{(Talk) (Contribs) (Gallery)} 03:17, 19 March 2007 (UTC

Wikipedia is not the place for you to post cute pictures of your children. You should consider your motives and perhaps seek appropriate professional help concerning your obsessions of forcing your children on others. 216.160.105.233 00:36, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it is a good quality picture and better quality than the ones used in the article. However the article is about toddlers which is mainly demonstrated by the act of toddling, ie. standing and walking unsteadily. Since the photo you quote is only a neck-up shot, it does not illustrate these key points of the article, as it looks as if it was taken when the child was seated. Lovely photo, though, and it would be nice to see more Native Britons used as photo models. The issue of whether you choose to use your own children for models is irrelevant (and I suspect garnered by prejudice against redheads, which dates back thousands of years to the dark-haired Roman Empire's failure to defeat the blonde and red-headed northern European tribes); personally I thank you for making your works available on WikiMedia. Andrew Oakley 16:25, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this is the point. The purpose of images is to enhance the article by, for example, illustrating the subject of the article or to add to the 'story'. The present images all seem to meet this requirement whereas the one complained of does not. TerriersFan 16:43, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Content on Erikson's developmental phase

It would be nice to have content on Erikson's development task (achieving Autonomy) which is the basis for much of the toddler's negativity developmentally. Thoughts?Jreid1944 17:27, 23 May 2007 (UTC)jreid1944Jreid1944 17:27, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, noting the previous message, more is needed on toilet training. Neurological development is required and there are known signs for readiness for toilet training that would be good to include in the article. Thoughts? Jreid1944 17:29, 23 May 2007 (UTC)jreid1944Jreid1944 17:29, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jreid1944 17:24, 23 May 2007 (UTC)Shouldn't it read something else than "12-24 months" down there?[reply]

Although "readiness signs" are touted in the US, many, many countries throughout the world recognize that children are aware of and capable of controlling their elimination from birth. Check out the "Elimination Communication" page for more details. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Carlyle123 (talk • contribs) 19:53, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gender neutral

Could we please try to be gender neutral here!!! Instead of "mother or caregiver" can we please say "parent or caregiver" to reflect the fact that increasingly fathers are also primary caregivers as well as mothers. As a stay at home dad and on behalf of other stay at home dads, this would be appreciated. (206.191.33.17 01:10, 27 June 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Age Centric Bias

This article should be DELETED, due to its age centric bias. The term "toddler" is damaging to the self esteem of little people, and should be discouraged. This type of idea only perpetuates limitations on little people with growing minds, and represents true human rights bias. Can we please understand that these type of misguided and invalid arguments limit our future leaders? Please read about Indigo Children. Tommy James 00:21, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah...until the toddlers themselves complain about it on here, I think that nobody cares and therefore the article is staying.

Sources

This article has a HUGE amount of information for sources I can't find anywhere on the article. The whole chart, fantasy land, its almost telling you how to raise your kids in the "important things to remember about toddlers activities" 67.162.10.70 22:22, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

if the Overview Table is the same as the chart, then I agree. I believe the content is mostly useful, but perhaps a bit too specific about what children should manage at certain ages. I'm not sure it is completely accurate either. I get the feeling it refers mostly to late bloomers too. It'd probably be better to list things by what children manages by average. And then clearly explain that it shows average skills too, and that they aren't necessarily the same as what is normal.

I'm also removing the line: It is very important to make sure that words are used with gestures so the children learn to talk along with signing.

It makes little sense, to me at least, and seems to be a personal opinion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.231.126.251 (talk) 17:33, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Canadian Toddler

Though I can't source it, it seems since a British toddler was beaten to death by older boys in the UK. The phrase toddler has become very common in Canadian media. GoodDay (talk) 23:05, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Humour

"Thus it is very important for the caregiver to be consistent with boundaries and discipline for the child’s safety and the caregiver's sanity through puberty."

The above sentence in the article is quite funny, but I am not sure if the humour is appropriate. Any comments? Egkauston (talk) 12:41, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. It may be funny but the tone is not encyclopedic. SamanthaG (talk) 03:07, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cruising

Top of article: "the term cruising is used for toddlers who cannot toddle but must hold onto something while walking" - is it really? I suspect this is an Americanism, can anyone confirm? Certainly not used in the UK. I would google for the term, but I fear for what else I may discover under the heading of "cruising". Andrew Oakley (talk) 15:16, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is a standard term used by pediatricians in the U.S. Pustelnik (talk) 12:12, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Babypedia

I think we need a baby / child -pedia, not for children, but from parents and pediatricians to parents . --Mac (talk) 13:36, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Accidents

What about how to avoid accidents with toddlers : I.e. impressioned by an eye accident of a toddler with a chair angle. I think there would be some solutions (i.e. soft chairs for babies, perhaphs rubbers, foam or plastic (i.e. PVC) chairs without metals or wood? Or perhaps something similar to a bean bag chair for toddlers (small)? (this has the problem it cannot be use to learn to sit down and stand up in a normal chair). --Mac (talk) 13:40, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the two links to a sales site from Mac's message above. We don't need "reference" links to catalog photos of soft baby chairs to know what they look like. As to a section on "how to avoid accidents with toddlers", there is virtually no end to the advice that could and would be included in such a section, but WP:NOTHOWTO. --CliffC (talk) 17:15, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're right. Such a section could quickly become hard to manage. SamanthaG (talk) 03:08, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RUG-RAT

I searched rugrat (Rug-Rat) and was directed to this page. Ain't the meaning of RUG RAT indicates a toddler that crawls around the rug or carpet like a rat circling around looking for stuff to put in their mouth? The whole article has no indication of this slang term.......what gives? Anyone care to add it? Neoking (talk) 04:57, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

10 to 24 months??

No, that is called a baby. A toddler is 2 to 5. The term is not literal, referring to little ones that have trouble walking.. it's.. well, arbitrary... but everyone I've ever met has defined it as basically 'speaking fluently but not reading' or more commonly 'while the body is still sort of stubby and not elongated yet' in the art community.

Sorry, who are you? Your post is not signed and your comment gibberish. Please see this definition of toddler for example. Of course it's literal, I'm not sure I agree that toddler ends at 23 months (in fact I don't) but it doesn't extend to five. For me, WP:NPOV, it's about control of motor skills and not 'while the body is still sort of stubby and not elongated yet'. CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 18:02, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup

Come on, this needs some serious cleanup, as the tags indicate, it is very non-medical, unsourced etc. and a bit vague in places: example, it says in the Toddler profile section that the height is double the birth height.

This should be easily verifiable and backed up by statistics, studies or somesuch material (and as far as I can see the rest of the article goes on to make the same sort of claims without any sources whatsoever). CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 18:17, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have started attempting to clean up this page and will endeavor to incorporate suggestions made by above contributors. Cheers. LMOughton (talk) 03:04, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good on you, thanks. CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 10:52, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Images should be changed.

The images here do not mention the toddlers age and their image pages do not mention their ages either. It seems absolutely ridiculous to have an article about children aged 1 - 3 and not have the ages of the people in the two lead images. We are supposed to be an encyclopaedia. 202.171.168.178 (talk) 03:24, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]