This article is within the scope of WikiProject Anthropology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Anthropology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AnthropologyWikipedia:WikiProject AnthropologyTemplate:WikiProject AnthropologyAnthropology articles
Child is part of the WikiProject Biology, an effort to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to biology on Wikipedia.
Leave messages on the WikiProject talk page.BiologyWikipedia:WikiProject BiologyTemplate:WikiProject BiologyBiology articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Parenting, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Parenting on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ParentingWikipedia:WikiProject ParentingTemplate:WikiProject Parentingparenting articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject PsychologyTemplate:WikiProject Psychologypsychology articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sociology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SociologyWikipedia:WikiProject SociologyTemplate:WikiProject Sociologysociology articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles that are spoken on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Spoken WikipediaWikipedia:WikiProject Spoken WikipediaTemplate:WikiProject Spoken WikipediaSpoken Wikipedia articles
This article was selected as the article for improvement for a period of one week.Articles for improvementWikipedia:Articles for improvementTemplate:Former AFIArticles for improvement articles
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 15 January 2019 and 2 May 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Saniabenie.
A more relevant question would be why there are so many images of children at different ages. The gallery doesn't need yet another image, it needs pruning. --bonadeacontributionstalk 10:07, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
The gallery has included ages from infancy to age 12, mainly via IP editing, because editors have felt that it's beneficial to show children at different ages and to not go past age 12 since age 13 and higher are more so the adolescence realm. But I've argued with an IP on my talk page before that the gallery is not too beneficial since the way children look at different ages can vary. I noted that I'd been thinking of removing the gallery per WP:Gallery and because the section has been subject to persistent edit warring. With the article currently semi-protected, the section hasn't been a problem. But the section still is not needed. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 08:47, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
There shouldn't be a gallery there. We've had a full RFC about this exact subject and the community decision is crystal clear. And nobody who's capable of looking up "child" on Wikipedia could possibly benefit from an image gallery to help them identify what a juvenile human looks like. The gallery should not be replaced.—S MarshallT/C 21:47, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
I added a new lead image.
Flyer22, you wrote: Get consensus on the talk page. As has been told to you before, not every article needs a lead mage. WP:Lead image is clear. And this article has been prone to people fighting over images. That will be heightened with a lead image of just one child. One image does not do this topic justice. I didn't see fights over the lead image, but I see that the gallery was removed per WP:NOETHNICGALLERIES. If I understand correctly, that leaves your objection to having one photograph of a child or children for the lead. Kolya Butternut (talk) 02:27, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
How can you see any fights over images unless you go through the edit history of this article? Not everything is documented in the talk page archives. I know about the fights because I've been with this article for years. People fought over what images to place in the gallery. And it will be no different for the lead.
I feel the same way I felt in this and this discussion about using a single image to represent a topic like this. Consensus was with me for reasons you disagree with. We disagree when it comes to what WP:Lead image states. When I and others point to what it states about "representative image", you go on to argue the opposite of what it states regarding "representative." That is also clear when looking at this discussion. You also repeatedly ignore the fact that WP:Lead image states that a lead image is not required and that not every article needs a lead image. My objection is based on WP:Lead image -- a guideline -- as you very well know. I see no reason to debate something like this with you every time you decide that an article must have a lead image. So go ahead and start the RfC. From my point of view, stuff like this is more so about you countering "white as the default." That was pretty clear from arguments you made at Talk:Woman, Talk:Woman/sandbox and Talk:Man/sandbox. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 02:51, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
I'll take that as a "yes", no need to argue. I have, however, never opposed an image of a white person, but my preference is mixed-raced, like my main suggestion at Talk:Woman who I suspect is of African and European descent (yes, I know I can't claim she's white). No need to respond. Kolya Butternut (talk) 03:51, 28 November 2020 (UTC) clarified text in parentheses Kolya Butternut (talk) 02:30, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
I don't see that we need a lead image, for the reasons given. Even my experience says that it leads to time-wasting arguing over which picture to use. Crossroads-talk- 04:54, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
I've looked over the editing history, and I don't see fighting except over the image of a newborn. I have faith that we've learned from past experience when to agree to disagree. Kolya Butternut (talk) 05:41, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
What do you mean you've "looked over the editing history, and [you] don't see fighting except over the image of a newborn", as if I'm lying? Stuff like this, this, this, this, this and this is fighting when it comes to the gallery that used to be in the article. And that's just 2017. There were IP hoppers who would add images of children above age 12, and others who would keep the age limit restricted to age 12. I personally felt that keeping it at age 12 made the most sense considering that this is not the Adolescence article. And while the Adolescence article has a lead image, it is there after discussions and is long-standing. I'm stating now that the Adolescence article doesn't need you going there and proposing an image of non-white people just for the sake of having a lead image of non-white people. And before this edit in June of this year, it did have two lead images. The second one was for a bit of diversity. If by "you don't see any fighting" with regard to images here at the Child article, you mean over any lead image? That's because we have been without a lead image at this article for years and have done just fine without one. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 00:37, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
There is a weak consensus to merging the two article(s). Opposition voter is stating doubt that anyone would care to carry-out a merger. Such articles simply fall into the que, which is down to 12 months now and would be done then. Note also that articles merged with a resultant article under 100K in size are acceptable. Proposer, or other interested editor, could consider acting BOLDLY and merging the two. Non-Administrative closure--GenQuest"scribble" 07:42, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I am opening this up again because I changed my proposal midway for the above proposal for the other way around. I would like to get a fresh start on whether we should merge Childhood into Child since one editor has retired and would like to get opinions from editors who haven't commented here before. Please let me know your thoughts below. Interstellarity (talk) 23:33, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
Comment: Just came by from the Vital Articles list, and honestly, I see it as a toss-up. Just as topics, having them in one place does make sense, but they also work as distinct facets (though there probably should be hatnotes linking them). The main argument I see against a merge is simply WP:LENGTH. Childhood is at 37,571 bytes while Child is at 22,654; even assuming 10% could be cut as redundant, that leaves ~54200 bytes, which is getting into "consider splitting" territory. I'd say unless the articles are expected to become noticeably more concise, they probably should stay separate. --Zar2gar1 (talk) 04:34, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
Support merging. I would say, first of all, that the overlap is more than 10%, and that there is much material in each article for which there is no good reason why it wouldn't fall under the other title. BD2412T 02:45, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
Support in that case, if someone is willing to take the time to work on it. --Zar2gar1 (talk) 02:10, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
Oppose; there seems to be enough separation between the topics as distinct facets. And I don't see that anyone will necessarily in fact take the time to work on it. Crossroads-talk- 04:46, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Best, DanCherek (talk) 05:29, 16 February 2021 (UTC)