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

Articles for improvement  
WikiProject iconThis article was selected as the article for improvement for a period of one week.WikiProject icon

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment[edit]

Sciences humaines.svg 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.

Above undated message substituted from assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 17:24, 16 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

10 year old missing[edit]

1year old , 2year old, ... , 9 year old, 11 year old.

Any 10 year old?

This is shocking how Wikipedia has the time to block innocent users, although can’t count to ten?

Go figure. (talk) 08:45, 19 April 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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. --bonadea contributions talk 10:07, 19 April 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
Saw this yesterday, but just noting here that S Marshall removed the gallery. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 21:26, 8 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • 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 Marshall T/C 21:47, 8 June 2020 (UTC) Hello I am guest 666 and I would like u 2 no, I DONT GIVE A CRAP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!Reply[reply]

oopsie I farted... badly... I need a doctor. oooooooh — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:43, 18 May 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

New lead image[edit]

A child playing in Warri, Nigeria

I added a new lead image.[1] 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.[2] 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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]
I'll take that as a "yes", no need to argue. I have, however, never opposed an image of a white person,[3] 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) Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]

Discussion over past image conflicts[edit]

I've looked over the editing history, and I don't see fighting except over the image of a newborn.[4] I have faith that we've learned from past experience when to agree to disagree. Kolya Butternut (talk) 05:41, 28 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]

Merger proposal revised[edit]

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.

[:Pinging prior commentors @Flyer22 Frozen:, @Kolya Butternut:, @Crossroads:. GenQuest "scribble" 16:08, 14 December 2020 (UTC)]Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

  • 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)Reply[reply]
  • 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. BD2412 T 02:45, 21 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support in that case, if someone is willing to take the time to work on it. --Zar2gar1 (talk) 02:10, 24 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • 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)Reply[reply]
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.


Can we unprotect this article?P5409459045 (talk) 17:57, 6 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Is this a good article or can i mae it one? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dalerossj357 (talkcontribs) 18:05, 6 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 16 February 2021[edit]

What is a child? BobDaBulda (talk) 02:15, 16 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 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)Reply[reply]

Biological, legal and social definitions[edit]

There are so many problems in this section I don't even know where to start.

The wiki article states that "Recognition of childhood as a state different from adulthood began to emerge in the 16th and 17th centuries" and that "This change can be traced in paintings: In the Middle Ages, children were portrayed in art as miniature adults with no childlike characteristics. In the 16th century, images of children began to acquire a distinct childlike appearance."

First of all, what part of the world are they referring to? England? Europe? Feudal Japan?

Secondly, if the concept of "childhood" only emerged as late as the 16th century, how come the word itself has existed in the English language since the language's conception, around the 5th century?

Thirdly, what paintings are they even referring to?

And what about before the Middle Ages? What about the Ancient Egyptians? Ancient Greek and Asia? What were their views on childhood and children?

And finally, both of the claims at the top are disputed in the very same article they are sourced from: "From her intensive study of over four hundred diaries and journals, she argued that childhood experiences were not as grim as they suggest it was. She strongly denies that there were any fundamental changes in the way parents viewed or reared their children in this period;".

"It could be argued that the change in the portrayal of children was due entirely to the Renaissance influence on physical realism in portraits, and the development of superior artistic skills as a consequence."

Whoever sourced that page must've only read half of it. If you read the whole article it's fairly clear that the views on childhood have not changed as dramatically as the wiki article makes it seem. The current article glorifies the modern era too much, suggesting that people in the Middle Ages were barbarians who didn't care for their children. It ought to be revised so it includes both viewpoints. Or be rewritten completely, with more and better sources. It's all far too conjectural at the moment. (talk) 17:01, 27 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, you are welcome to propose a rewrite of the section that follows the sources more closely (or that uses new WP:Reliable sources) and post it here. I can then post it to the article for you. Crossroads -talk- 00:17, 28 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Teenagers are kids but the third stage of being a kid :)[edit]

Besides adolescents are children because they still grow and the only reason why they are called teens is because their numbers end with a teen,but the truth is if they are not little kids anymore,then they are the bigger ones,and juvenile means young,young defines a child,kid,kiddo,teen,adolescent,puberty and more youngsters.And plus everbody who is under "18" is a minor or a young human being,and it is true that adolescence is the third stage of being a child :)Just remember why they are called teens is bcos their numbers end with a teen word,but they are children because they are not adults yet.This is why they say kids and adults right?They did not include"kids,teens and adults. " because being a teen is a part of being a child,a big child.It is by stage:1-4yr old-toddler 5-12 primary school 13-18 secondary school and 19-22 college.It is a long bracket from 1 up to 18.But when u become 18,it is a legal age to vote or to go to college. (talk) 00:17, 30 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 10 April 2022[edit]

sanctity of the child, – an attitude

Please remove the dash or the comma from this string of text. (talk) 22:16, 10 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Done interstatefive  (talk) - just another roadgeek 22:48, 10 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

How should stages of development be organized?[edit]

Adolescence should be separate, as it is the in-between of childhood and adulthood.

Preadolescence is also often considered early adolescence by researchers, so where would it fit in?

Could it simply be early childhood and later childhood? 2603:7081:5B44:300:FDC2:AED8:BBBA:D972 (talk) 12:28, 1 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]