Jump to content

Template talk:Parenting

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
WikiProject iconParenting Unassessed (inactive)
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Parenting, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.
???This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Basic design of template[edit]

This is great! There are lots of related pages, and seeing this taking shape makes me think this is the right thing. Some other fields have their own hierarchies, for example Family and School, so we should link in to those without interfering. I am by no means wedded to the changes I've made, so hack on!

I've changed some of the grouping, with 'Related areas' for the large topics that have their own structure but which are important. I imagine that "Parenting styles" and "Techniques" will become quite large as crackpots add their own terms. I think it is OK to have a fairly broad tolerance for minority ideas there. Rixs (talk) 13:19, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I simplified some of the terms like "Helicopter parenting" down to "Helicopter parent" earlier but I wonder if that was right. Perhaps the phrasing should be consistent across the template. Also, some of those links like Motherhood and Fatherhood are redirects which might not be ideal. I've started adding this template to articles it refers to (not finished yet). Rixs (talk) 11:56, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I removed motherhood and Fatherhood. I think that as a list gets too long, we may see appropriate ways to divide it. All in all it's looking nice, just wish there were a few more discipline-related articles. Ikzing (talk) 04:53, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Other types of care[edit]

Would it be useful to mention other care in addition to after-school activity such as day care, childcare, au pair, nanny, Pre-school playgroup, or maybe just the ones that are sort of parenting substitutes, such as nanny and au pair?

As an alternative to 'Techniques' how about 'Practices'? That may force some of the links to another category.

Not sure Educational toys belongs in the template.

What about abusive parenting: Cinderella Effect, Incest, etc.?

Parenting advice: Benjamin Spock, James Dobson?

I don't want to overdo it, just throwing out some more ideas! Ikzing (talk) 19:52, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Educational toys are part of a technique that many parents like; I believe it's important. Related to Soccer mom and opposite Slow parenting.
Yes, we should have some of day care, childcare, au pair, nanny, Pre-school playgroup, but perhaps readers can link between those (they have their own template for child care). Earlier, I added a load of school stages but realised that a link to Education should be sufficient to lead into that.
Yes, abusive parenting. (Yuk!) Yes, experts or an entry point to their fields.
Discipline: Not my area of expertise. I've removed spanking because it's easy to find in your Corporal punishment in the home link.
Rixs (talk) 09:11, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Too many?[edit]

Not at all, I'd say. Perhaps just needing a little sorting and sifting. Let it sit a bit and see what happens. I think though that I will move 'Parents' to the top row. Would be nice to have 'Birth (or natural) parents' as one of the items, but as there is no page for it... Ikzing (talk) 04:53, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorting order[edit]

I noticed you alphabetically sorted the Techniques. I'm not sure if that was intentional or not. My preference is to sort by priority, i.e. well accepted techniques first and crackpot ones later. But I haven't done all this yet. I've just added Bedtime out of order for both sequences!

(P.S. I'm also on the look out for other "techniques".) Rixs (talk) 09:35, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I alphabetized most rows. I didn't think there was a problem alphabetizing 'Techniques', but I left 'Styles' alone for the reason you mention above: some are more accepted and others are more crackpot. Can they be subdivided somehow? I'm at a loss for appropriate subheadings.
There are pages that describe the theory of rewards and punishment, but they don't specifically address using them as parenting techniques. Ikzing (talk) 07:00, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]


I came across some additional articles and was debating whether to change the Abuse section to Abuse/Neglect (to include Latchkey kid and Child abandonment, or to create a new one called Responsibility (or similar) to include those plus Parental supervision and perhaps Family planning. Ikzing (talk) 12:58, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah yes, I saw Latchkey kid a week or so ago, then forgot to add it. It's a valuable point. I feel a bit anxious about having too many categories and so would not recommend adding more for this purpose. I think that for simplicity, I'd put Latchkey kid as a technique (or possibly Abuse). I'll do this and you can of course change it later.
I think that Parental supervision is not a nice article, and so long as it can be reached by a link from one that we have in the template, that's enough. Then again, it's an important topic and perhaps upgrading that article is better.
Family planning seems a bit distant from Parenting. Again, I'd make sure it's linked through some other pages and leave it at that (not adding it to this template).

(On another topic) I've just found another seam of articles I hadn't noticed before in Category:Child rearing. I've proposed merging that into Category:Parenting. Rixs (talk) 11:12, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing to do with neglect, but Family planning has everything to do with parenting. The decision of whether and when to become a parent, and in what form (to make a person, to adopt, etc.) is fundamental to parenting. Haven't figured the best spot to put it in the template yet. (If there was a section on preparation/prerequisites, that would seem to be ideal.) Zodon (talk) 23:36, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Life stages[edit]

Having just suggested not adding too many categories within this template, I do feel that there are some techniques that apply to particular life stages. I wonder if we should help readers to see that? For example the baby sleep techniques in Bringing Up Baby (TV programme), toddler ideas like Play date, pre-adolescent ideas like Allowance and teenage ideas that I don't think we've covered yet, such as about allowing increasing freedom.

Before adding a row, we'd have to be sure that there are at least a handful of entries to go in it, and that the row is genuinely distinct from others.

Alternatively (and perhaps better, as I think about it), we could write about these in Parenting styles rather than here in this template.

Rixs (talk) 11:25, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Abuse section is a bit flaky[edit]

The "abuse" header links to child abuse. Wouldnt a link to abuse be better? Incest for example is often not related to children. Also the list of articles in this section need reviewing. --Penbat (talk) 20:18, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps 'Abuse' should be renamed 'Child Abuse' rather than changing the link. The Abuse article covers a whole lot more than just parent/child abuse so it doesn't seem the most appropriate. Incest is not just parent/child, but neither is child sexual abuse, but both include aspects of parental abuse. Please feel free to include the most relevant links. Ikzing (talk) 02:34, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Human parenting"?[edit]

Since this template includes a biology section, perhaps it should be renamed "Human parenting" to distinguish it from other examples of parenting in the natural world, e.g. primate, bird, etc. (talk) 19:09, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The vast majority of interest amongst readers, and the vast majority of content in this template, is about humans. So according to Wikipedia principles (about disambiguation pages), we should not clutter the name with such obvious information. -- Rixs (talk) 08:35, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Needs finer focus[edit]

This template is too huge to be really useful. It contains several links that, while one can see how they would be useful in one direction (Nutrition is something parents think about), they are not clearly closely linked in both directions. (i.e. somebody reading about Nutrition is not highly likely to want to read about Parenting or child labor).

I started to trim some of the more peripheral topics, but more trimming/focusing would help. Parenting is a large area, so there is little risk of getting it so focused that we run out of material, rather challenge is to keep it small enough to be useful, and so that the links make sense in both directions. (i.e. navigation template should be on all pages that appear on it). Zodon (talk) 23:03, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Behavioral Approach to Parenting[edit]

The behavioral approach to parenting should include understanding the basics of behavior: operant conditioning and classical conditioning (Pavlov and B.F. Skinner respectively).

With the behavioral approach, one will better understand the function (reasons why) behavior ( both positive and negative) occur. The most common functions of beahvior are: attention, to escape or avoid, the activity feels good to them, or they gain physical items from doing this activity or beahvior.

The idea of reinforcement is vitally important in parenting. This can be as simple as saying good job to a child, or thanking them for doing an action. See Applied Behavior Analysis for more information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:42, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Experts Section[edit]

The "experts" section in this template includes a number of figures for whom it is a stretch to argue that they're experts in parenting, rendering the list both over-inclusive (including people who don't really belong) and under-inclusive (excluding people of greater notability in relation to parenting). I find myself questioning whether a list of experts is helpful in this template, and would argue for its removal. Arllaw (talk) 23:14, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The same general issue applies to the books section, which is comprised of only four books with no apparent criteria for inclusion, three of which are written by authors who aren't listed in the "experts" section. I suggest deleting the books section along with the experts section. Arllaw (talk) 03:25, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed the book section, and have pared back the list of experts. It probably is helpful to have historical and major figures listed, but perhaps the labeling of the section as 'experts' could be modified so as to discourage over-inclusion. Arllaw (talk) 16:54, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]