Talk:Childhood

I think the article Child should be merged in here I think the article

• Oppose. The Childhood article is about the stages and development. And that is despite the fact that we have a Child development stages and Child development article. There are no "adulthood stages" in the same distinct way there are for childhood. If anything, the merge proposal should be other way around -- the Childhood article should be merged into the Child article...just like "Adulthood" redirects to the Adult article. And then some consolidating should happen with regard to the Child development stages and Child development articles. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 01:08, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose this merge for the reasons given by Flyer22 Frozen. The other possibilities she mentions may be good. Crossroads ^-talk- 04:57, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@

Adolescent. Interstellarity (talk) 00:56, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

The Adolescence article should stay titled "Adolescence". The topic is about a developmental peroid/stage. And the vast majoity of the sources in that article reflect this. Not every title on Wikipedia needs to be consistent in form with other titles in the same field or area.

On a side note: Since this talk page is on my watchlist, please don't ping me to this talk page. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 01:09, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies. I will not do it again. Interstellarity (talk) 01:47, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with not moving Adolescence, but we could have a separate article for Teenagers which could focus on culture. Kolya Butternut (talk) 02:36, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That would be unnecessary

WP:Content forking. There is nothing that requires us having a separate Teenagers article, and especially not just to cover culture -- a topic that is adequately covered in the Adolescence article. Although adolescence doesn't only include teenagers, it is a time mainly associated with teenagers and teenagers are the age group that the vast majority of sources on adolescence cover. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 03:01, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Teenagers would be an acceptable

WP:SPINOFF if someone wants to expand on the subject. Kolya Butternut (talk) 03:11, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

It would not be per what I stated above. The vast majority of editors, including me, would vote against it. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 03:14, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure most editors would be supportive. Kolya Butternut (talk) 03:24, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Go ahead and waste our time proposing it then and see what happens. I'll be sure to advertise the matter well. If you want to go ahead and create the fork, you will be reverted and discussion will ensue that way. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 03:28, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am not interested in creating the article, but I would support others doing so. Kolya Butternut (talk) 03:33, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[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

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