Category talk:Royal children

This category does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Biography: Royalty and Nobility This category is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles This category is supported by WikiProject Royalty and Nobility. Family and relationships (defunct) This category is within the scope of WikiProject Family and relationships, a project which is currently considered to be defunct.Family and relationshipsWikipedia:WikiProject Family and relationshipsTemplate:WikiProject Family and relationshipsFamily and relationships articles Parenting (inactive) This category is within the scope of WikiProject Parenting, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.ParentingWikipedia:WikiProject ParentingTemplate:WikiProject ParentingParenting articles

Is this category necessary at all? I'm thinking it is not and is an example of over categorization. Why not categorize everyone on Wikipedia under the age of 18 as children then. Also, the age of majority is not universal and a child to some is not a child to others. Charles 06:40, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. Does it cover current royal children, or anyone who was a royal child at some point in the past, which would include almost all royals, there are only a limited number of special cases this would not apply to? PatGallacher (talk) 20:59, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Current royal children under the age of 16 (which is considered the age of majority for most monarchies) Morhange (talk) 23:48, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the age should be raised from 16 to 18, as 18 is traditionally the age considered a person becomes an adult, not 16. CDRL102 (talk) 20:04, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi CDRL102, I think 16 and under is fine to describe royal children, I mean if it's changed to 18, then it kinda makes this category irrelevant, since its specifically for the children, 18 is for adults and these children are not adults yet. Hope my answer made sense (Monkelese (talk) 22:35, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What I'm saying people under the age of 18 - ie until the day before their 18th birthday, while they are 17 - should be considered children, once they are 18, they are adults. CDRL102 (talk) 22:42, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So if some of them in the category have reached 18, then these category should be moved from their article. (Monkelese (talk) 22:55, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes as they have reached 18, the age range would be 0-17. CDRL102 (talk) 00:40, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The system we have is okay. Because we cannot compensate for cultural differences. An example in Japan is that the age of majority is 20 for most people there are some exceptions. Despite a new law that has been created to allow for responsibilities to extend to 18 year olds, the imperial house still sees 20 as the age of majority (Princess Kako became a working member on her 20th birthday). To be fair the law was only enacted this year.--Hipposcrashed (talk) 14:46, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]