Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Template:User Young Adult

 __NOINDEX__
 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was:  no consensus. Delete has a slight numeric majority, but its core argument is undermined significantly by the fact that young adult does not unambiguously identify the user as a child, despite conceivably being used in such a fashion. signed,Rosguill talk 05:34, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Template:User Young Adult

 * – (View MfD) &#8203;

"Young adult" is a rather broad term, but in general WP:YOUNG would preclude the idea that a user should be putting this template on their user page. As an OSer I am not comfortable having this template, especially since "what links here" basically gives a who's who of minors on Wikipedia. Only putting this forward at MFD because of the number of transclusions; I will be more than happy to have my bot subtly remove usage if it is determined that this template should be deleted. Primefac (talk) 19:54, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete per my rationale at Templates_for_discussion/Log/2023_July_6. For disclosure, saw this in a discussion Primefac had off-wiki with some other functionaries, but I was going to nominate them myself if he didn't and he didn't ask me to come here. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:57, 6 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Keep. The security/safety concern is excessive, possibly counterproductive. Children are safer when in broad public view, and less safe when hidden away where few can find them. Child grooming is much more of a danger with private communication; if there were a problem it would be allowing the young user to be emailed.  This template does not tempt young people to disclose slightly sensitive information, like birth date.  This is not even a template likely used by children; a self-described “young adult” is unlikely to be a child.
 * A large number of editors transclude this template.  If deletion is seriously in the cards, meaning that a decision is being made that some of their Userpage content is inappropriate, then they should be invited to contribute to this discussion. SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:19, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Child grooming is much more of a danger with private communication aaaaaaand if we give those groomers a template that says "here are the young people you can email privately" that's a problem. Primefac (talk) 10:06, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
 * So, I suggest the better but harder solution, monitor private emails to minors.
 * Are these even minors? Young adult means 18-40 years old.  Spot checking reveals this to be the understanding of the transcluders. Why do these people need heavy handed “protection” by denying them this template, without even asking them? SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:35, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
 * That might be the posted intent, but the malleability of the term "young adult" in Western culture makes this a troublesome template. See young adult fiction. Young adult fiction (YA) is fiction written for readers from 12 to 18 years of age. However you slice it, you don't want even the risk that minors will use this to self-identify. Cheers, ⛵ WaltClipper - (talk)  11:32, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
 * This is absurd. If you want zero risk, you’ll have to ban all children.  Hunt down every hint of a user being under 18 and ban them, disabling email access.  Young adult fiction means adult topics for children, and does not mean that someone representing themself as a young adult is a minor.  Even if this template does indicate more likely minors, the open deflation without detail probably gives them more protection from community visibility. SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:05, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
 * If you want zero risk, you’ll have to ban all children. Luckily, that isn't what I want. Closing off the means of self-identification of minors, whether inadvertent or purposeful, should be everyone's business here. The protection of children's privacy is a policy with legal implications so this is why functionaries and oversighters are involved. Although the policy does lend itself to broad interpretation as to what constitutes problematic outing, I think the general principles behind it ought not be negotiable. Cheers, ⛵ WaltClipper - (talk)  12:38, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
 * “Closing off the means of self-identification” sounds pretty clumsy, tending Orwellian. It certainly is not my purpose here.
 * Legal implications? When you use the buzz word “legal”, you ought to be specific.  Buzz word, or real legal?  If real, please define.
 * Children exist, and the vast majority of adults are protective of children. Child predation doesn’t occur in the open, but in secret spaces  Userpage declaration of childhood thus is protective to the child.
 * And still, there is the point, that children do not self-identify as “young adults”, in spite of them being the target of “young adult” literature.
 * Do you guys even have children, or grandchildren, or experience working with children? SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:10, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I am of the opinion that you and I are just of two different philosophies about this. Cheers, ⛵ WaltClipper - (talk)  13:36, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I have always felt we share general philosophies and values, and do not read this as a philosophical difference, but a discussion on a precise boundary, “does young adult mean child?”. I think the answer is factual, either a “no”, or at least “probably not”.  I agree with not tempting children to publicly permanently declare that they are children. SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:15, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Template:User age ymd seems to have the balance right, warning at age < 16 years. The concern here is well on the safe side of that line.  I can’t believe any fifteen year old or younger is using this template. SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:35, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
 * The “delete” !votes are not supported by either Child protection or Child protection. Hiding children isn’t the way to protect children.  Silencing children doesn’t protect children.  This userbox gives away no sensitive information.  Being a child per se is not sensitive.  This userbox is not even for children, based on the users transcluding it.  Think of the children overanxious worrying indeed. SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:55, 11 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Delete - Ick. No. Certainly a reason in which, if nothing else, IAR should govern the removal of this template. There's a lot of foreseen and unforeseen problems with giving minors a vector to self-identify with a template. Cheers, ⛵ WaltClipper - (talk)  12:06, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete. There could be various issues with such an open self-identification of minors, by using this template. The safest way to prevent those issues is to remove the template. —  Sundostund  mppria  (talk / contribs) 15:35, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete. I think we should reflexively delete any userbox to which any such concerns attach, rather then debate the fine points of how someone could identify minors on the site, which is the same as explaining how to identify minors on the site. This very MfD is reason to delete the userbox now. edit: Could also IAR-expedite this deletion.—Alalch E. 17:57, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
 * It sounds like you think we should look for editors of popular children’s entertainment, because they might be children, and reflexively ban them. SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:10, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Editors of popular children's entertainment will often be children. What other ways of identifying likely child users will be spelled out during this discussion if this becomes one of those protracted MfDs? Are we making a compendium of those here? I have a not-healthy feeling, and have !voted on an impulse ... deleting seems like a more likely outcome. It doesn't look like a userbox that its users would care strongly about. I get what you're saying, overall, and will keep thinking. —Alalch E. 15:30, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
 * As someone who used it until quite recently, I have strong opinions about not calling 'a userbox used by adults' something it isn't. Vaticidalprophet 17:03, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Edward-Woodrow :) [ talk ] 18:27, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep - it seems highly unlikely that a template which specifically identifies its users as adults is entirely, or even mainly, used by minors. Hatman31 (talk) 03:20, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Wait, is the objection that a userbox that explicitly says 'adult' is being used by minors? I had this userbox when I was...22/23. The definition of "young adult" is generally read as late teens through twenties, sometimes older at at its expansive ends; even the youngest of the young ends don't drop to the <16 range. Keep based on the current presentation. Vaticidalprophet 11:20, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
 * It can also mean someone as young as 12 is the thing. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:06, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I happen to be pretty familiar with the weird term-of-art use for 'YA fiction', which is the one people are bringing as a counterexample that a userbox that says 'adult' and where spotchecking some users implies they were mostly adults when they used it is used by adults. The publishing world using a non-colloquial definition is famously a major source of confusion for newcomers to it; YA fiction has a hard ceiling for protagonist age that new writers keep constantly being confused by, and submitting their works under the wrong category, because no one outside publishing uses the definition used inside publishing. It spawns entire new publishing categories (e.g. the 'never-popular-but-won't-die' concept of new adult fiction) because people are so bewildered by the term-of-art being so different to the colloquial-term that they have to have a whole "no, this is the name for the thing everyone outside the publishing world uses 'young adult' to mean" setup. Vaticidalprophet</b> 00:01, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I have never heard the phrase used colloquially to refer to anyone over 18. My assumption is that anyone who refers to themselves as a young adult is probably a minor child. And I was a 20-something until relatively recently, and I never knew anyone to use it, and I certainly never referred to myself in such a way. Most people who are actually adults don't use the phrase. It's used by kids trying to seem older than they are, or adults trying to be respectful to children. The main reason for this is that once you're 18, the English language tends to give you a bunch of better ways to refer to your age, so those are what people tend to use (ex. 20-something, young professional, grad student, 'in uni', college-aged, 30-something, mid-20s, millennial, etc.)The short of it is: the reason the book industry uses the term is to match the normal English-usage of the term, which is a reference to teenagers. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:54, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I have heard “young adult” refer to 18+, and never for <18. Given this is Wikipedia, let’s decide by sourcing. Eg 1. Introduction. Young adulthood, spanning approximately ages 18 to 26,1 is …”.  “Adult” tends to have a hard definition, and I think in all countries it is 18 years, or older. SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:09, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Our article supports a definition where the term is almost always used for people over 18, and expansively including 16/17-year-olds in some contexts (which would also be the case for, say, a combination of "This user lives in Scotland" and "This user is old enough to vote"). It also explicitly mentions the literary use as weird. I have always known everyone to use this version, used it for myself, etc. SmokeyJoe notes use accordant with this accepted-standard in academic publications. <b style="color:black">Vaticidal</b><b style="color:#66023C">prophet</b> 03:40, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
 * The thing is it doesn't matter what academic use is - the fact that so many people here have the association of the word with being a minor child shows that it has that connotation in colloquial English. Of course, this depends on geography and cultural differences as English is the most spoken language in the world (when you factor in ESL) and so a term can have multiple meanings for different people, in different geographies, and in different contexts.What you and SmokeyJoe are saying is a usage that I, as a relatively young person who has been involved in organization focused on people 18-30 in the past (both socially and professionally) have never once heard in my life before today. That doesn't mean your use doesn't exist. But it shows that a native speaker who would have had reason to hear it or use it in such a context has never done so - which gets to the ambiguity of the phrase that Primefac is hinting at. It doesn't matter what the debate around the term is. What matters is that for many people, the word has a specific connotation of being teenager who is younger than 18. That is what makes this template a child protection issue. TonyBallioni (talk) 05:11, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Reading this for example, I see there is likely confusion between “young adult” as describing a person versus a genre.
 * More spot checking among the 744 transclusions continues to reveal that, where I can tell, the users are NOT children. Maybe the set where I can tell is biased, but in any case, tranclusions of this userbox are not a reliable indication of a child.
 * A child appearing as a child in a public place is a “child protection issue”? I think you are being way overprotective, and even with a net negative impact.  A child in public who is not clearly a child is more vulnerable in public than a child where everyone around them is aware that they are a child.  I dispute that the template is a child protection problem.
 * If you think there is a compelling reason that minors revealing personal information is a problem, I suggest that WMF go through someone qualified, to email them with advice. I really do not think that heavy handed deletion is the answer.
 * Perhaps, a rewording of the userbox can be done, although I do not approve of the revisionism, with the userbox having been used for ~ 17 years.
 * And again, if deletion is on the cards, the transcluders should be invited to this discussion. SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:34, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
 * The thing is it doesn't matter what academic use is - Actually it does matter here because you are inserting your own definition of the word. I don't think using a WP:BIAS argument here would work because the burden is on you to prove why we don't need the template. Of the many years the template has been on Wikipedia, can you provide some evidence or any instance where a child was targeted or outed because of it? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:43, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Knowledgekid87 - yes, because this isn't an article. The question is whether or not this could refer to minors and be an indication of someone being a minor. It absolutely can - the English usage of the term is ambiguous at best, and can be anything from a euphemism for teenager (the only use I have ever heard or seen outside of this MfD) or apparently "twenty-something". As I said - phrases in English change based on context, geography and culture. The fact that so many people here think that it refers to minors shows that is one of the accepted usages. That is significantly more important because of the child-protection problem. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:49, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Definition aside as it is up for debate, Of the many years the template has been on Wikipedia, can you provide some evidence or any instance where a child was targeted or outed because of it? I can choose a whole bunch of templates that identify someone as Gay, Wheelchair bound, ect... would they be targets as well? The original argument seems to center around protecting children. Its a good faith, heart in the right place argument, but in my opinion for this template we are inventing a problem. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:14, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Just for reference this template was created on January 9, 2006‎ - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:19, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Because in the early years of Wikipedia our standards for how we protect children were lower. This came up when oversighters were discussing something, and nominated it for deletion because it is essentially advertising that someone is a child. For the other categories: if they're adults, we don't really have a duty of care (in the ethical sense, not legal) to them. We have an ethical duty of care to children, which is what distinguishes this one. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:23, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Early years? This thing has been around for 17 of them with absolutely no issues. Are we really going to go into a Think of the children debate? Someone can easily say its just as ethical to protect those from minority groups as well. In general, it sets a bad precedent to delete things because someone might do something to the group a userbox mentions. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:09, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
 * There is a building next to mine that has been permanently closed for a decade due to asbestos. The windows could potentially fall out at any time, but they haven't yet. And yet, the university still put up a huge scaffolding around the building just on the off chance that a window does fall out of its frame. No one is bitching about adding an extra layer of safety.Just because no one (that we know of) has used this template to contact a minor and potentially groom them doesn't mean that it won't happen. I cannot give exact numbers, but a disturbing number of paedophilia advocates have been OS or ArbCom blocked in the last few years, and if taking this step reduces the chance of similar individuals coming out of the woodwork at the expense of a handful of people who are more concerned about pedantry than the potential for serious harm, then that's a sacrifice I am willing to make. Primefac (talk) 08:31, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Child protection.
 * A building doesn’t have rights needing protection.
 * This mfd is about denying the right of someone to declare that they might be young. “A child is a person, not an object of concern who simply lacks the capacity to give consent on their own behalf until Gillick Competent to do so. They must still be involved in the decision-making processes …”.  The proposed deletion continues to be discussed without notice to those involved.
 * Children are safer out in the open, in the front playground, not in hidden places. If a child, in the range of 16 to 40 years, wants to introduce themselves as young, somewhere between 16 to 40 years, that is not so risky that others should deny them the right to do it. SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:52, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
 * What you and SmokeyJoe are saying is a usage that I, as a relatively young person who has been involved in organization focused on people 18-30 in the past (both socially and professionally) have never once heard in my life before today. It's the use that I, in the exact same context, have always consistently heard, have always recognized to be the definition, and have never seriously seen use to the contrary for. The disagreement/experience-gap here is interesting -- I'd suspect it was an engvar matter if it wasn't that people seem fairly split origin-wise on it. The articles/sources/transclusions imply IMO this is the more common use, though. <b style="color:black">Vaticidal</b><b style="color:#66023C">prophet</b> 01:10, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment It seems to me that one potential workaround for this would be to add a suggested (not necessarily mandated) age range to the userbox under the template instructions, this way the confusion over the definition might be less broad than it is now. --Cheers, ⛵ <span style="color: white; font-family: Verdana; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(white, blue, navy, black)">WaltClipper - (talk)  18:35, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I think that has more potential to be worse not better, as it increases the likehood of the template being added on one’s 18th birthday, revealing their date of birth. Obtaining someone’s date of birth is more dangerous than discovering that a person is a child. SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:03, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete A userbox like this appears to be officially blessed as desirable, but it's not. Johnuniq (talk) 08:19, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep per Erikson's stages of psychosocial development which is cited in the lead of the Young adult article. Why would we go against the very things we cite as being verified by academic sources? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:49, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. User age shouldn't be a topic for a userbox. Walt Yoder (talk) 01:07, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I think we would need a community discussion for that as a whole per Category:Age and maturity user templates. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:11, 11 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Delete. This is one bit of personal information that does not need to be on a user's profile, because the connotation (if not the definition) implies the user is of an age that should be safeguarded. Primefac (talk) 08:31, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
 * It is generally implied that you wanted this userbox deleted based on the fact that you nominated it for deletion. 🙂 Cheers, ⛵ <span style="color: white; font-family: Verdana; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(white, blue, navy, black)">WaltClipper - (talk)  12:18, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Oh my. I got this nom and Tony's mixed up. Primefac (talk) 12:23, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
 * No worries, it happens. =) - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 12:42, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep: From Young adult: generally, the term is often used to refer to adults in approximately the age range of 18 to 40 years, with some more inclusive definitions extending the definition into the early to mid 40s. 18 yr olds are not minors. C LYDE TALK TO ME/STUFF DONE (please mention me on reply) 15:59, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep: I'm all about protecting younglings on Wikipedia but I don't see the potential harm delete supporters seem to do. This is terminology used by experts. I see no evidence at all this has been used to harm or to facilitate harm. On the other hand, attempting to prevent users from saying lots of reasonable things about themselves in userspace seems like overkill (and a bad trend lately at MfD). As already stated, abuse usually takes place behind the curtain not in front of it. Suppression of the userbox makes the whole subject "icky" when it's a perfectly normal thing to say about yourself. BusterD (talk) 14:24, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I assume you do not mean "suppression" in the terms of WP:OS, since this template (or the pages it is found on) are rather unlikely to be suppressed in that fashion. Primefac (talk) 14:35, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
 * My choice of word was inexact for the reason you noted. I should have used "deletion." Suppression sounds more ominous, and I was wrong to utilize this Wikipedia term in this specific context. Sorry. BusterD (talk) 14:41, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
 * S'all good, that's why I asked for a bit of clarification :-) Primefac (talk) 19:28, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete Not only does this serve little useful purpose (as with any non-wikipedia-related userbox IMO), and is open to negative utilization, it is in template space giving it an air of legitimacy. No harm in removing this and anything like it. The use in literature and the terms "young man" and "young lady" are more than enough to make this show up on underage editor's pages. —DIYeditor (talk) 00:46, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Aside from your personal POV regarding a "useful purpose", just about every userbox we have is "open to negative utilization". By that logic, there is no harm in keeping it as you are just waiting for a problem to happen. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 05:07, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
 * What sort of negative utilization (in this case collecting lists of people possibly underage) is just about every userbox open to? —DIYeditor (talk) 05:36, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
 * We have userboxes that list which Wikipedia editors are part of the LGBT community. What is stopping someone from targeting them with hate speech? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 06:02, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
 * If they're adults then that is their choice. —DIYeditor (talk) 06:05, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Even if children, do children have no right to choice? SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:12, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I was wondering how long it would take for you to bring that up. Minor (law) and Capacity (law) are good places for you to start. Children do not know, and often do not have the capacity to know or understand that their actions could have consequences. That is why we suppress on-sight any minor posting their pii and we attempt to delete templates like this that say "hey look at me, I'm a young person". Primefac (talk) 10:25, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I can't argue that you see a threat that someone might misuse the userbox. Do we commonly remove things on Wikipedia that might conceivably be misused? Do we have a shred of evidence this has been misused? Do we have any report of harms? I believe we are removing (possibly policing) things people might say about themselves at MfD for subjective reasons and irrational fears. I'm sorry to group a good-faith nom from a respected wikipedian with nominations of infoboxes about nazis, confederates, or homophobes, but IMHO we err when we decide what a user can or cannot say about themselves. Are we going to intervene when a user simply writes about themselves "I am a young adult" or merely delete templates which might be utilized to say the same thing? BusterD (talk) 11:00, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Legal capacity reaches high levels well before 18. And I doubt law is relevant here, sociology is.  I strongly disagree that children do not know that their actions could have consequences.  Certainly, from around age 13 they are expected to know this.  They are taught at least from the age of 5.  And almost all of them do have the capacity.  Of those that do not have the capacity, I think the proportion persists for their lifetime.
 * “Suppress on sight” sounds heavy handed. What is pii?  Do you then communicate with them?  Point them to Guidance for younger editors?  Advice for parents?
 * Children are safest when they know their responsibilities, and they learn responsibilities by being responsible for their own actions. If you are taking responsibility for their actions for them, then you are robbing them of their agency.
 * Children are safer when in public view. By deleting youth templates (disagree that this is a child template), you are hiding the children from the community, and for anyone looking for the children, they are not hard to find.  You are therefore acting contrary to your intentions, you are making Wikipedia more dangerous to children.
 * You seem to have adopted a policy more stern that Child protection. Are your decisions evidence-based? SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:28, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.