Talk:List of fictional child prodigies

This article was nominated for deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:

Keep, 15 August 2021, see discussion.
no consensus, 26 October 2007, see discussion.

On 27 September 2021, it was proposed that this article be moved from List of fictional child prodigies to List of gifted children and teenagers in fiction and entertainment media. The result of the discussion was Not moved.

Lists

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Education

	Education portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Education, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of education and education-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EducationWikipedia:WikiProject EducationTemplate:WikiProject Educationeducation
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Fictional characters

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Fictional characters, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of fictional characters on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Fictional charactersWikipedia:WikiProject Fictional charactersTemplate:WikiProject Fictional charactersfictional character

do not remove this page

I see no reason why an article on fictional child prodigies should be removed, in fact I think that it should be re-merged with the Child prodigy page. The fact that there are so many examples makes it a subject of interest, though I would like to know a few more non-American examples.--Marktreut 17:06, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

most of this page is OR. basically, any child that is really smart is listed as a child prodigy and even some adults are listed as child prodigees, even though they had no prodigous skills in child hood. this entire page should be deletedOdoital25 (talk) 19:52, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I totally agree with those wanting to keep this page. It has real value. Please retain. --Bmoshier (talk) 16:26, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mother series

The section on the Mother series (known as EarthBound in America]] needs serious renovation. Not only does it put Ness in the wrong game, but it also neclects the more classical prodigies like Loid and Jeff. DanMat6288 (talk) 00:47, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bleach

Shouldn't Uryū Ishida be mentioned in this article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ladywitchthought (talk • contribs) 06:42, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Teddy

J.D. Salinger's Teddy is not mentioned on the page. That's rather depressing 128.180.199.6 (talk) 01:10, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Add for character

Akeelah and the Bee (2006) http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0437800/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.176.22.237 (talk) 11:33, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Great Teacher Onizuka

The Girl with the different-colored eyes is also said to has an iq of over 200. I do not know her name and my english isn't good enough to edit wikipedia. Sorry for that. But GTO is a quite popular manga, so this should be mentioned. --91.32.139.30 (talk) 17:59, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Digimon Adventure 02

I think Ken Ichijouji from Digimon 02 should be added to the list. MTN1996 (talk) 13:05, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ANT farm

Some characters in the disney show are prodigies — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.181.41.151 (talk) 23:38, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What about Sgt. Bilko?

I've seen an old episode of Sergeant Bilko in which Bilko's naive cousin (portrayed by Dick Van Dyke) joins the Army. Bilko (Phil Silvers) is irritated when he learns that his cousin is a terrible poker player. One of his men suggests that maybe the young man hasn't had time to learn the game. He asks Bilko, "How old were you when you started playing poker?"

Bilko replies, "Three. I was a child prodigy."97.73.64.145 (talk) 15:18, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Other possible characters

Malcolm in the Middle: Malcolm and Dewie have confirmed high intelligence. However, Malcolm is in the class for gifted children while Dewie decided to stay in the special needs class.

The Simpsons: Lisa and Martin might be gifted too.

Seaquest: Lucas is the youngest crew member. He passed the university with excellent.

Cowboy Bebop: Ed as well is the youngest crew member and a hacker with good reputation.

Sailor Moon: Sailor Mercury might be gifted as well. There is a mention about her high IQ although this dialogue could rely on a rumour within the manga. In the musical it's not a rumour anymore. However, the IQ is about 300, doesn't sound very realistic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.75.183.39 (talk) 13:12, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable sources

I have located reliable sources for a large number of entries on this page, and I have removed the ones that I couldn't validate through reliable sources. Near the end, I admittedly might have gotten a bit impatient and thus not searched as hard as in the beginning. Regardless, each entry on this list requires a independent, secondary reliable source to be included. You can't cite dialogue or scenes from inside the work itself. Any of the examples that I removed can be added back if you can locate a valid citation. See the relevant WikiProjects for guidelines on what they consider to be reliable sources. I suggest you try Entertainment Weekly, TIME, Variety, The Hollywood Reporter, The A.V. Club, and IGN. These sources place a special emphasis on coverage of pop culture. Also, try Highbeam Research and the Google News Archive for older, archived newspaper articles. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:05, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Video Game Characters

Why were the game characters deleted? There examples where just as valid as the examples from the other media. --58.7.52.3 (talk) 15:45, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't matter how "valid" they are. They were unsourced. If you up with a citation, you can add them back. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 15:58, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand this one

Under the heading In Comics there is this entry that begins: "In the film version of Iron Man,...". 209.179.21.14 (talk) 16:07, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's partially my fault. There used to be more of them, but they were all unsourced. That was the only one for which I was able to locate a citation, though I also searched for citations for other obvious examples. For whatever reason, people just aren't discussing comic book-based child prodigies. Since I had a citation, I left it in, even though it's not really the most relevant comic book-based example. It shouldn't be too hard to find a reliable source that discusses the X-Men as child prodigies. WP:CMC/REF has a list of reliable sources for comic books, if anyone wants to try looking. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:20, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I was surprised to get such a fast response - thanks. But my point was that it seemed to be out of place. If the heading is about comics, why should the entry be to the movie? And since there is already a reference in the movie section, is this one even necessary? Or am I just missing something?__209.179.21.14 (talk) 00:45, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've got the page watchlisted, so I'm alerted to any changes on the article or talk page. I agree that it's out of place, and I have the same concerns as you. There really isn't any explanation for why it's there, but since it was there, I left it alone. I probably should have just removed it. Might as well do that now, I guess, since there seems to be some consensus to do so. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:10, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

David Helfgott....

....is not fictional, although the accuracy of the movie has been questioned. Why is he in the list? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.251.19.95 (talk) 13:18, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know. Someone else added his name, and I never thought about it. Since he's not fictional, I guess he doesn't belong. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:12, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Urumi Kanzaki, a character in the manga and anime series Great Teacher Onizuka, is a prodigy with an IQ over 200, can speak 5 languages, and was able to do differential calculus in elementary school.[citation needed]

citation needed tagging

@Smerus: you addeda citation needed to this entry, among others. It clearly states why she is a prodigy, and in the Wikipedia article linked to it calls her a prodigy as well. Do you sincerely doubt this entry belongs on the list? First you eliminate 99% of the article before nominating it for deletion, now instead of discussing things with people in the AFD you decide to go through and post "citation needed" tags about apparently at random. List articles don't need references to every single thing on them if the information is in the article they are linking to. Dream Focus 14:53, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 27 September 2021

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Not moved; reasons against moving vary, but they are not in opposition to each other and so there is a clear consensus against moving. (non-admin closure) BilledMammal (talk) 17:57, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of fictional child prodigies → List of gifted children and teenagers in fiction and entertainment media – WP has an article child prodigy which defines its topic (with numerous citations) as "a person under the age of ten who produces meaningful output in some domain to the level of an adult expert". Few if any of the characters listed here meet that definition, either in terms of age or accomplishment. They are labelled 'child prodigy' but simply do not meet the nature of the term. Virtually all the exmples come from within a broad definition of fiction, in the categories of films, comics, video games, and children's literature. Many are teenagers, and many have descriptions that fall well short of any conception of 'prodigy' - e.g. "Jamal Wallace, Finding Forrester (2000), is a genius teenager." The present title is definitely unsuitable for Wikipedia, and does not meet article title policy. I suggest here an alternative title, but others of course may be able to suggest something better. Smerus (talk) 11:48, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - Largely due to WP:CONCISE; I feel that the current title indicates the content of the list more clearly and efficiently than the proposed alternative. As for the listed characters who don't meet the definition of "child prodigy" - in my opinion, simply removing unsuitable examples from the page would be more useful than trying to change the article's scope to accommodate them. ModernDayTrilobite (talk) 14:17, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The definition cited in the current child prodigy article is too restrictive and does not match actual usage in the real world - an older version of the article doesn't impose an arbitrary 10-years old limit ( https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Child_prodigy&oldid=575808379 ) for example. Sergey Karjakin is not somehow disqualified as a prodigy because he became a grandmaster at age 12. While I'm sure some psychologist defined it with such a 10-year age limit, that just isn't what the term means in normal English. As such, the wider scope in this list is actually the correct usage, while it's the child prodigy article that should be fixed. SnowFire (talk) 18:59, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, the current title works just fine as a recognizable descriptive name. Randy Kryn (talk) 10:36, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[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.

Out of process move

@Smerus: I've reverted your move. First, even if your new title was the greatest ever, you should have brought it up on the talk page first, since you knew your opinions were controversial. Secondly, if you had, I'd have said what I'm saying now - "fictional talented children" is far too vague and broad. That's, uh, most of them, right? Who wants to say they have an untalented child in reality? The article should be limited to child prodigies, which is a rather stronger claim than merely "talented". Also, since you keep raising this "conflicts with another article" angle, would adjusting the article child prodigy help? SnowFire (talk) 00:58, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, to take your own line of argument, if you think the article child prodigy is incorrect, why not suggest there the edit(s) you think would make it correct?--Smerus (talk) 14:59, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Smerus and SnowFire: I have added a close paraphrase of the Merriam-Webster definition to child prodigy, which I believe fits more to everyday language than the definition in the field of psychology we already had. Daranios (talk) 19:29, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]