Talk:Niece and nephew

This article was nominated for deletion on 4 April 2012 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep.

Nephew (via WP:PROD on 22 October 2007) Deleted

Rescue discussion

Move. The definition of nephew and niece belong in either the Wiktionairy, where some of the definitions would be an addition or in an article on genealogy where some of the definitions might also be an addition. --JHvW (talk) 14:39, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This article was nominated for deletion on 7 September 2010. The result of the discussion was keep.

something visual

We need something like a block diagram here, or some kind of graphical representation of the information. Is there anything graphical out there like that in public domain?

I just looked in Wiki under "Consanguinity" and found a good graphic to put here.

I don't know how to, or I'd display it. Just Wiki consanguinity, you'll see it!

Pb8bije6a7b6a3w (talk) 17:09, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. Something like http://www.eogen.com/Relationships . Gronky (talk) 20:22, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Maternal nephew

What is a maternal nephew? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.139.81.0 (talk) 17:02, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A nephew descended from one's sister.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 21:52, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nibling as gender neutral term for nephew and niece

According to http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/nibling , "nibling" is the gender neutral term for nephew and niece, particularly when using the plural form of "niblings," and when you enter "nibling" into the Wikipedia search box, it redirects here. However, the word "nibling" does not appear anywhere in the Wikipedia article. Is there any reason why it shouldn't? // Internet Esquire (talk) 20:29, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind. I found it, although I do think it should appear more prominently // Internet Esquire (talk) 20:31, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Since nieces and nephews are common things and I've never heard the word used in my entire life, I'd say that any mention, no matter how small, is sufficient prominence. Gronky (talk) 20:14, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your personal experience of a term suggests your personal bias only. The term `emoji` likely never existed when you were born, you might not like it now, but it exists now and people use it. Let`s treat word emergence with some respect: They come out of genuine need.--A21sauce (talk) 20:24, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bullshit. Emoji may be a new word (in both English and the language it's borrowed from, plus a false cognate in English), but it's come into widespread use, practically overnight. "nibling" is extremely obscure; I would wager that 99% of English speakers have never heard the word in their life (except in Hansel and Gretel: "Nibble nibble little mouse, who's nibbling at my house?"). Wikipedia isn't a platform for pushing newly invented words onto the English language that were dreamed up to fix a nonexistent problem. New words should enter languages through natural means; not artificial. "Nibling" is about as artificial as it gets. Firejuggler86 (talk) 02:22, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That is quite a close-minded perspective. It isn't very newly invented (1951 doesn't count as new as far as I'm concerned, especially when the comparison in this topic, "emoji", was from the 1990s) and the problem of acquiring gender-neutral terms in genealogy isn't non-existent either. We have gender-neutral terms for a child, a parent, a grandparent, a sibling, so why not niece or nephew? Nibling is, while from what I've seen not favoured by people of the trans community, the current most well-known solution (according to Google's Ngram corpora). 151.225.32.150 (talk) 11:44, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Being clearer about words actually used

The article presents terms such as "cousin-nephew" as if this is the term for a specific relationship. I'm sure someone can dig up some specialist books that use the term extensively, or a very small number of non-specialist sources that use the term briefly, but in reality that term is almost never used. People instead use "1st cousin once removed".

"Nibling" is similarly very very rare.

I'm not good at finding the right names for family relationships, so I won't try to fix the article, but I wanted to note that it gives a wrong impression. Gronky (talk) 20:22, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

nibling

can we rename it to nibling? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.104.137.128 (talk) 12:09, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No we shouldn't. Because "nibling" is not a commonly used word. It is a neologism. 2602:306:3653:8920:9C12:5E65:BCD9:8C14 (talk) 00:43, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is already a redirect from "Nibling", which comes here. This is plenty sufficient. Cloudswrest (talk) 02:56, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:TNT

Discussion of history and anthropology should be based on actual literature, and it should probably happen by merging with aunt and uncle, since it is about the (bidirectional) relationship parent's sibling -- sibling's child, so that the two pages will end up discussing exactly the same thing. --dab (𒁳) 09:57, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Should this be renamed to "Niece and nephew"?

On one hand, it's alphabetical as it is and moving it seems unnecessary; on the other hand, in my experience, you talk about "nieces and nephews", not "nephews and nieces", but I don't know how well my experience mirrors other people's. Does anybody else want to chip in their experiences on the order? Hppavilion1 (talk) 22:48, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

step nieces and step nephews?

The article has the line "the terms are also used colloquially for sons and daughters of siblings-in-law". That doesn't also encompass step nieces and step nephews does it? For example I could call my sister's son my nephew and he would be blood related (or adopted) and I could call my wife's brother's son my nephew even though we aren't blood related but I wouldn't also call my sister's stepson my nephew would I? He would be the child of a brother-in-law but he would not be a descendant (blood or legal) of a sibling of myself or my wife.

Sons and daughters of siblings-in-law encompasses a bit more than needed right? The sons and daughters of your sibling WITH your sibling-in-law are your nephews and nieces but the children your siblings-in-law have with people who aren't your sibling wouldn't really count as nephews and nieces would they (like step nephews and step nieces probably wouldn't inherit property in say a will from their step aunt or step uncle).

Same for the children of stepsiblings. I probably wouldn't count them in a will as my nieces or nephews would I? They would probably not inherit.

Generally, it would depend on what you mean when you write your will. If, for example, your bequest reads "I leave $1,000 to my niece Jane Doe", the legacy would go to her no matter what you call her. But if you leave "$1,000 to each of my nieces and nephews" it would be less clear that you mean to include, for example, descendants of your spouse's siblings or step-siblings. In the former example, Jane Doe would inherit (under the laws of most if not all U.S. states and territories; I don't know for sure about other jurisdictions). Terry Thorgaard (talk) 22:13, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

--Meteor — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.22.18.123 (talk) 05:54, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not really evidence as it is just anecdotal, but such children were definitely counted as nieces and nephews by my mother's family. I have several cousins that are of no genetic relation to me because they were step-children of my mother's siblings, but they were always included in the count. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 20:12, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Niblings

Name change Mylikbest47 (talk) 05:36, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 18 January 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 (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 01:59, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Niece and nephew → Nephew and niece – I would like to explore two potential titles for this article. My first choice is Nephew and niece while my second choice is Nibling. Titles should be alphabetical is my rationale for my first choice. Nibling is a gender-neutral term for this title, although I would hesitate moving it to that article due to not having widespread usage like the gender-neutral Sibling is. That is my rationale for the second title although I would not oppose if that is the preferred title. Interstellarity (talk) 00:32, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

~~Support~~ Oppose ~~Nibling. Neutral on Nephew and niece~~. Nibling is concise and educational. I'm going to start using it more. Jared.h.wood (talk) 01:55, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Update: changed to oppose because the arguments below are correct. Darn it. JaredHWood💬 04:14, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Any evidence that nibling is the common name, I’m asking since the article mentions they it’s a term used in some specialist literature which indicates that it isn’t?--65.92.160.124 (talk) 03:17, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment While it's certainly interesting for me to hear of "Nibling" as a gender-neutral word (and I, too, might start using it), I share the sentiment of IP above: Is there any evidence the term is currently in use outside of specialist literature? @Interstellarity your comment seems to indicate that it is not. Article titles have to use the common name, regardless of which title would be most desirable. So sadly, unless it can be demonstrated that nibling is in use at least at similar levels to "niece & nephew", I would oppose a renaming to that. Neutral on "Nephew and Niece", don't see a major benefit in renaming there but don't care much. --LordPeterII (talk) 13:32, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose both. Nibling is a colloquial term that is far from the common name. And, while nephew and niece makes sense from an alphabetical standpoint, the current title is the way terms are commonly listed. -- Calidum 15:21, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. A Google NGram of usage over the past century shows that the formulation, "niece and nephew", is clearly primary. BD2412 T 17:41, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per discussion and common formation of the terms. Nibling? Makes me want to go get a pretzel. Randy Kryn (talk) 19:22, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as per BD2412 162.208.168.92 (talk) 00:24, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support. Alphabetical order versus common use, but is the use really 'common', or just coincidental? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:12, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nibling at least. It is an artificial term with no real currency compared to the terms "niece" and "nephew". Neutral on swapping the order, with a slight preference for the current ordering. The vernacular "nieces and nephews" is almost always found in the plural form, whereas this page title is artificially singular, so the "natural" usage doesn't necessarily apply. 50.248.234.77 (talk) 19:33, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The common ordering in English is the current title. As far as "nibling", that's way too far on the bleeding edge of the English language to be the common name. Check back in a decade or two to see if it takes hold. Rreagan007 (talk) 19:56, 19 January 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.

Two generations???

From the lead: "As aunt/uncle and niece/nephew are separated by two generations ...". Utter tripe! An individual and their siblings are one generation; their children (whether siblings or cousins) are the next generation. That's a separation of one generation. How has this gibberish been allowed to survive? GrindtXX (talk) 01:07, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks GrindtXX, it's been on the page since March 19, 2020, and can't logically explain why it's been kept in the prominent lead and not changed in all this time. I've edited the page while it was up and didn't notice the error, as have over 43,700 readers over the last 90 days. That you both spotted it and then brought it to the talk is commendable, and this seems such an obvious fix that wasn't spotted before by hundreds of thousands of readers that it rates as a truly mysterious Wikipedia mystery. Thanks again. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:31, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's been prominent in the lead for almost two years and nine months, during which it has been overlooked by 576,135 readers. The question "Why?" is worthy of a college thesis. Fascinating. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:40, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]