View source for Category talk:Children

WAIT!!! just add [[Koopalings]], not all of them. {{User:Maxlover2/sig|the koopalings article has a link to them all}}
:I think it should be on their individual pages as well. It doesn't really matter if that page has a link to them all. I mean, they're not the same [[Koopa]]. --{{User:Yoshi626/sig}} 20:37, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

OK. that's fine. [[User:Maxlover2|Max2]] I'm 2 lazy 2 type it out.

Hey maybe we should just put the kids we '''KNOW''' who their parents are.

Should Son of Suns be on here :)

{{User:Great Gonzo/sig}}

What do you mean? {{User:maxlover2/sig|we're only putting children who have been seen}} ([[Junior]]) and not ([[Toad]], for example.

No what I is should the people in category Parents, their kids...never mind...

{{User:Great Gonzo/sig}}

Should we remove Kolorado and put Cream the Rabbit up?  Yes, she has a known parent.[[User:Nintendofan146|Nintendofan146]] 08:30, 29 June 2008 (EDT)

== Lucas and Ness ==

I find it strange that Ness is in this category but Lucas isn't, since I imagined them being about the same age (and if anything, Ness slightly older). {{User:Leirin/sig}}

== Who's this for? ==
The intro line implies that the category is for ''anyone'' who's ever had a parent, but it seems to be used for anyone who looks young enough. The baby characters are the most noticeable (since when did Daisy, Wario, Yoshi, and Peach have parents?), and there's [[Kat and Ana]], [[Kiddy Kong]], [[Jr. Troopa]], [[Peewee Piranha]], [[Ness]]... Most kids happen to have parents in the first place, so it usually works out, but I just find the discrepancy odd. Personally, I think the category would work better if it ''was'' solely for kids, since the general assumption is that each individual came from two parents, so listing them seems a bit... pointless, I guess? I get listing people who've appeared alongside their parents, but sticking to the intro line would lead to people who really only had their parents mentioned in a one-off line or an optional description being listed here. Thoughts? {{User:Time Turner/sig}}

:Yeah, I agree that it should be for characters(/species, I guess) who are physically children. - {{User:Walkazo/sig}} 23:25, 19 June 2015 (EDT)
::Yeah, it seems like the definition of "children" here is pretty much "anyone who has a parent". We should probably define it as "minors" or something like that. No, not a rename, but in the category definition. {{User:Bazooka Mario/sig}} 14:59, 21 June 2015 (EDT)

==Retool this category==
{{TPP}}
Right now, this category is being used for two groups of people: anyone whose parents have been seen or mentioned and anyone who looks particularly young. In [[Brian Bonsall|some]] [[9-Volt|cases]], this works out, but in quite a few cases, this category lists people who either [[Baby Daisy|have]] [[Pitta|never]] [[Junior (II)|had]] [[Charmy Bee|parents]] (that we know about) or are [[Noki Elder's Grandson|way]] [[Jimmy T.|too]] [[Mallow|old]] [[Merle|to]] [[Mona|be]] [[Romano|called]] [[Joliet|children]]. One way or another, this category needs to be changed so as to remove its inconsistencies, but the issue lies in how it should be changed. As I showed above, this category could be used for the young characters or the definitely-has-parents characters, though I would personally vouch for listing the young characters since it goes without saying that someone was an offspring of someone else. Either way, the category needs to change.

'''Proposer''': {{User|Time Turner}}<br>
'''Deadline''': October 20, 2016, 23:59 GMT

===Retool category for young characters===
#{{User|Time Turner}} Per my proposal.
#{{User|Tucayo}} - Per proposal, especially this "''it goes without saying that someone was an offspring of someone else''".

===Retool category for characters with seen/mentioned parents===

===Do nothing===

===Comments===
Part of me is tempted to label this category as "minors" but it doesn't sound all that good even though it's more precise that way. Huh. {{User:Bazooka Mario/sig}} 14:00, 7 October 2016 (EDT)
:Also, you linked Mona, who is depicted to be in high school. This would make her a child by legal definition, but not a child by biological definition, but either way, not an adult. What definition are we using here? {{User:Bazooka Mario/sig}} 14:11, 7 October 2016 (EDT)
::Ah, I assumed that Mona was a young adult. In any case, you raise a valid point, and I don't quite have an answer to that. For now, I'd lean closer to excluding teenagers, although  I don't have a concrete reason for that. {{User:Time Turner/sig}} 18:48, 7 October 2016 (EDT)