Category talk:Children

WAIT!!! just add Koopalings, not all of them. Max2 (talk)

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. --KPH2293 20:37, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

OK. that's fine. 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 :)

Xzelion^ETC

What do you mean? Max2 (talk) (Junior) and not (Toad, for example.

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

Xzelion^ETC

Should we remove Kolorado and put Cream the Rabbit up? Yes, she has a known parent.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). LEIRIN

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? Hello, I'm Time Turner.

Yeah, I agree that it should be for characters(/species, I guess) who are physically children. - Walkazo 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. Mario^-HOHO! (Talk / Stalk) 14:59, 21 June 2015 (EDT)

Retool this category

This talk page section contains an unresolved talk page proposal. Please try to help and resolve the issue by voting or leaving a comment.

Current time: Friday, December 27, 2024, 06:25 GMT

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 some cases, this works out, but in quite a few cases, this category lists people who either have never had parents (that we know about) or are way too old to be called 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: Time Turner (talk)
Deadline: October 20, 2016, 23:59 GMT

Retool category for young characters

1. Time Turner (talk) Per my proposal.
2. Tucayo (talk) - Per proposal, especially this "it goes without saying that someone was an offspring of someone else".
3. YoshiKong (talk) – Per all, it would be good to clearly define the scope of this category.
4. Baby Luigi (talk) Strong support on this proposal. I don't like how broad this category is, and when people think of "children" they think of fledglings instead of offspring.
5. Andymii (talk) Per all.
6. The RPG Gamer (talk) Per all.
7. AfternoonLight (talk) Bowser Jr. is Bowser's son so, per all!
8. Quizmelon (talk) Per all.

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. Mario^-HOHO! (Talk / Stalk) 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? Mario^-HOHO! (Talk / Stalk) 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. Hello, I'm Time Turner. 18:48, 7 October 2016 (EDT)

Teenagers would fit in the category of young characters. Since Mona seems to be the only teenager confirmed, having a teenager category is not necessary. Even if she wasn't a teenager but a young adult, she will still qualify. Anyone not old enough to be a parent should be part of young characters, but only if they are confirmed that they are in that area. (Also, the Bible calls teenagers children. Just stating something I know to be true. No offenses to anyone (Bazooka is one of them).) Yoshi the SSM (talk) 20:39, 7 October 2016 (EDT)

Penny (who is from middle school), Ashley (one official source states her age to be 15, which isn't biologically a child, but legally a child), some Koopalings, a lot of Sonic characters, some humans from Mario Golf perhaps (like Charlie), Rob Stone, Muffy (2F), and Buffy are teenagers. If Mona was literally an adult at a young age (like 18 thru 30s... something like that), she wouldn't be categorized here. That's kind of the point here, make this category confined between all minors (most inclusive) or just prepubescent minors (least inclusive) and leaving all adults out. Mario^-HOHO! (Talk / Stalk) 23:04, 7 October 2016 (EDT)

What are your thoughts? Should this category be all-inclusive, should the teenagers receive a separate category, etc. Hello, I'm Time Turner. 00:45, 8 October 2016 (EDT)