Category talk:Implied

From the Super Mario Wiki

I also find this category necessary. Good idea, YellowYoshi398. Wa Yoshihead.png TC@Y 15:33, 5 March 2007 (EST)

Why thank you... Thank you very much! --YellowYoshi398 21:13, 7 March 2007 (EST)

Pictured Things[edit]

Do things like Kaboomka Fireworks Factory really belong here? We have seen pictures of them, although we haven't directly looked at them. I'm not so sure that things such as Kaboomka Fireworks Factory (and Fryguy High, for that matter) qualify as "implied"... --YellowYoshi398 17:11, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

Bowser's Wife[edit]

Would an article like "Bowser's Wife" belong here? The article doesn't exist yet, but I think that this would be a good category for it. Here are my reasons:

1) Having babies in the Marioverse is a tricky issue. While some characters (Petey Piranha, Yoshi) can generate offspring without a partner, it's pretty much taken for granted that humans and certain species require intercourse in order to have babies.
2) In Paper Mario 2, from what I recall, Koops has a father and a mother. (Although I may be mistaken.) Although we don't know exactly HOW the father and mother had Koops, it is reasonable to assume that they had sex. (If I may be so forward.)
3) Since Bowser is a Koopa, and he has Koopalings, it is fair to come to the conclusion that Bowser has (or at least once had) a wife. Of course, it is possible that Bowser, being a special kind of Koopa, didn't need a mate (perhaps he has magic offspring-creation powers we don't know about?), or that some crazy explanation twists this whole thing.
4) A Nintendo power issue (a secondary-canon source of information) listed Bowser's wife as Klawdia Koopa, although that was most likely a joke.

Anyway, what all this is saying is that there is quite a bit of (flimsy) evidence in the Marioverse that points to Bowser having a wife. Of course, this is just on the borderline between wiki-worthy and un-wiki-worthy. I think that the decision could go either way.

So, the question is: Is this enough evidence to give Bowser's Wife (possibly Klawdia Koopa) a (most likely short) article in this category?Waluigi Freak 99 14:59, 17 March 2007 (EDT)


Per this proposal, many implied subjects need to be merged into single lists. Please begin discussions on what should and should not be merged. Thank you. -- Shyghost.PNGChrisShyghost.PNG 01:36, 25 November 2007 (EST)

After taking a brief loook, I'd say that:

are worthy of their own articles. There may be more, but I am too lazy to check the rest. Glowsquid

Squirpina XIV seems to have enough content to be notable, there's even a picture available (What makes her implied then?). - Cobold (talk · contribs) 09:21, 25 November 2007 (EST)
Ah yeah, that's a good article, keep it too. I think Squirpina is categorised as Implied since she is never directly seen, only a statue of her.


How about the Croacuses?Knife (talk) 22:50, 15 December 2007 (EST)
I didn't merge them because unlike, say Old Man Skoo, we know what they did before the events of the game and we know at least some of their history, making them more than thrown-away mention. (Speaking of Implied, I checked back throught the List of Implied Characters, and I think the Bog Monster is worthy of his own article, anyone agree?)


"Implied" category on Redirects[edit]

Okay, I was thinking I may get reverted, so let's discuss it here... If the category is supposed to stay on redirects, then we should probably add it to all the redirects missing it. However, this would horribly bloat the Implied category, so they should be sub-categorized. Redstar 10:12, 17 December 2009 (EST)


Okay, this is what I want to do: create a category for each type of implied (Implied People, Implied Locations, etc.) and create a string of categories, so when you go to Category:Implied you have only the eight Lists of Implied X. Once you click one of those Lists, it takes you to a sub-category with all the articles found in that List (provided on the redirect pages). I think this would result in a better organized and cleaner system. Thoughts? Redstar 04:38, 19 December 2009 (EST)

Yes, that's how it's supposed to be, I think. Time Questions 06:16, 19 December 2009 (EST)
I've just started working on this new categorization system. It may seem off at first, but anyone that notices please wait until I'm finished when you can see what it's actually doing. Redstar 16:41, 19 December 2009 (EST)