Talk:List of implied characters

Kazooie
He is no longer an implied character so someone give me the permission to move it. Look at the article.
 * Why was she merged with Banjo? I mean, Kazooie is not the same character as Banjo, so she sould at least stay in the list of implied characters. By the way if you didn't notice, Kazooie is a girl. --Metalex123 (talk) 02:02, 12 August 2014 (EDT)

Images and Infoboxes
Can we include any images on this page? For example, should we put a real image of Annette Funicello here? We could also include images of their exact mention if they are mentioned in text. We could also do infoboxes if the "List of Implied Characters" header wasn't on all of them. 02:06, 4 January 2008 (EST)

5-Volt
I was wondering if 5-Volt should be included on this list? 17:38, 4 January 2008 (EST)

Yes! HyperToad

But wasn't she somewhat seen? That wouldn't really make her "implied". --Trogga 13:40, 10 January 2008 (EST)
 * Well... you can see what appear to be a sillhouette of her in Touched!, it could be her, but then, it could also be anyone.

Blitzwing
 * 5-Volt definately doesn't belong into this list. There is really only a sillhouette in Touched!, which wouldn't be worth an article. But in Twisted!, she appears in the epilogue of 9-Volt's story and tells him to go to bed. There her feet are visible. Later she looks after 9-Volt in his bed and tells him that he has to put his GBA away. Her sillhouette can be seen in the doorway. I think a character who is partly seen and even speaks doesn't belong here. --Grandy02 08:24, 8 April 2008 (EDT)
 * Speaking alone doesn't merit an article, but you're right. We included Mario and Luigi's Parents are not on this list.  For consistency, we should either make 5-Volt its own article or include a link to M & L's parents (because if sillouetting defines a character as implied, then they are implied in the games and definite in other mediums).  00:42, 9 April 2008 (EDT)

List of
Rather then just characters can this be List of Implied Elements or something, to include things like The Blubbening? HyperToad
 * We decided that we should separate the Implieds by subject (we also have List of Implied Organizations and List of Implied Events,) otherwie, that list would be freaking huge.

Blitzwing
 * But neither helps with The Blubbening HyperToad
 * There ya go

Blitzwing

Johnson
We saw Johnson, as we saw the rest of Lord Clump's troops in that opening scene. If no one protests, I'm splitting his section out of this article. 00:05, 20 January 2009 (EST)
 * On Talk:Johnson (X-Naut), it was agreed that he would be put here. He's never actually seen separate from all the other X-Nauts, so it's impossible to tell which X-Naut he actually is. 00:09, 20 January 2009 (EST)


 * I just diagreed on the Johnson talk page, so there is no longer consensus (and thus I already seperated them). --
 * The definition of an implied character is that (s)he never appears. Johnson, on the other hand, was seen as were all the other X-Nauts working for Crump at that point in time.  00:49, 20 January 2009 (EST)

Splitting Sections and Big Changes
I removed information on real world characters from other media, as well as extremely minor character's relating to already minor characters. It is assumed that characters like this can easily be mentioned within a sentence eon the characters actual page. I also cleaned up each character section to fix spelling errors and speculation. It might seem like mass deletion, but it's really mas cleaning.

ALSO: This page should be split up into sections like in game and other media. It is confusing to think a character could be relevant when they were only mentioned in something as the cartoons which have little relevance to the canon of the games. FD09
 * There is no such thing called canon in the Marioverse. It is purely speculative and has no value in this matter (see Canonicity). Also, your ambitions are fine, but if you want to move content to another article, you have to actually move it there, not just delete it on one article and forget about it. Also: To decide which implied character is of importance and which not is not alone your decision! If you want to make some "big changes" to an article, you have to go through the propper channels and make a proposal first. You have still to adhere to the rules. - 22:35, 20 October 2009 (EDT)
 * Per Edofenrir, stop removing content without permission. 22:57, 20 October 2009 (EDT)

Look at your talk page! Look at my edit comments. I'm telling you that I'm not trying to just keep the info removed. I'm trying to re add that but also keep the fixes to grammar and spelling and such! FD09
 * It's readded. Now you can correct grammar if you want. 22:59, 20 October 2009 (EDT)
 * That was Obviously not how I was trying to go by it, and the way it is now is going to be a lot more work for me than it would have been if you had paid attention to my comments and what I was actually doing. FD09
 * Uh... No. It doesn't revolve around making editing easier for you. You should have stopped when you saw what was going on, and then asked here about it. But you had to make the cycle repeat five times, and then you come here, post what you are doing, and go ahead and do it right after. It doesn't work like that. 23:05, 20 October 2009 (EDT)

Look, I could explain this to you so that you actually got it but obviously that would be too difficult. And last time I checked this site should revolve around the ease of editing pages for all users. I just want to say that while I was explaining it, instead of talking about it yourself you wait util you had the chance to get the article the way you wanted instead of waiting for me to finish to understand what I was actually doing by the time I received the warning. I'm done here. FD09

Look, I could explain this to you so that you actually got it but obviously that would be too difficult. And last time I checked this site should revolve around the ease of editing pages for all users. I just want to say that while I was explaining it, instead of talking about it yourself you wait util you had the chance to get the article the way you wanted instead of waiting for me to finish to understand what I was actually doing by the time I received the warning. I'm done here. FD09
 * Check the bolded sentence. And last time I checked this site should revolve around the ease of editing pages for all users. Obviously, you feel subracting ~10,000 bytes from a page and readding it later will be easier for all of us. It is only easy for you. Get permission to do this type of thing next time, and you won't run into any more problems, ok? Good. :) 23:14, 20 October 2009 (EDT)
 * Clearly this just brings up the point that yet again you were oblivious to what I was trying to do. Maybe next time you should actually pay attention to what someone is saying and then nothing will even be an issue. :D FD09
 * Did you say it? And if so, where?

And just in case there's any confusion here:
 * 02:51, 21 October 2009 Super Paper Mario Bros. (Talk | contribs) m (46,925 bytes) (Reverted edits by ForeverDaisy09 (Talk); changed back to last version by Super Paper Mario Bros.)
 * 02:46, 21 October 2009 ForeverDaisy09 (Talk | contribs) (34,796 bytes) (Okay, now I'm gonna go back and re add the ow missing characters.)
 * 02:45, 21 October 2009 ForeverDaisy09 (Talk | contribs) (35,091 bytes) (Okay hold on a seocnd. I'm going to be adding some information back in a few minutes. It will take tha tlong so be patient.)

See what's bolded?As you can now read I was actually in the process of adding any of the information that needed to be there, BUT I was trying to keep the edits I made to errors as well as the splitting of where each character was mentioned. Oh well. FD09
 * Maybe you should learn listening to admins and don't revert their reversions five times without actually trying to clarify the situation! No, you just keep on complaining that we are unfair and you refuse to accept anything what we say. We had no other choice but to resort to a warning! And besides: You already had warnings at your talk page and I had the option to issue a last warning. I decided against it, you should be glad. - 23:24, 20 October 2009 (EDT)
 * And deleting masses of data and re-add them in I don't know how many edits is NO appropriate action! - 23:26, 20 October 2009 (EDT)

Obviously as I said earlier explaining it to you would be a mistake as you still just wouldn't get it. It's fine. I understand that sometimes that's just the way it is. Regardless of the fact I was talking about receiving a warning for being ignored myself there is no point to try to explain it to you when you're stuck on the reverting I did when to get in a revert war there needs to be more than one person. I don't need to restate anymore obvious explanations, clearly. And, as I am officially done on this article, I am done here as well. Thanks. :) FD09
 * You seem to fail to notice the mistake you made. Fine, believe whatever you want to believe then. - 23:34, 20 October 2009 (EDT)

Question
If a character only appears in a game through dialogue, but in the manuel an image of that character appears, would he still be an implied character?
 * I don't think so. Any appearance counts. 08:21, 8 December 2009 (EST)
 * All right. I was just wondering.

Bowser's Wife?
I do not know who created this picture, and I am unsure of the policy on using such images in articles, but image (in my opinion) is a very convincing drawing of what Bowser's wife (Clawdia) could look like. Do with it what you want. Dogman15 19:44, 3 January 2010 (EST)
 * Sorry, but we don't use fan art. --Grandy02 11:31, 11 January 2010 (EST)


 * I agree, but when will shigeru Miyamoto make a Mario game where the REAL illigitimate mother of the Koopalings makes an appearance? because Clawdia Koopa is just not a real character, neither is really Claudia Toadstool which happens to be MY Mario comic strip character in Deviantart.Com. Besides, Bowser no longer HAS a real wife even if he thinks; though he could be a a Polygamist, which is the same as Bigamist. Peach disregards that she was married to him anyway, so it could be considered "Divorce". Toonking2 11:43, 25 January 2010 (EST)


 * That looks like Bowser's mom in the first place, not his wife.

Unknown Guy
Unknown Guy was mentioned in Mario & Luigi: Partners in Time on a sign in Gritzy Desert, would he be an implied character?

Rosalina's Mother
During the scenes of Rosalina's story, there is an image of Rosalina's mother, a clear close up of her, but only showing part of her shoulders and mouth (and there is other of her with her daughter Rosie silhouetted), so I think it's possible to make an article of her, since she is seen in the game and not only mentioned as it is thought, or also redirect the link to Rosalina's Storybook.

Francis's mother
Should we add Francis's mother to this article? She was mentioned but never seen.

Tails777

Separate Rosalina's Mother from Implied Characters
I don't know why nobody has replied this simple question, so I'll try to do it in this method. The problem is there above and the possible solution is to create a page for her or redirect her to Rosalina's Storybook page (I'd rather take the first option). Also, regarding to the article, an Implied character is when it is only and only mentioned, but in this case the character is not just mentioned, but also shown in a part of the story.


 * Proposer:
 * Deadline: February 20, 2010 23:59 GMT

Create Article

 * 1) Per proposal. It could be at least be a redirect to the Storybook page.
 * 2) - Let me show you the definition of "implied" from Wikitionary - "Suggested without being stated directly." Was Rosalina's mother "suggested without being stated directly"? Because the pictures of her are very hard to pass off as simple "suggestions" as to her existence, I think that Nintendo (in releasing those pictures) has directly stated ("stated directly") that she exists. Which therefore invalidates the definition of "implied" and is grounds for her removal from this page.
 * 3) Per all.
 * 4) Create it! Per... ALL!
 * 5) Per all.

Redirect to Rosalina ' s Storybook

 * 1) I am Zero! Rosalina's Mother will be short since there's barely anything to mention to her. Zero signing out.
 * 2) Per Zero.
 * 3) I think i agree with Zero- you would have a stub article. Redirect.

Do Nothing

 * 1) That's exactly why we have this article, for stuff like this.
 * 2) - "(...)an Implied character is when it is only and only mentioned(...)" The character in question is only mentioned in a story and never appears in person. This is the only thing that counts. The fact that a picture of the character is shown in a book changes nothing; the character remains implied only.
 * 3) - I don't think a picture in an in-game book should be given more weight than a textual reference (i.e. Princess Eclair): either way, the character themself isn't appearing "in the flesh". Plus, Rosalina's father and brother both appear in the storybook as blurry nondescript figures in a couple pictures, and so if the mother gets her own page, they'd have to as well, and there's barely anything that can be written about them ("Rosalina went sledding down the hill with her brother when they were children."). It's better just to leave them all here.
 * 4) - Per all. It's like the Lakitu Travel issue. I opposed that, but now I see that it's barely seen, and deserves as much an article as Lakitu Travel did. The article would be a stub for someone who never appeared in person, just in a book.
 * 5) Per all.
 * 6) - Ditto.  If a character is only implied, then he/she gets placed here.
 * 7) Per all.
 * 8) But the character IS implied. Rosalina's mother is never actually seen in-game, and there is no proof that the mother character from the book even exists. Besides, the article would only have like, one sentence.
 * 9) If we split it, It's going to be only 1 sentence and some ad might delete it (No Offence)
 * 10) Per Reversinator's last comment I've decided to keep the article as it is because I was looking at the point of view of Rosalina. The only way to know about this is to see how she would describe her mother and if she makes mention to her in an indirect sense, then Rosalina's mother definitely is implied.
 * 11) Per my change of heart.
 * 12) I changed my mind second time. Per Magikrazy51's comment, and, maybe, we should rewrie that section.
 * 13) Per Edofenrir's comment and Bowser's Luma.

Comments
@ SWflash: There are minor characters that have appeared in the same way and has an article, and makes incosistent to keep a character that visually appeared within this list.

"The List of Implied Characters is a list of characters that have not physically appeared in any form of media up to this point in time." Hmm, doesn't say anything about the role of the character. Yeah, Coincollector has a point here, Rosalina's mother technically does have a physical form. }}
 * {|class=expandable style="background:#fcfcfc;border:1px solid black"


 * I think you're right. I've ripped some pics: Click show ->
 * }
 * }
 * }
 * }
 * }
 * }


 * Sign comments, please.


 * Zero and supporters: A stub is an article that lacks sufficient information. Even though if her article is very short, if her article is complete with all the information she has, the article will NOT be considered a stub.

If the separated article is going to a be a stub, then this TPP wouldn't be valid. So therefore, that isn't a reason to oppose.-- 16:20, 10 February 2011 (EST)
 * @Supremo78: That reasoning could apply to two of the voting options; and is therefore invalid.
 * @Zero777: While technically valid, that is poor, poor, reasoning.

This proposal can easily be settled with a simple question: Do you ever see Rosalina's mother? And I am not referring to a picture of her or something, I mean the person herself. The answer is: No. You, as in the player, never catch a glimpse of this character's physical form in any way. Per definition, a character like this is implied. Excorporating Rosalina's mother from this list would go against the definition and is therefore illogical. - 22:11, 12 February 2011 (EST)
 * Per definition, Rosalina's mother is not a mere "suggestion" by Nintendo. They have confirmed she exists so it would go against the definition to incorporate Rosalina's mother in this list and is therefore illogical.


 * "The List of Implied Characters is a list of characters that have not physically appeared in any form of media up to this point in time" Our definition takes priority over anything from wiktionary.org, MG1. Not to mention that your definition is entirely taken out of context. - 22:19, 12 February 2011 (EST)

Our definition can be edited at any time; it was written by one user and our policies should not be defined by what a single user wrote down. The wikitionary's definition is the definition of the word "implied". "Implied" signifies that it has not been confirmed; that it is still speculated. This is not the case. And my definition cannot possibly be taken out of context considering I quoted everything on that page (save for headers and pronunciation).
 * Even if your definition were within context, it would still be meaningless. You say that to be "implied", something has to be merely "suggested". I ask you: What is a picture in a book? It's a suggestion. What is the confirmation of Nintendo? It's a suggestion. This is not about whether the character exists or not; I have no doubt that Rosalina's mother existed at some point. No, this is about whether this character makes an appearance in the game that is not a suggestion: A physical appearance of the character herself. You are unable to provide such an appearance, because there is none. All you can do is citing sources that suggest this character exists, which is completely beside the point. This character does not make a clear and physical appearance, and therefore your line of argument is moot. All that's left for me is to hope that the majority of users will make a logical decision, and not be swayed by baseless semantics. I rest my case. - 22:39, 12 February 2011 (EST)
 * @Edofenrir: I see your point, and I hope you see mine. It all comes down to whether or not we consider a picture a suggestion, or proof that this character exists. I believe the fact that Nintendo has outright said (in picture form) that she exists is confirmation enough, you believe that as she has never appeared in person, she has not been confirmed. It comes down to our best judgment on what "confirmation" is.
 * @Zero and the people "per"ing him. That is the only point that I see no logic in supporting. We cannot just merge together two articles because they one appears in the other. For instance, The Weekly Wario is a stub about a newspaper published by WarioWare Inc., do we merge it into WarioWare Inc. because one makes the other? No we do not, why? Because the weekly wario is an element of the game, as is Rosalina's mother. Rosalina's mother and the storybook are not the same thing - just as The Weekly Wario and its publisher are not the same. This is the only point that I see no point in supporting.
 * I don't think a picture should be considered to be "outright proof" any more than text when it comes to in-game stories. Take Blumiere's story for example: sure it wasn't illustrated, but the lines of dialogue are just as concrete as Rosalina's watercolours, in my opinion: if her mom is considered "confirmed", his father should be as well (and vice-versa). I do agree with your second paragraph, however. Merging a character into the media they appeared in makes little sense to begin with: it's like putting an orange in a bushel of apples - it doesn't work. While we probably don't have a policy saying that characters belong in character articles, not in sections in object articles, I feel like that option shouldn't have even been provided. - 23:17, 13 February 2011 (EST)


 * The redirect option was not the best for me. But it has less sense to leave the character description here either, since there is a picture, which breaks the definition of "implied", unless the Mariowiki liked to give another meaning to such word. I didn't try to count the other characters because they are indetermined (that's obvious), not like how Rosalina's mother is seen.
 * Just because she has an image doesn't mean she's not implied. The definition of implied, at least on this wiki, is someone that is suggested to exist. She is only seen in illustrations in a story book, not an actual photo. So while Rosaline's mother does have an image, she's still implied.

OK, I'm becoming tired of the issue, but maybe this can change my decision. Besides the word implied means a suggestion it can also be an indirect statement, I want to know (since I never played the game) if rosalina admits that the character seen is her mother or she expresses rosa's mom like the mother of another girl - I've heard that the story she tells is in third person. Therefore is in this way, I can take another consideration. If so, I also propose to put this here, because in the game it is called Ferndozer but it's never seen in the game.
 * The words to the storybook confirm that the pictures ARE of her mother, confirming her mother exists, confirming that she is not a mere "implication".

"One night, the girl dreamt about her own mother"

- Rosalina's Storybook

I always thought "implied" was just a term we started using because "List of Things That Don't Actually Appear in Any Media" is too wordy for a title. Actually, originally the pages were only for things "mentioned in passing", but the definition was expanded shortly after that proposal to our current "not physically appeared" definition. It's not a definition of the word "implied", but of the purpose for these pages, which I think is more important (as do Edofenrir and Reversinator, at the very least, if I understand the comments correctly). And as I (and others) said earlier, pictures don't count as physical appearances any more than words on a page or a line of dialogue, and therefore do fall under the umbrella of these pages. Really, this discussion boils down to whether you go by the textbook definition of the title alone, or by wiki convention that's been in place since 2007. And pertaining to something MG1 said much earlier, the fact that one user wrote the definition doesn't mean it's not valid and worthy of following: hundreds of users have abided by it for years, so it can hardly be dismissed so off-handedly now. Besides, most of our rules and conventions can probably be traced back to single users: if it's true that "our policies should not be defined by what a single user wrote down", we'd have no policies. - 00:43, 18 February 2011 (EST)
 * At Walkazo I'm not interested in the pictures now, I just I want to know how Rosalina describes her mother in the game (and I'm just counting Rosalina's point of view, not yours), if she describes as My Mother she is shouldn't be implied, on the other hand if she refers as Her Mother or The Mother then she is.
 * At Marioguy She makes mention to her mother or the girls' mother in that paragraph?
 * I recently played the game, and Rosalina herself never mentioned her own mother. The only mother she talks about is the one in the story, and again, no proof she's real.
 * 'At Reversinator I don't need more. Evidences about how Rosalina describes her mother is enough to think if she is implied or not. I've decided!
 * @Coincollector. Don't forget that she called herself "the little girl". She never referred to herself as "I" or "me".  Then again, she didn't even put in a disclaimer saying "the fictitious story you're about to hear is true" or something like that. We're supposed to imply that its true. Wait, did I just say IMPLY? That's it, I'm changing my vote.  Brought to you by the letter M and the number 51.

RecordoMeow
I have just removed the "RecordoMeow" from this article. It is already mentioned in the list of Implied Species. RecordoMeows are a species rather than a character.

Kazooie
How come Kazooie is on this list when according to her section itself she appears in an N-Gang Comic alongside Mario, Donkey Kong, And Wario

Big Bama - fan fiction?
I don't remember any mention of him in Wario Land 4, unless maybe he's in the manual (maybe that can be checked, and noted if that is the case). However, a Google search for wario "big bama" only gave a few hits, including what appeared to be fan fiction on deviantart. If this is the case, it should be removed. Avengah (talk) 14:59, 7 March 2013 (EST)


 * He's not mentioned in the game - you're right, it's in the manual. I had a look through my own copy earlier, and on page 39 there is a humorous "Day in the life of Wario" feature, which does mention Big Bama. The exact quote of the entry reads "While listening to country music, I do ten sets of 100 push-ups each. That's how I do such powerful attacks!! And also because I watch pro wrestling!! I like to cheer for Big Bama and Neutron B!!". I scanned the relevant page. The particular entry is indicated.

http://i.imgur.com/45C3qvu.png

Hope this helps!

02:13, 8 March 2013 (EST)

Morthophelus?
Where does this name come from? I read both comics mentioned, but I didn't spot the name.--Tymime (talk) 01:24, 11 June 2014 (EDT)

Remove Clawdia Koopa?
I know the claim has been very popular outside this wiki for god know what reasons, but I propose the entry is removed until someone properly source it. Here's why:

1: Googling "Clawdia Koopa" (and any variants with the magazine's name attached) reveals ton of sites parroting this page, but no scan or direct quotation from the supposed magazine.

2: The entry attributes the statement to "Nintendo Power UK", which doesn't exist. The long-running Official Nintendo Magazine could be seen as a UK counterpart of Nintendo Power, but the two publications were never related and that the entry can't even get that right doesn't do the statement's already low credibility any favour.

S'yeah, thoughts. --Glowsquid (talk) 15:44, 9 November 2014 (EST)
 * I've noticed there's a citation needed in like the very first sentence. That kinda raises a red flag. 15:51, 9 November 2014 (EST)


 * "[...]from the supposed magazine", which one, specifically? The nonexistent one or the Official Nintendo Magazine? After all, it could a memory recall slip (which is unsourced, either way, but that's another thing). Even if the publications aren't related, is there any archive on the Official Nintendo Magazine that even lists Clawdia? If not, then yes, remove the thing. If no source is provided, then, yes, remove anything dubious at best. 15:53, 9 November 2014 (EST)


 * Yep, remove it from here, and put an entry in the Rumours page about the whole thing instead, seeing as the name's presence here resulted in it being pretty pervasive in fanon and whatnot - erroneously, it seems. - 18:01, 9 November 2014 (EST)


 * I know this issue has been solved already, but just as a note I'd like to include the fact that Clawdia Koopa was a character created by the owner of Lemmy's Land. Here's a source for that (scroll down to "Disclaimer").
 * Yeah, we knew that a long time ago. We discussed it in the forum too, another user has said that already, and why you can see that on another page already here in MarioWiki. 16:48, 12 September 2015 (EDT)

Elizagoom
"Elizagoom" redirects here, but it isn't in this article. Should it be included? Another gossip-loving Toad (talk) 06:21, 25 December 2014 (EST)

The two Jabbis and Citation Needed
Two jabbi names are mentioned by Goombella when tattling a certain Jabbi in the Great Tree, supposedly. While we have it as Citation Needed, if you check out the text dump in the Documents section of Romhacking.net and search for the names listed, you'll find they are in there. If that's acceptable as a source, go ahead and source it. YourBuddyBill (talk) 21:39, 13 April 2015 (EDT)

Croacus rulers
The Croacuses are the former rulers of Floro Sapiens. Players only meet the 4th one. The other three are mentioned on portraits of them with their reign. I am proposing a semi-spit from this article (they will be split, but references will still be there). You can discuss in the vote or comments if it is one article or separate articles. You can also discuss whether or not the only Prince Croacus be split as well.

(Based on the results of three people, Croacus rulers was the only one with more than just me voting. It was canceled by a admin because it was so messy. I was planning on canceling that proposal today, but an admin beat me. This has nothing to do with this proposal anymore but just being done like the admin said. The deadline is not extended, but rather changed because of the admin. If you think I or someone else should reopen the other two, put it in the comments, but make sure it is clear that it is about the other two, since this proposal is only focused on the Croacuses.)

Proposer: Deadline: October 17, 2016, 23:59 GMT

Support

 * 1) Per proposal. I am in favor of having separate articles of the Croacus rulers.
 * 2) I stand by what I said in the initial proposal; the fact the Croacus family has info on who they are, as well as physical visual seen in game on what they look like kinda sneaks past being implied. They may not show up in person, but you can still see who they are and what they did prior to the game.
 * 3) Per all. The images and fairly detailed backstory makes them worth separating.
 * 4) Per all.
 * 5) Per all. Sounds reasonable.
 * 6) I'll support this proposal, please!

Comments
@AfternoonLight - You need a valid reason for opposing it. Simply saying that they shouldn't be split isn't enough: you also need a reason why they shouldn't be split beyond "because I said so". 18:22, 3 October 2016 (EDT)
 * Could you elaborate on why it being a "very good article" is a valid reason for not splitting the Croacus section from this article? 20:11, 4 October 2016 (EDT)
 * If your interested, why don't you checkout the canceled proposal in the archive. He gives a more actual answer to it. 20:23, 3 October 2016 (EDT)
 * Literally all he said is, "I want to say I will oppose!" Neither this nor what he wrote here are valid. 22:11, 4 October 2016 (EDT)
 * Yay. He either needs to put the information from the canceled proposal here, he needs to rewrite it so that it is still valid but different, or an admin will remove it all together.

Should Koopla be added?
Earlier, I edited the list of implied characters to include Koopla, who was mentioned but not included in this list. I am somewhat new to the Wiki, so is everybody OK with adding a minor character to the list? I am OK with removing this section if needed. ZappySquiddy (talk)

Paper Koopalings
In Mario and Luigi: Paper Jam, paper versions of the Koopalings (predating Paper Mario: Color Splash) are briefly mentioned by Wendy. Should they be added here?

Merge some character pages into this list
So, it seems I opened a can of worms here.

Initially, it was just Chestnut King's page that I called into question, but looking through the list, Scarlette's also seems unnecessary. King Croacus I, King Croacus III, Queen Croacus II, and Squirpina XIV will all remain unaffected, due to an earlier proposal on this very talk page, and because they actually have some representation in Super Paper Mario (saying this in case someone decides to bring it up).

Now, the problem with Chestnut King and Scarlette is they both don't actually appear or have any representation in Paper Mario: The Thousand-Year Door, they are only mentioned. Not the same case as the Croacuses and Squirpina. The Chestnut King is only mentioned in the Super Luigi novels, and Scarlette is only mentioned through letters and Admiral Bobbery's speeches.

The points brought up on Chestnut King's talk page are mixed. Other than the Japanese name, there's no similarities between these two characters. The reason for the split in the first place was "There's enough interesting information here, plus he's referenced multiple times in Luigi's story." ...So?
 * On one hand, the Japanese name is the same as Goomboss's, and several mentioned names in The Thousand-Year Door also share a Japanese name with other Paper Mario things ("Mushville" = Toad Town, "Goomstar Temple" = Crystal Palace), implying a relation.
 * On the other, the two characters are described as being nothing alike, with the Chestnut King in Super Luigi being a transformed love interest of Princess Eclair (who does not get her own page, btw, despite both being major characters in this story) by Minister Crepe (also a major side-character in this story without his own page). Goomboss, in Paper Mario is a enlarged Goomba who wished for more power, and in Super Mario 64 DS seems like a being made out of several Goombas.

In the case of Scarlette... I have no idea. Her page was (very beautifully and well-made) created back in 2005 and I guess almost no one questioned it. Her case is just simply she isn't an important character to the story and doesn't have any representation at all. She only serves as a purpose to get Bobbery into your party. EDIT: There is this proposal from 2016, that gave Scarlette her article after it was turned into a redirect. However, again, she's only mentioned a few times in the game and isn't that important herself. Only her letter is important. She's not a special case here, she meets the same criteria as most everyone else on this list.

So... options:
 * 1) Merge these implied characters to this list of implied characters: My preferred option. There's no real reason to keep either of these separate.
 * 2) Merge Chestnut King, but not Scarlette: For some reason.
 * 3) Merge Scarlette, but not Chestnut King: I suppose you could make a case for how important Chestnut King is to Luigi's story, but it wouldn't be a good one, since Super Luigi is completely irrelevant itself.
 * 4) Merge Scarlette, and merge Chestnut King with Goomboss: Again, the only thing connecting these two characters is their Japanese names. There's no confirmation they are the same character otherwise, but if you believe that...
 * 5) Merge Chestnut King with Goomboss, but keep Scarlet separate: Weird option, but an option nonetheless.
 * 6) Keep them both separate: The "Do Nothing" option. This whole thing will be for nought.

Proposer: Deadline: July 31st, 2018, 23:59 GMT

Option 1: Merge both to the list

 * 1) - Again, there's no real reason to keep these separate, and merging to Goomboss isn't making much sense to me with the points brought up.
 * 2) If Princess Eclair and Minister Crepe don't get articles, neither should the Chestnut King. Luigi's tale is completely irrelevant to the rest of the game, so we don't really need full articles on its unseen characters. As for Scarlette, well... at least she's relevant to a major character's backstory, so she's more article-worthy than the Chestnut King, but I'm still leaning towards a merge for the reasons listed in the proposal.
 * 3) Per 7feetunder.
 * 4) Per all.
 * 5) Per all. I felt nothing but confusion upon discovering Chestnut King had an article.
 * 6) Per all.
 * 7) Per all. This is my first choice.
 * 8) Neither are seen and I don't fancy the idea of merging an implied character with some plump Goomba King. So I support the idea of merging both here.
 * 9) Seems like the best option, per all.

Option 4: Merge Scarlette to the list, merge Chestnut King to Goomboss

 * 1) CK is obviously a reference to Goomboss, and despite the amount of tears Scarlette garners, she is still merely implied.
 * 2) Per Doc von Schmeltwick. This is my second choice.
 * 3) I presented my arguments for merging CK to Goomboss on the link; the inconsistencies can be hand-waved due to the SUper Luigi books being clearly implied to be highly embelished in-universe and the lack of acknowledgement the Goomba King is a pre-existing character by the fact Luigi never meets him in the first Paper Mario (so he wouldn't recognize him)
 * 4) While I can see the reasons why one would consider the Chestnut King to be an implied presence, for me, it comes down to a basic question: if the English translators had just picked up on the name back in the day like every other localization, would this even be up for debate? I highly doubt that would be the case. It almost reminds me of the past situation with Parabuzzy.
 * 5) Per all.
 * 6) Honestly, I think the intended joke was that the ultimate villain in Luigi's quest was just Goomboss.

Comments
"Goomstar Temple" was mentioned in an e-mail by Koopook, not Luigi's stories. Just saying. Can't remember where "Mushville" popped up, can anyone clarify that? 18:10, 17 July 2018 (EDT)
 * Corrected. 18:13, 17 July 2018 (EDT)
 * Typed "Mushville" in the search box: it's a wrong answer from the Super Fun Quirk Quiz. Other mentions of Toad Town (Lumpy, Zip Toad) are left intact. So again, no relation to Luigi's tale. 18:25, 17 July 2018 (EDT)
 * Probably was in comparison to the Japanese version of said question. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 20:32, 17 July 2018 (EDT)

Just for reference, I found this proposal, which seems to be the proposal that allowed Scarlette to be split. -- 18:21, 17 July 2018 (EDT)
 * Oof, didn't see that when I checked. Still, I think my points against Scarlette are valid. Not sure on Toad Force V, and Waffle Kingdom doesn't seem to have been done. It was a "catch-all" proposal, which I think are messy when several subjects are involved. This proposal will change Scarlette's outcome from the previous one. 18:29, 17 July 2018 (EDT)

@Doc Jungle Hijinxs from Donkey Kong Country Returns is also obviously a reference to the level of the same name from the original DKC. Doesn't mean they're the same thing, and CK and GK have far less in common (read: nothing beyond being their title of "king"). 20:40, 17 July 2018 (EDT)
 * We handle locations differently from characters. Note they're both linked from the same disambiguation page, because having them both on the same page would be too big in that case. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 20:45, 17 July 2018 (EDT)
 * True, but that doesn't change the fact that a name reference is hardly conclusive evidence of these two characters being the same, especially when everything else we know about the Chestnut King implies he's a unique character. Think about it: every other character involved in Luigi's story barring Luigi himself is exclusive to it. So why would the Chestnut King be any different? The name reference is just that: a reference and nothing more. The Waffle Kingdom has a food theme, and Goomba King's Japanese name just so happens to be a reference to chestnuts, so the Japanese writers probably thought they'd include a nonsensical reference to him when naming this otherwise completely unrelated character. I know that's just a possibility, but so is them being the same character. So in the absence of proof that they are the same, especially with so much evidence to the contrary, concluding that they are definitely the same is flat-out speculation. 22:05, 17 July 2018 (EDT)
 * Like many others have in the past, you are confusing "speculation" with "inference." It would be speculation to say that the Luff civilization was the one who established Rogueport, as there is absolutely nothing to indicate that. Here, we have the names in multiple languages and the fact that it is firmly established that Luigi's tale is embellished, zig-zagged, and possibly made up almost entirely. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 22:13, 17 July 2018 (EDT)
 * Inference passed off as hard fact when your evidence is this weak is hardly any better than pure speculation. The fact that Luigi twists his tales does nothing to prove the identity of the Chestnut King, and aside from that all you have is the shared names in other languages, which, while notable, does not prove that they are the same character beyond reasonable doubt. Especially since I have plenty of reasons to doubt it. 23:44, 17 July 2018 (EDT)

"On the other, the two characters are described as being nothing alike, with the Chestnut King in Super Luigi being a transformed love interest of Princess Eclair (who does not get her own page, btw, despite both being major characters in this story) by Minister Crepe (also a major side-character in this story without his own page). Goomboss, in Paper Mario is a enlarged Goomba who wished for more power, and in Super Mario 64 DS seems like a being made out of several Goombas." Isn't this argument kind of contradictory? You're basically saying that Chestnut King can't be Goomba King because they are different characters, yet you consider Goomboss to be Goomba King even though their natures (single powered up Goomba vs. a combination of multiple Goombas) makes them different characters themselves. SmokedChili (talk) 03:21, 18 July 2018 (EDT)
 * There's also the visual similarities. They're very clearly the same character, even if they came about differently for the two games. (Either that or there's more than one Goomba King :thinking:) I do have a question, though: How does he act when he's defeated in Mario Kart DS? I don't have the game, so I can't check. 10:32, 18 July 2018 (EDT)
 * He just sort of turns red and explodes in anger, but it's just a standard particle effect instead of Goombas. (For reference, I don't think it was the name "Mushville" that was mangled, but "Mushroom Town", which I believe was mentioned by one of the crows in Twilight Town.) LinkTheLefty (talk) 11:30, 18 July 2018 (EDT)
 * It was both. SmokedChili (talk) 12:15, 18 July 2018 (EDT)

@LTL: That point goes both ways: if the Japanese writers simply did not name the Chestnut King after a preexisting character, we wouldn't be having this problem. As for the Parabuzzy comparison, there is a significant difference between them and CK: we can tell they're actually Para-Beetles since we see them. Another thing I should bring up: a few years ago, you proposed to merge Big Boo's LMDM content with Boolossus. It didn't pass, but here's the thing: I actually see the connection there. Since what little we know about the Chestnut King draws no parallels whatsoever between him and Goomboss beyond the Japanese and other foreign language names, the Japanese writers naming him after him is, for all we know, nothing more than a stupid in-joke that has done nothing but confuse us. @Glowsquid: You do have a point about Luigi never encountering Goomboss, but Luigi's stories being embellished doesn't prove a thing. All it does is cast doubt on the details; it doesn't prove that the Chestnut King's entire backstory is false. Luigi's own version of the story (the one he tells directly to Mario, not the one in the book) omits the part about the Chestnut King being Eclair's transformed lover on purpose, so it seems unlikely that it would have been a lie, as he was lying specifically to cover that up. This isn't just one or two inconsistencies between portrayals you're trying to excuse; the Chestnut King is completely unrecognizable in every way, shape, and form. Even Vanna T. and Toadette have more in common. 00:53, 19 July 2018 (EDT)

On a side note, I still think that this article (and related articles) should be renamed. RickTommy (talk) 01:43, 19 July 2018 (EDT)
 * ...and this is relevant because...? 01:45, 19 July 2018 (EDT)
 * Different discussion entirely, dude. 01:56, 19 July 2018 (EDT)