Talk:Human

Seeing as there is a category for Toads and Koopas, should there also be a category for humans? Almighty Rajah 21:56, 21 August 2006 (EDT)
 * I think that's fair game. Wayoshi ( T&middot;C&middot;@ ) 23:22, 21 August 2006 (EDT)

Whoa! is Il Piantissimo a HUMAN? (He's a pianta!) Super Mario 256 21:07, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

He looks Human, the Pianta portions of his body just look like costumes parts, a bucket helmet, oven mitt hands, etc. -- Sr Grodus

Dang that guy looks like the running dude from Zelda.. maybe there the same people..... showoff. User:Pal101

Evolution
Is it ok to remove that line about humans evolving from apes? It is not mentioned in any Mario game, thus is irrelevent here, and it may offend people of certian religions. Waluigi Fan 00:24, 19 May 2007 (EDT)

-Evolution's a major part of the live-action film, so I guess that's why it's mentioned. DrFurball 01:23, 17 May 2008 (EDT)

Mario party 8
In Mario Party 8 the humans are Miis! Princess Grapes Butterfly

Notable Humans
Do we really need this list? It includes almost all the humans that are in the template anyway. We could limit it to the really notable humans; but who is notable enough? 15:03, 20 February 2008 (EST)
 * Other species pages have the same lists. Maybe we could remove the "notable", but the list should stay. - 15:22, 20 February 2008 (EST)
 * With all the humans that are in the template? Seems redundant to me... (Yeah, other species also have those lists, but they usually don't have such a template..?) 15:26, 20 February 2008 (EST)

Picture
I've noticed that we're using a picture of Mario to represent humans. I guess that's okay, but since some species articles show more than one, maybe we should do that. For example, we could use a picture of Mario and Luigi, like Image:Mario luigi jump.jpg. Or maybe there's a different picture of a few humans, like Mario, Luigi, and Princess Peach, which we could use. Anyone else think that's a good idea? 13:31, 29 July 2008 (EDT)


 * I think either could work. I don't think there are any rules about whether or not species articles should have multiple members of that species in their picture; for instance, Goomba's image just shows one Goomba.
 * Like Yellow said, we sometimes have a generic member of the species. In the case of humans, generic humans can be found in the DiC animated cartoon series.  I believe the comic Super Mario Adventures has a panel featuring Mario, Luigi, and the Salesman (can't remember his name), all of whom are humans.  Whatever we do, we gotta make sure that we mention the source of the picture so that it doesn't seem like this is how all generic humans look in the Marioverse.  14:22, 29 July 2008 (EDT)
 * Okay, so should it say something like "Mario, a human in the Marioverse"? 14:55, 29 July 2008 (EDT)
 * Oh, looks like someone found a better picture. 15:03, 29 July 2008 (EDT)
 * Yeah, that was me. :) I forgot to mention it here. 16:10, 29 July 2008 (EDT)

Il Piantisimo
Or whatever his name is... he's actually a human. His face was revealed through hacking. It was a modified version of a Hylian from the Legend of Zelda series (Hylians are the Hyrule equivilent of humans) 16:20, 29 July 2008 (EDT)

Why a redirect?
The article was replaced by a redirect to the category Humans because it only included a list of humans. I actually think that nothing was wrong with it, as the article also stated what humans are and didn't just list them. Plus, many articles link to it. Any opinions? --Grandy02 13:40, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Humans are a species, and the article actually described them in detail. I don't see why it was redirected to the template.
 * I reverted the last edit. --Grandy02 14:50, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Princess Peach
I've always viewed her as a Toad who just happens to look Human for some weird reason. --MithrandirOlorin 08:53, 25 June 2012 (EDT)

Cleanup
The notable humans section is useless, it literally lists every human in the series. Permission to clean it up? --  Super Yoshi  Bros   21:24, 9 February 2013 (EST)


 * A lot, if not all of that list is covered by . So if the entire list is on that template, then I see the list as redundant.


 * 21:32, 9 February 2013 (EST)


 * So, should I clean it up and leave only notable characters then? (Mario, Luigi, Peach, and the likes of them) --Yoshi2mpds.gif  Super Yoshi  Bros  Yoshi2mpds.gif 21:33, 9 February 2013 (EST)

Sure.

21:36, 9 February 2013 (EST)

I'll point out that deciding which humans are notable and which humans aren't can be a very subjective process, especially if it's only being handled by one user. GreenDisaster (talk) 21:50, 9 February 2013 (EST)


 * I'd prefer to get rid of the list entirely, TBH.


 * 21:52, 9 February 2013 (EST)


 * It's honestly what I prefer too, but perhaps a proposal would best decide what to do. GreenDisaster (talk) 21:53, 9 February 2013 (EST)

How's the list now? --  Super Yoshi  Bros   21:56, 9 February 2013 (EST)

It's better. GreenDisaster: did you want to make the proposal, or should I do it?

21:58, 9 February 2013 (EST)


 * I'm a bit rusty. You can go ahead and make it. GreenDisaster (talk) 22:00, 9 February 2013 (EST)

Proposal: removing "Notable Members" section on article
I think the section "Notable Members" should be removed because, as discussed above, user's opinions of which members are notable can vary, and there is already a brief list of Notable Members in the infobox.

Proposer: Deadline: February 24, 2013, 23:59 GMT

Support

 * 1) Per proposal and the comments in the above section.
 * 2) - Per proposal.
 * 3) Per.
 * 4) Per proposal.
 * 5) - Per proposal.
 * 6) Per all.
 * 7) We would've agreed even without the TPP. Per YoshiKong.
 * 8) Per all.
 * 9) Per all.
 * 10) I don't see why we should have a list of notable humans section. It's just useless and users would bicker all the time who was and wasnt important. They are all important, and it would cause confusion to the reader. All of the humans are notable. There is just too many opinions on who is notable and who isn't. Section is useless. Period.
 * 11) - Per YoshiKong. The six-entry infobox list is enough for the whole page.
 * 12) Per all
 * 13) – Per KP.

Kongs
Aren't Kongs a related species?RPG Gamer. I HAVE RPG!! (talk) 11:55, 26 March 2013 (EDT)

Lacking
I feel this page is sonewhat lacking in content if compared to other species pages like Toad. What about their games appearances ? I would update it myself, but I never played them. 191.128.187.29 22:35, 27 July 2014 (EDT)

Notable members
We could add that list, but it'd probably take an insane amount of time MarioLover54 (talk) 09:53, August 3, 2019 (EDT)


 * I'm pretty sure we don't actually need that, though. Also, please stop necroing old discussions. -- 09:58, August 3, 2019 (EDT)

Delete page
This page is not dissimilar to Elephant, Dragon, Giraffe, Goat before its clean-up, and other pages that have been put down for being too generic to hold any valuable information beyond "here's a list of mario characters who are an elephant/dragon/cat". The lead section of "Human" mostly subsists on information about Metro Kingdom denizens and a couple other scant, unrelated and generic appearances of humans in the Mario universe. For instance, the page notes a particular depiction of skeletal human remains in Donkey Kong 64 where they serve as nothing more than portending stage props which do not play a functional role in the gameplay. No subject can get any more generic than that. We might as well write about the impaled skulls in the jungle stages of Donkey Kong Country 2.

Moving on, we have the "Species" section. While admittedly informative and a bit more coherent in its presentation of Mario-franchise humans, it merely expands on a generic categorization of certain Mario characters. It's like if we made a page for rodents where we just state comparisons between Little Mousers, Scaredy Rats, Neeks etc. I feel like the sourced information can find its way on related pages such as Mario, and statements such as how humans in Mario sports games follow a more anime-ish design compared to New Donkers (who aren't even confirmed to be actual Homo sapiens) can be removed entirely since the connection between the two subjects stretches far too wide.

Other than the aforementioned, as well as a redundant infobox listing which is already covered by a navigation template, I don't see how this page has anything going for it and how we can reasonably expand on the subject of humans in the Mario franchise without repeating the mistakes presented here. I propose that this curious survivor of the Great Generic Subject Purge of 2017-2018 join the pile in the mass grave. What is your voice in this?

Proposer: Deadline: March 3, 2021, 23:59 GMT

Support

 * 1) per proposal.
 * 2) I'd repurpose any remaining information into Category:Humans but yeah I overall agree with the premise of this TPP.
 * 3) Yeah the page seems to be a bit of a mess. Hope you don't mind me correcting the deadline date too.
 * 4) With how short this page currently is, and how it's been under "construction" with little progress for 1.5 years, I think that just shows there's not really much, if anything, to say about humans that's unique to the Mario franchise.
 * 5) Per proposal. Like what Ray Trace said, any valid information should be transferred elsewhere.
 * 6) Per all.
 * 7) Per all.
 * 8) Per all.
 * 9) Never realized how generic this article was until you laid forth your arguments. Per all.