Talk:Propeller Block
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Propeller Block article. It is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. Comments such as "Mario is my favorite character" are not allowed and will be removed on sight. Please use the Mario Boards or our Discord server to talk about Propeller Block.
If you do have a question or comment about the article, please remember to sign your edit with ~~~~.
Shouldn't the page name be moved to the latest title of the object: "Propeller Box"?
Shokora (talk · edits) 04:06, 8 October 2013 (EDT)
Or should they be spilt into two pages, due to their different appearances and name/languages.
--
L151
07:43, 8 October 2013 (EDT)
Split[edit]
|
This talk page proposal has already been settled. Please do not edit this section or its subsections. If you wish to discuss the article, please do so in a new section below the proposal. |
split 10-0
As briefly discussed in the section above, I believe this article should split the "Propeller Box" info to a new article with that title. It will describe the object as it had appeared from Super Mario 3D Land onwards. The original use of the object in New Super Mario Bros. Wii varies from the current use (i.e. the player is to grab the block and fly, as opposed to the current use of actually entering it). The coloring of the "Block" and "Box" is different, as well as the fact that they are given different official names.
Proposer: YoshiKong (talk)
Deadline: October 25th, 2013, 23:59 GMT
Split "Propeller Box" info[edit]
- YoshiKong (talk) – Per YoshiKong.
- Yoshi876 (talk) Per YoshiKong.
- Iggy Koopa Jr (talk) I never considered it to be the same.
- Ultra Koopa (talk) Per YoshiKong. They are not the same.
- Marshal Dan Troop (talk) Per Yoshikong.
- driftmaster130 (talk) Per Grumpy.
- Icemario11 (talk) Per YoshiKong.
- Tails777 (talk) Per YoshiKong.
- SuperYoshiBros (talk) These aren't really the same. It's like if someone came and said "Hey guys let's merge Raccoon Mario and Tanooki Mario too!".
- Scr7 (talk) While I don't think it has enough content to warrant its own article, I support due to the reasons stated in the proposal.
