Talk:Grab Block

Colors

What are the colors that it flashes? I'm trying to make a spritesheet of it and other items. Or, can someone point me to a PNG format sprite sheet with all of its color frames?

Roads (^{Talk - Me on Wikia - Me on Wikipedia}) 15:48, 15 November 2011 (EST)

Name question

Isn't the Grab Block named Throw Block? Because I think it's named like that, but I'm not sure. Telinc1 04:50, 30 December 2011 (EST)

Super Mario Bros 3

Are the blocks which buster beetles are throwing the grab blocks? --78.248.232.59 07:01, 2 April 2016 (EDT)

Look up the Buster Beetle article and you'll find your answer. Mario^-HOHO! (Talk / Stalk) 21:25, 2 April 2016 (EDT)

Merge Super Mario Bros. 3 Ice Block with Super Mario World Grab Block

Before proposal, let's discuss first. The Ice Block found in SMB3 functions identically to the Grab Block of SMW. It doesn't feel right to group that Ice Block with the other Ice Blocks as those Ice Blocks seem to be about a slick surface or something to melt. Thoughts? --Wildgoosespeeder (talk) ^{(Stats - Contribs)} 16:56, 6 May 2016 (EDT)

I think it should simply be noted on the Ice Block section that they function identically to the Grab Block of SMW. Otherwise, the (official?) name and appearance is of a common Ice Block. The Grab Block is also diverse in name and appearance.

Shokora (talk · edits) 17:30, 1 August 2016 (EDT)

This is an old conversation, but undecided. I have found a reference for the Ice Block name in the Super Mario Advance 4: Super Mario Bros. 3 Nintendo Power guide...in many places, actually. First instance appears to be on page 51. As such, I think this section should not be merged. 18:39, 7 April 2017 (EDT)

Since everyone refuses to merge them, I'm adding an edit to at least ACKNOWLEDGE the similarity. - 68.117.20.106 21:04, 24 September 2017 (EDT)

It's already been mentioned. Mario JC 21:09, 24 September 2017 (EDT)

Merge Super Mario Bros. 3 Ice Block with Super Mario World Grab Block (rebooted)

In light of some more information that has come to light since the above, I really think Wildgoosespeeder was onto something. The throwable type (アイスブロック) is not grouped together with the game's thawable type (氷ブロック) in Encyclopedia Super Mario Bros.'s Super Mario Bros. 3 section. This can also be seen in the English Encyclopedia, where the former is "Frozen Block" and the latter is "Ice Block", as well as the Super Mario Advance 4 Prima guide, which calls them "blue block" and "ice block", respectively. In all the other guides, "Ice Block" only refers to the throwable one, whereas it seems the thawable and platform ones don't have a specific name. The throwable one also has another name - White Block (しろいぶろっく / 白いブロック) - which shows up in-game in one of the letters. Additionally, it is virtually identical in function to Super Mario World's Grab Blocks (implied by the Japanese name to be a form of ice melting in your hands), even keeping the same traction as ordinary, non-ice terrain when used as a foothold as opposed to every other ice block. All in all, I think the "Ice Block" is somewhat a misnomer and it very clearly evolved into the Grab Block, not unlike how silver coins became blue coins. The only thing I'm not sure about would be which name should be the article title, as White Block is used in-game and technically appears more recently. LinkTheLefty (talk) 10:50, October 22, 2022 (EDT)

Merge Super Mario Bros. 3 Ice Block with Super Mario World Grab Block (proposal)

This talk page proposal has already been settled. Please do not edit any of the sections in the proposal. If you wish to discuss the article, do so in a new header below the proposal.

Split White Block 3-1-0-6-1
See "rebooted" section for details. In essence, the White Block from Super Mario Bros. 3 is identical in every way with the Grab Block from Super Mario World, with both being suggested as icy blocks that seemingly melt in Mario's hands and lacking the slippery platform traction of ordinary Ice Blocks, with which they're distinguished. As such, I think it would be a mistake to keep the Super Mario Bros. 3 version merged with the Ice Block article when the Super Mario World version is much more appropriate. Two main options are presented in this proposal. The first will simply merge White Block with Grab Block, which is a more self-explanatory name. The second will still merge, but make White Block the current name, which would be closer to policy due to being the most recent in-game name as of Super Mario Advance 4. A third option merges Grab Block with the Ice Block article, although I'm not sure I particularly recommend this since that article could probably stand to have a thing or two split already. A fourth option fully splits White Block as its own article. In any case, an {{about}} will be added to note the "White Block" Semisolid Platform.

Proposer: LinkTheLefty (talk)
Deadline: April 14, 2023, 23:59 GMT

Merge White Block with Grab Block

1. LinkTheLefty (talk) As per reboot thoughts.
2. Blinker (talk) Per proposal.
3. Arend (talk) Secondary choice. Both of these can be grabbed and flash in different colors when doing so; the biggest difference is that these are dark blue and resemble Rotating Blocks more.

Merge and use White Block as the article title

1. LinkTheLefty (talk) Alternative choice.

Split White Block fully as its own article

1. SmokedChili (talk) I prefer this, per what I said below.
2. Hewer (talk) Per SmokedChili, there doesn't appear to be concrete proof that White Block and Grab Block are the same.
3. Arend (talk) I have no idea why the whiteish-light blue Brick Block is merged to Ice Block for so long when it functions entirely different from one (even distinctive from other Ice Blocks in Super Mario Bros. 3!) They also flash in different colors when grabbed (or just from cyan to orange in the SNES port), which isn't natural for ice either. If it weren't for one of the Japanese names, I would've doubted these were actually made of ice.
4. FanOfYoshi (talk) Per all. The Grab Block is maybe inspired by this, but there's no direct proof of them being the same.
5. Camwood777 (talk) Per all. The SMB3 white blocks sure are different from the SMB3 ice blocks, but SMW grab blocks they aren't. Unless Nintendo ever considers the two of them to be equals officially, we can probably safely assume it's yet another case of how SMW is just. Ever so different, and there's Dinosaur Island equivalents to other things, like the Goomba/Galoomba or Brick Block/Rotating Block pairs.
6. Spectrogram (talk) Per all.

Keep White Block merged with Ice Block

1. SmokedChili (talk) Identical properties doesn't sound like solid enough proof for merging. Aside from Grab Block not being explicitly described as icy, the difference is that one has its roots on Brick Blocks and the other on Rotating Blocks, so "convergent evolution" if one may. Although, I'd prefer splitting White Block to its own article for the same reasons.

Comments

@SmokedChili: Normal Ice Blocks in Super Mario World are also aesthetically Rotating Blocks, despite neither it nor Grab Block being able to rotate, and they're not really worth splitting over it. The Japanese name of the Grab Block also suggests it still has frozen properties, which is probably supposed to imply that it disappears because it warms up in Mario's hands, as mentioned above. I'll add a full split as another option, though. LinkTheLefty (talk) 13:55, April 3, 2023 (EDT)

The Japanese name suggests melting in Mario's hands as much as it suggests the block breaking down from frightened trembling. Too ambiguous to really say. SmokedChili (talk) 11:44, April 5, 2023 (EDT)

Article split is impractical

The behavior of this block is very distinctive, and it is no accident that it has appeared in two games, as the respective articles currently imply. The designers of SMW did not coincidentally create another block that also flashes colors when grabbed, dissipates when held, and slides to kill enemies when thrown. The block reuses graphics from a common block, but recolored blue, in order to save cartridge space and design hours. This "common block" is a brick in SMB3, but is a rotating block in SMW, as the two games have different tilesets. It is normal for a game element to be given a visual change between games in a series. Having these in separate articles feels like having SMB1 hammers and SMB3 hammers in separate articles called "claw hammer" and "mallet", and debating whether they're the same.

The real question we should be asking here is "Is it useful to have these in separate pages?". Whether or not you think they're "the same", it is unintuitive to users reading the wiki, and has resulted in two short stubby articles with a lot of the same information, as opposed to a single coherent one that documents the change between the games. The differences between the blocks can be captured in just a couple sentences, and doesn't warrant a full article.--WilliamFrog (talk) 06:28, June 25, 2023 (EDT)

Merge White Block with Grab Block

This talk page proposal has already been settled. Please do not edit any of the sections in the proposal. If you wish to discuss the article, do so in a new header below the proposal.

DO NOT MERGE 4-13
As WilliamFrog points out above, while there is technically no proof that the White Block and Grab Block are the same, they behave almost identically and differences in appearance can be chalked up to the standard blocks that they share graphics with in both games being different, would be unintuitive to the average wiki reader, and results in articles that largely contain the same information. The two blocks also appeared in back-to-back games in the main Mario series that were developed by many of the same individuals, so it is certainly no coincidence. Merging the two pages would almost certainly result in a more streamlined wiki experience for editors and readers alike, and will not result in the loss of any ease of understanding or important information.

Proposer: Pseudo (talk)
Deadline: July 22, 2023, 23:59 GMT

Support

1. Pseudo (talk) Per proposal and arguments for the merger from the previous proposal, as well as WilliamFrog's above statement.
2. WilliamFrog (talk) Their functions are not just similar, they are identical in every measurable way. Both of them have also been referred to as "blue block" at a point in time. However, neither iteration has a clear and definitive name, as they are minor items in old games, and Nintendo did not try very hard with naming back then. It is worth noting that in SMB3, there is no sprite palette that resembles the color the blocks use while static, so it flashes probably to make the inevitable color change look intentional. SMW in on the more powerful SNES and is able to match the color when held, yet they chose to make it flash anyway, most likely for parity with the SMB3 appearance. Rotten mushrooms and poison mushrooms are more different, as they have substantial differences in behavior, and have appeared in new enough games to have unambiguous names. There are many occasions of similar items sharing the same page, even ones more different than the two block types. Hammer documents every type of hammer in any game, from the swung mallets in Donkey Kong to the thrown claw hammers from Hammer Bros, which are undoubtedly different items. Lift features various types of moving platforms, even visually distinct ones, and ones with completely different names or no names. This includes the scaffold-like lifts traditional to Mario games, but also the differently named "elevators" in Mario 64, and the barely named "moving platforms" in Mario Odyssey, which look different in every kingdom. Mini Goomba documents several different types of small Goomba, from the teeny harmless type that climbs on you, to the slightly shorter regular Goombas in the Mario Galaxies, to the bright yellow ones in Mario Odyssey. If these pages are able to have multiple clearly distinct objects within them, then surely the much more similar carryable blocks can share a page too.
3. LinkTheLefty (talk) This is clearly a carryover from when Super Mario Bros. 4 had more Super Mario Bros. 3 elements, and I still lean towards the line of thought that they are not transformative enough. Also, I want to point out: the Big Boo boss from the Donut Secret House in Super Mario World returns in World-e's Doors o' Plenty and Vexing Doors levels, and outside of the slightly different arrangement of the floor blocks and two Boos, it's set up as close to the original battle as possible - only with Grab Blocks swapped for White Blocks. Mind, e-Reader content brings back a lot of elements from other Mario games (even things like a different form of Flimsy Lift), so it would have been a total no-brainer to make a graphical swap for the blocks here to be even closer, but they chose not to go that far. If they're treating the blocks as game aesthetic like the design of the Boo enemies, I think this has to count for something.
4. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) - Was gonna abstain, but you know what, this makes sense. Aside from my point about being parallel to Blue Coin's design changes I made below, I have noticed that the sources for all the Japanese names for both pages other than the "Shivering Block" name are all generic descriptions: the "white block" and "blue block" are both simply passive mentions in enemy bios rather than actually names, while "ice block" seems intended as an umbrella term for the game's icy-ish blocks in general. Finally, LTL's point about World-e swapping the blue ones for the white ones during the Big Boo fight basically ensures it to me.

Oppose

1. Spectrogram (talk) Per arguements made in the previous proposal.
2. Hewer (talk) Words cannot express how much I disagree with the idea that whether they are the same item or not doesn't matter. Yes, it very much does matter whether items we decide to split or merge are the same or not, which almost always has and always should be the deciding factor of splits and merges. Yes, the blocks are similar to each other and the Grab Block probably was based on the White Block, but that in no way makes them the same item. Any merge here would be speculative, and it would set a precedent that we can speculatively merge things we deem similar enough if we feel like it regardless of whether they're actually the same thing. We've been over this already.
3. Arend (talk) While I did support White Block being merged to Grab Block a couple months back, it was only my secondary choice, with my primary choice being that White Block gets its own article; both were preferable over the situation back then, which was that White Block was kept merged to Ice Block (which functions entirely different from either White or Grab Block), but White Block getting its own article was always my primary choice. And now that it finally has one, my stance has not changed. Maybe we could merge if the White Block returns in a new game under the name "Grab Block", but for now, this is the same situation as Poison Mushroom and Rotten Mushroom from last month (we still have Coin Coffer and Magmaargh separate from Moneybags and Blargg).
4. ThePowerPlayer (talk) To put it simply, although they have similar functions, these are different items from different games, and they have never been confused with one another in official media. They each have clearly distinct names and visual appearances, and merging them would indeed make navigation more confusing.
5. Swallow (talk) Per all
6. FanOfYoshi (talk) Per all.
7. MegaBowser64 (talk) ::Per all::
8. Camwoodstock (talk) Per all, but especially Arend's point here--unless we get some new game that directly conflates the two as being one in the same, we should probably err on the side of caution and operate under the assumption Grab Blocks are to Rotating Blocks what White Blocks are to Brick Blocks. Seeing as we don't merge any of the other grabbable blocks at the moment (with the marked exception of those weird grabbable Ice Blocks from NSMBW, which are just part of the Ice Block article), this is also generally more consistent/easily understood.
9. TheFlameChomp (talk) Per all, especially regarding the examples of similar situations, such as the Poison and Rotten Mushrooms, that have already been brought up.
10. Killer Moth (talk) Per all.
11. SmokedChili (talk) Per all in this and the previous proposal.
12. Koopa con Carne (talk) This is slip-sliding into a notion I can't agree with. Super Mario World starting development with a plurality of assets and concepts from Super Mario Bros. 3 is the only "evidence" of these two types of blocks being one and the same, and that does not override the age-old principle that "conceptually identical =/= identical overall". There are a significant number of subjects across the franchise that are the exact same thing on a functional level, some even appearing together in the same game (Aqua Man/Golem, Sour Dodo/Cheesy Chester etc.), yet are kept split for a good number of reasons.
13. Tails777 (talk) Per Hewer, Arend and Koopa con Carne.

Comments

@WilliamFrog: Calling the two blocks "identical in every measurable way", and saying that "neither iteration has a clear and definitive name" is kind of misinformation. Functionally? Yes, sure, they behave nearly identical, but appearance and name-wise? Not so much. You could argue that Grab Blocks replace White Blocks purely because Rotating Blocks have replaced Brick Blocks, but if they were intended to be the same item too, surely they would've given them similar colors at the very least? The SNES game is capable of showing light blue and gray, colors that have been depicted by a White Block in-game and certain artwork respectively, but they chose dark blue, a color it was never shown in before. Sure, it could be to avoid confusion with other blocks, but either they could've given either block a different appearance, or make the Grab Block white, which they didn't do either. These different appearances are also shown in artworks, as White Blocks have been portrayed there as... um, white, but sometimes gray as well, as mentioned before, but never blue (unless you want to say that Ice Block in the first artwork with the gray block is supposed to be a White Block, but it's clearly different from the block that the Buster Beetle has with it, which only can grab White Blocks). Similarly, the one artwork we have of the Grab Block is a purplish blue instead of white, gray or light blue.
Most evidently, though, the Japanese names from official guides clearly gave them completely different names: the White Block was given しろいぶろっく or 白いブロック (Shiroi Burokku, White Block), as well as アイスブロック (Aisu Burokku, Ice Block), given by Shogakukan's Perfect Ban Mario Character Daijiten guide from 1994 and Shogakukan's Super Mario Bros. Hyakka: Nintendo Kōshiki Guidebook from 2015, respectively; Whereas the Grab Block's Japanese name are ブルブルブロック (Buruburu Burokku, Shivering Block) and 青ブロック (Ao Burokku, Blue Block), given by Super Mario World's Japanese fold-out instructions and Shogakukan's Perfect Ban Mario Character Daijiten guide from 1994, respectively. Note how there's a source (the Perfect Ban Mario Character Dajiten) that gave the two blocks entirely distinct names (Shiroi Burokku and Ao Burokku).
We currently have no hard evidence that the White Block or Grab Block are supposed to be the same thing, instead we have evidence that they're supposed to be different entities. I'll admit that the flashing when grabbing is a notable argument, but I believe it's simply to indicate, in both cases, that the Block is only to be used temporarily before it destroys itself, since flashing items is very often used for indication of a current state. Or the flashing of the Grab Block could be an homage to the White Block. Maybe both. Regardless, whether they're supposed to be the same thing is speculative.
Also if this passes, then Gray Brick Block has no business to remain split from Rock Block, since unlike the White or Grab Blocks, this one is actually identical to the Rock Blocks from Super Mario 3D World in both form and function, yet it's still split since we have no official name for Gray Brick Blocks. rend (talk) (edits) 03:39, July 9, 2023 (EDT)

Regardless of whether or not this passes: why not? We generally minimize conjecture when we can, and if Super Mario Advance 4's Gray Brick Blocks are in line with the newer, Super Mario incarnation of Rock Blocks, I don't think there's any harm in knocking down a conjectural article. Besides, there are arguably two or three different entities within the Rock Block article: the cracked ones mostly seen in Mario & Wario and the Yoshi franchise, the cracked ones with bandages in Wario World, and gray Brick Blocks. Each with somewhat different functionality, and certainly more diverse than the differences between White Block and Grab Block, I'd say. LinkTheLefty (talk) 17:53, July 9, 2023 (EDT)

Wouldn't that just be swapping a conjecture template for a part conjecture template? Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 12:33, July 10, 2023 (EDT)

I'd agree that the Gray Brick Block could be merged with Rock Block due to similar appearance and functionality; I was merely pointing out that it'd be weird if we merged White Block to Grab Block but kept Gray Brick Block split. That said, there's a possibility to split Cracked blocks from Rock Blocks, or at least do a major clean-up, because at the moment, Rock Block appears to be an umbrella article for hard blocks that aren't necessarily Hard Blocks. rend (talk) (edits) 09:22, July 15, 2023 (EDT)

@Hewer: I could've sworn that conjecture and part conjecture were separate meta categories. I don't know why they are the same. I also don't know why part conjecture isn't allowed to be used for specific sections to make it easier to tell what appearances in the article are conjectural. Maybe that's up for another discussion to figure out. LinkTheLefty (talk) 21:32, July 21, 2023 (EDT)

@Arend: Something I realized after the fact is that Super Mario 3D World Rock Blocks are outright classified as Hard Blocks in Super Mario Maker 2 (like Super Mario Bros. 3 Wood Blocks, Super Mario World Gray Blocks, and New Super Mario Bros. U stone blocks), so that presents a complication. That'll have to be another proposal. But while I'm responding here, I'll touch on the color and the names. For the color, the NES notoriously doesn't have a 100% agreed-upon palette. It's easily feasible that what was intended to be blue was instead white. To some displays, this block seemingly appears to be light-blue, but to a developer, it was white, and so that dictated what it was called. I'm not sure at what point the Ice Block name was introduced to Japan, because from what I can tell, they were still called White Blocks up to the Super Mario Collection Shogakukan guide (note the same guide also refers to Munchers as Black Packun despite that name no longer being applicable). Now as for Perfect Ban Mario Character Daijiten - I've been keen to point this out in the past, but if we took the name changes at total face value like it did, it'd be kind of ridiculously contradictory. From what I gather, printed products in general are able to use separate names for the same subject as long as the context is about a separate game. Encyclopedia Super Mario Bros. would be the quick example, but I'll go with something more relevant and observable - here is the Japanese Super Mario Advance 4 manual. As you know, Super Mario Advance 4 is actually two GBA game versions: Super Mario Bros. 3 and the Mario Bros. remake. Note that the star item has a different name and somewhat different design in the Super Mario Bros. 3 and Mario Bros. sections. Now does that serve as proof that they should be split? Well, according to the argument, I suppose so? I don't know, White/Grab Block seems nearly as silly to me as splitting Rotating Block-disguised Coin Blocks, all things considered. LinkTheLefty (talk) 21:32, July 21, 2023 (EDT)

The color changing from light blue to dark blue is not any stranger than mini goombas turning from brown to yellow, and that happened within a single species. Neither is really that transformative as redesigns go. Some sources claim white blocks are ice because they slide, even though Mario does not slip on them, they are not destroyed by fire, and they can be found in places it would be very unusual to see ice (such as deserts). A valid reason for changing the color to dark blue would be to prevent misleading people into thinking they are ice or otherwise ice-like.
As for the name argument, you refuted my claim that there is no clear and definitive name by providing multiple official sources with conflicting names. It looks to me like the names from the sources are conjectural, invented by the writers on the fly in absence of an official consensus. Notice how every name describes an aspect of the block, but it's a different aspect each time. If you need evidence they were just lazy with names back then, you hardly need to look farther than Fire Nipper Plant.
Also notable is that in SMAS SMB3, white blocks no longer even have white in their palette and are fully blue, but Peach's letter still says "white". It casts some doubt on whether they are even the subject of the letter. It would be strange to name an object after a characteristic so unimportant that a remake changed it and the devs didn't notice. It would also be strange for official sources to disagree on the name of an object whose name is stated in the game itself. On top of that, Peach is not reputable for using proper names; she calls boos "ghosts", fire bros "thieves", and every item she gives you a "jewel". It would not be out of line for "white block" to just be expressing the fact that it is white, and not implying that it's the official name. On that account, she could just as well be talking about note blocks or even white semisolids. Note blocks in particular do contain magic powers sometimes.
Compare the carryable ice blocks from NSMBWII: They serve a similar purpose, being grabbable terrain that can be used as projectiles. However, they are slippery, are only found in ice levels, are breakable by normal means, and do not spectacularly expire when held. This is what an homage looks like. They are inspired by the old blocks, but they do not try to be the same thing, instead opting to take inspiration from them while behaving closer to empty Ice Flower blocks.
Gray bricks have been on my mind recently too, I wasn't going to say anything until after this was over but I do also support merging them with rock block. Also yeah, the rock blocks on that page are much more different than the blocks we're debating on. We're here talking about shades of blue, and they're not even in the same series, much less look similar or act the same. WilliamFrog (talk) 08:53, July 11, 2023 (EDT)

You can talk all day about the similarities between the two blocks and how the Grab Block was derived from the White Block, but it doesn't change the fact that merging them would be speculation without an official source backing it up. I always prefer to merge if an actual official source proves they're the same rather than based on our own unsupported observations of similarity. In this case, we instead seem to have an official source telling us that they're different (the Perfect Ban Mario Character Dajiten as Arend mentioned). I'm confused how the English names being untrustworthy has any relevance to merging the articles, and I genuinely don't understand what you're getting at with NSMBW ice blocks (if anything, doesn't one White Block derivative being split support a split for the other one as well)? Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 10:43, July 11, 2023 (EDT)

There are more than enough articles that contain more egregious speculative associations than this one. If any of those are up to wiki standards, then this should be perfectly safe. If not, then the wiki is in disastrous condition and there are tens or hundreds of tiny new articles that need making. Arend is suggesting that the English names are proof they are different objects, but if they cannot be trusted (which I don't think they can), then they are not proof to that effect. Arend also claimed that grab blocks are merely derivative of white blocks. As a counterpoint, I highlighted a block that is definitely derivative, and showed how it has substantial changes in-game that would suggest it is a different part, unlike the grab block which does not.
Also in response to the recurring argument that white blocks relate to bricks as grab blocks relate to rotating blocks, neither block has anything distinctly in common with the block it shares graphics with. White blocks cannot be destroyed through any of the means usable on bricks, and grab blocks do not rotate. It just happens that SMW does not have bricks so they had to change it to look like something else. WilliamFrog (talk) 18:37, July 12, 2023 (EDT)

While I agree with your general point and am in favor of the merge as creator of the proposal, I'd like to point out that at least Sparky and Piro Dangle (and possible one or two of your other examples) are merged with larger pages due to sharing the same Japanese name in addition to their general appearance and behavior, most likely only differing in English due to old localization teams and/or strategy guide authors not realizing that these were meant to be pre-existing Mario enemies, so this case does differ in that respect. You have a strong point regarding Bomb, Hammer, Lift, and Fuzzy Horde though. Pseudo (talk) 19:41, July 12, 2023 (EDT)

@WilliamFrog: If there truly are so many "egregious speculative associations", then yes, I do believe that it would be better to solve the problem than to continue its spread, in accordance with the wiki's clear guidelines discouraging speculation (though I feel like you're perhaps blowing the scale of this problem out of proportion). And on the other hand, I could just as easily bring up examples of when the opposite approach was decided on. Anyway, Arend also also suggested that the different Japanese names from a single source prove they are different objects, which has got to count for something. And the mistake you're making with your NSMBW ice block comparison is the assumption that only/primarily gameplay effects and functionality are what determine splits and merges, when in reality names and appearance both also play a large part, as well as most importantly any official word on the matter if applicable. If those NSMBW ice blocks were designed after bricks and named White Blocks, or designed after Rotating Blocks and named Grab Blocks, I feel pretty confident that we already would've merged them even despite their functional differences. Similarly, your claim that "neither block has anything distinctly in common with the block it shares graphics with" ignores the shared graphics that they have distinctly in common, which I'd argue is a more important trait than you're making it out to be. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 11:42, July 13, 2023 (EDT)

@Pseudo that is fair yeah. Admittedly I needed to find a lot of examples to make the gag work so they probably aren't all of equal quality.
@Hewer I said more egregious, not absolutely egregious. I honestly have no opinion on whether most of the examples are ok, but they've been allowed here for a long time, so that should mean this article is not a problem. Shared graphics in a game this old does not actually count for much. The only reason white blocks look like bricks is to save space on the cartridge. Really it is very misleading due to the lack of shared properties with bricks, and they probably would have made it more distinct if they had the resources available. SMW does not have bricks, as they were replaced by rotating blocks, which consequently also changed how white blocks looked. This is not an intentional decision where the developers thought the rotating block appearance was better and changed it on purpose, nor is it a case where they could have kept the brick appearance without defeating the point of reusing graphics in the first place. If the designers of SMW had decided to keep bricks, I guarantee you grab blocks would look like bricks, and we would not be having this debate as it would be very clear they are the same. That said, the only intentional design difference is the color changing from light blue to dark blue, which is very insignificant as redesigns go. There is more difference between the koopa troopas in both games.
I should like to mention, the reason they chose bricks and rotating blocks in particular is that the graphics for those exist as both a block and a sprite. Since carryable blocks function as blocks while fixed and sprites when moved, their graphics need to exist in both places. This would cost even more space if they used distinct graphics. Bricks and rotating blocks already have sprites as they use them while bumped, making it a very efficient decision to reuse them. WilliamFrog (talk) 15:11, July 13, 2023 (EDT)

A different appearance is a different appearance, regardless of the intent behind it. While they likely did choose to reuse graphics to save space, that by no means makes their differences some kind of unintentional accident - if they really wanted to, they could have changed the Grab Block design in SMW to match the White Block, I don't think resources were that limited by the time of the Super NES. And your argument that we would've merged them if they brought back bricks, while likely true, is irrelevant - if they had made them explicitly the same item as the White Block, we also would've merged them, but they didn't, so we didn't. In your particular scenario, we also wouldn't have any such thing as Rotating Blocks, but I can guarantee you we won't be merging those to bricks any time soon. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 17:39, July 13, 2023 (EDT)

I think you're missing the point. The convenience of the graphics aligning is the ONLY reason it looks like a brick or rotating block in either game. It has nothing to do with the actual design of the carryable block. The SMB3 devs did not say "it should look like bricks because it is a type of brick", and the SMW devs did not say "we should change grab blocks to look like rotating blocks because it makes more sense".
Also, as LinkTheLefty mentioned earlier, in the E reader levels of SMA4, the big boo boss from SMW is recreated, using white blocks in their brick style (as seen here https://youtu.be/_FVGXGQak2c?t=1005, and here https://youtu.be/F9q20awtDIE?t=1929 is the SMW fight for reference). Your argument about technically being able to use the original graphics applies here too. They probably could have used the SMW grab block sprites if they wanted it so bad. They didn't though, showing how they treat the brick-y white blocks as just the SMB3 artstyle version of the same part.
Also correct me if I'm wrong, but both SMB3 and SMW operate on a graphics bank system. This means that not every sprite in the game is loaded and able to be used at a given time; it only loads what is necessary for the current room. The number of graphics it can load at a time is much more limited than the entire space on the cart. Bricks and rotating blocks are so common in each game that they have to be loaded all the time. By sharing sprites with these, carryable blocks require no addition loaded sprites, meaning they can be used freely even in stages where the limit is reached by other objects. This makes it even more economical, all the more reason to not have dedicated sprites in SMW just to be a tiny bit more consistent. WilliamFrog (talk) 19:11, July 13, 2023 (EDT)

And once again, a different appearance is a different appearance, regardless of the intent behind it. Do they consider these blocks as counterparts for the differing styles of SMB3 and SMW? Yeah, probably. Does that make them the same thing in spite of official evidence to the contrary? Not in the slightest. There are a few cases I can think of where enemies/items with identical functionality but different designs and names to match a different style get split articles. It ultimately doesn't mean they can't still be different items. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 08:58, July 14, 2023 (EDT)

But a simple change of spritework is very usual to happen between games. Look at hard blocks for instance, which went from unidentified brown material to wood to grey stone to brown material again to grey stone again. Frankly the "same thing" is an arbitrary qualification. Are the grey stone blocks in SMW and the wood blocks in SMB3 really the "same thing"? Probably not. They're made of entirely different material, there's no way they're legitimately instances of the same object. They share an article largely because they've both been called "hard blocks", because they are blocks and they are hard, even though they're obviously different flavors of block. Now the names for the carryable blocks are pretty disorganized. You could argue they have different names in each game, but they also have different names in the same game and I'd expect them to get that straight first before you can honestly expect to compare between them. In addition, the names we are working with range from "unsophisticated" to "so blatantly inaccurate we can't tell if they're even talking about what we think they are". Even the artwork is confusing, with this seemingly depicting a white block as both a grey brick block and a smooth blue ice block in the same image. It looks to me like they just don't quite have their act together. Beyond that, they aren't any more different than the hard blocks are, spritework included. Since the official materials are so all over the place, I'd argue in this case it's based on whether the developers consider them to be distinct objects, and it doesn't seem like they do. WilliamFrog (talk) 07:51, July 16, 2023 (EDT)

"The same thing" is not an arbitrary distinction, it's what splits and merges are based on. Things that are the same should share a page, things that are different should be on different pages, things where we're not sure should default to being on different pages to avoid speculation. You keep bringing up naming inconsistencies to suggest we should default to merging them, but that's absolutely the wrong approach in my opinion - it's far more speculative and assumptive than splitting them is. "I'd argue in this case it's based on whether the developers consider them to be distinct objects" - and so would I, that's what I mean when I say "different" and "the same". In this sense, those different Hard Blocks are the same thing, as Mario Maker tells us (and also in the context of Mario it's not too outlandish for blocks of different materials between games to be the same blocks, suspension of disbelief and all that), while there's nothing telling us that the White Block and Grab Block are the same thing beyond speculation. That is the reason they should be split, and it is what sets this situation apart from Hard Blocks and the other examples. The problem with how you keep saying "there's other merged things that are more different" is that you keep ignoring how there is often still official proof of those things being the same, which doesn't exist here. The reason I'm so opposed to this isn't really because I think these blocks are wildly dissimilar to each other - if there was a more direct official confirmation that they're the same (a Mario Maker game, a guidebook, anything), I'd probably support this, but there's not, and the wiki's established precedent is to merge only if we know they're the same, not because they're similar (see the links in my earlier comments). Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 12:35, July 17, 2023 (EDT)

If you agree that it's based on whether the developers consider them the same object, then all the evidence points to them doing so (graphic sources, shared development histories, keeping the flashing between games, big boo, etc). The issue is that the evidence also points to the writers of the materials (who I don't believe are the same people) not being properly informed on the nature of an under-the-radar object like this. Poor communication with the developers is the sort of thing that would lead to the block in SMB3 being confused with itself in a single image for example, not to mention the inconsistent naming, and the description of dubious icy properties and inaccurate colors not exhibited in game. It is not hard to see how mistaking the appearance between games could come from the very same cause as the other strange phenomena regarding supporting material portrayals. The supporting material for this seems to come from a mere impression by the writers and not the devs themselves, in which case we're playing the telephone game by entirely relying on it for our information. We can paint a clearer picture by taking an in-depth look at the games and their development ourselves, as this is what the developers undoubtedly had the biggest hand in, and having done so this strongly points towards them being the same object. WilliamFrog (talk) 06:32, July 21, 2023 (EDT)

Ok, a correction - when I said "developers", I was more referring to overall official sources, since that's what this wiki is generally based on. There's no rule saying what we assume the developers had in mind takes priority over outward official confirmation to the contrary, and your narrative about poor communication is once again speculation. I think it's telling how flimsy your evidence is for the developers' thoughts - I already addressed these in previous comments where I said the Grab Block being based on the White Block or considered its counterpart doesn't make it the same item, and ultimately we just don't know what the developers' thought process was (I could tell you that they actually intentionally designed Grab Block as a similar but distinct item to White Block and thus named it differently, and it would be no more or less valid than your own conjectural story). And even if it "strongly points towards them being the same object", I don't care, we should default to splitting when there's no confirmation. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 06:16, July 22, 2023 (EDT)

If our goal is to provide the best information possible, then it is prudent of us to evaluate the information we receive instead of taking everything at face value. These things like names are not as 100% internally consistent as we might like them to be sometimes, and are not always the gold standard of differentness. I would've looked myself if I could read Japanese, but going by what LinkTheLefty said above, the sources we're working with can't get their names straight for other objects either, which are currently considered the same on this wiki, such as Fighter Fly. If flies can be on a single article, then having two names in one book (particularly this book) is not "confirmation" it's different. That or I'm waiting on Fighter Fly being split into 2-5 separate articles for every Japanese name it's ever had.
And besides, we are not computers programmed by the guidelines to execute them on every page with cold machine precision. We're doing this to provide the best possible information so readers can learn more about the games they play, and the conventions exist to guide us towards doing that. Whoever came up with them cannot see the future to ensure that following them to the letter is best in every single situation ever. They are the broad strokes, and sometimes we need to get into details. I'd argue that splitting in a case like this does more harm than good. A single article would allow readers to better understand the relationship between the games, and be far less redundant in terms of information. The split just lets us pat ourselves on the back for following conventions a bit closer. I think the better organization of information is more important than clinging to guidelines in grey areas where they apply in strange and unhelpful ways. It also would not damage navigation or be confusing, because users are not so feeble minded that they cannot handle seeing an article say something changed appearance, that happens all the time on the wiki. WilliamFrog (talk) 13:33, July 22, 2023 (EDT)

And once again, if there's no hard confirmation either way and we aren't sure whether they're the same or not, we should default to splitting them because it's less speculative and assumptive. If "evaluating information" means applying our own speculation in spite of what we know, then no, I think that's the opposite of prudent. I know that we don't always exactly need to follow the guidelines to the letter, but they also were written for a reason - if I thought they were flawed, I wouldn't have been championing them throughout this debate. I keep saying that we shouldn't default to merging just because we think they're similar, and it's not because the guidelines say so (in fact, there is to my knowledge no specific guideline saying anything to that effect beyond the general "no speculation"), it's because I genuinely think it makes for a significantly better presentation of information and has been set as a precedent on the wiki for good reason. How I see it, merging these items that we don't know are the same in order to enforce our headcanon that they are makes for a much less helpful experience to the readers. I don't understand why you claim this to be a "grey area" or "strange and unhelpful", see the links in my previous comments. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 18:18, July 22, 2023 (EDT)

From what I can tell, SMA4's World-e treats them as the same object (there's the burden of proof there), all of the "distinguishing" color-based names are generic descriptions within walls of text, SMB3's art is inconsistent with itself on their identity, coin blocks and blue coins have had the same differences as them, and nothing ever really treats them as different objects. That's not really speculation there, that's a logical conclusion. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 18:43, July 22, 2023 (EDT)

I am abstaining here, but I feel Blue Coin should be brought up, as it originally used an off-white cyan color before becoming a deeper blue down the line - exactly like the grabbable blocks (especially when one considers the unused blue coin in SMW, meaning both objects share a palette across both games). Main issue I have, though, is it doesn't factor in the ice blocks in NSMBW in any way despite the SMB3 blocks sometimes being described as ice blocks themselves. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 17:44, July 13, 2023 (EDT)

I think the NSMBW ice blocks would at least deserve a mention on the merged article, as they currently do on both the white block and grab block articles. WilliamFrog (talk) 20:12, July 13, 2023 (EDT)