Talk:M&M's
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the M&M's article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 31 days |
{{WikiProject banner shell}}
to this page and add the quality rating to that template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.Brands C‑class High‑importance | ||||||||||
|
{{WikiProject banner shell}}
to this page and add the quality rating to that template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.Food and drink C‑class High‑importance | |||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 31 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
more colors
is there any point to mention the odd colors released this year in relation to the Star Wars film - off whites, pale yellows, very light tans and earthy colors, etc...
Also, the M&M's website allows you to order them in a whole rainbow of colors from white to black and in between... worth mentioning?
lastly, should the main body be changed to more properly integrate the second mention of the elimination of purple from the original mix, to where it is first metioned? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.35.95.181 (talk • contribs) 19:34, 25 September 2005
EDIT - The reasoning behind the pale colors of M&M's was representing the Light Side (or good side) of the Force relating to Star Wars. Since Anakin (and Luke) were both from desert planets, the colors were mainly a reflection of their background, I guess you could say. And in general, the pale colors have more of a passive or positive feel to them, whereas the Dark Chocolate (Dark Side) M&M's were all bold colors, representing strength, aggression, etc. of the Sith.
Sounds kind of fanboy-ish, but that's basically the reasoning behind the colors.
Hope this helps... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.151.197.4 (talk • contribs) 12:01, 8 July 2006
Trivia (again)
Does the bit about Kevin McReynolds and Carmelo Martinez being called the "M&M boys" really belong here? And didn't Roger Maris and Mickey Mantle have the same nickname? I figure if McReynolds and Martinez are notable for this, then Maris and Mantle definitely are. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.197.19.242 (talk • contribs) 20:52, 7 June 2007
What are they REALLY?
Maybe I'm being naїve, but I think that the process for making M&Ms should be added to this article. Especially the "Melt in Your Mouth" sugar coating. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.195.100.28 (talk • contribs) 13:31, 11 June 2007
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on M&M's. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100127202211/http://www.m-msbareall.com:80/ to http://m-msbareall.com
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 17:47, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
Introduction date can't be
The given introduction date of "February 29, 1941" CANNOT be! "February 29" is a LEAP DAY. "1941" is NOT a leap year. As such, something about the introduction date is wrong. Research needs to be done to verify the so-called introduction date.70.190.214.167 (talk) 01:14, 2 March 2016 (UTC)