Talk:Air Cardgage

From Homestar Runner Wiki

Minor item?

With two incidental appearances, does this have enough for a page? At very least, this page needs to be cleaned up with an image. Personally, I'd rather see this redirected. wbwolf (t | ed) 03:09, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Heck no at all. I imagine seeing this on the items page. As I quote from every running gag talk page that has been deleted: "It needs to have three really good references and not two coincidental ones." Merge with items. — MichaelXX2 03:35, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Homestar Runner Wiki was made for everything Homestar Runner. Air Cardgage has been shown more than once on the site. So it should get it's own page shouldn't it?

Look, it takes THREE GOOD REFERENCES TO MAKE A PAGE LIKE THIS, IN CASE YOU FAILED TO READ MY POST. IT IS NOT NEEDED. — MichaelXX2 19:19, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Let's not get carried away, Michael, there have certainly been exceptions to that rule. In this case, however, its appearances have been minor enough for it to only be allowed a slot on the items page. —Guard Duck ^talk 19:22, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Look at the junkyard page. It only has one reference and it is barely seen and yet it still has its own page. I even think it is just behind the fence. Kevo411

First of all, MichaelXX2, WHY ARE YOU SHOUTING? Secondly, according to the Inclusion guidelines (which I want you to have a read over), a H*R-specific item or location "needs only one appearance in Homestar Runner toons, as long as it played an important role in the plot." The three references rule only applies to possible running gags. I'm leaning towards a keep and a major cleanup, simply because I didn't know that Senor Cardgage had his own brand of shoes and wouldn't have known this if this article hadn't been created. Also, we've kept articles on minor items which few appearnces before, (i.e. C'mon! It's FOG!). – The Chort 19:46, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree. I think this page is being judged on its current appearance and not on its merits. It would make a fine page. I also think people need to gain a better grasp of the "three appearances" rule. — Defender1031*Talk 19:48, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Completely agree with Defendemup Dan -128.103.10.200 20:04, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I was reminded of The Blue Ones article after I posted the note. So, maybe something like this? wbwolf (t | ed) 20:24, 1 March 2009 (UTC)