Talk:Matt Cake

From Homestar Runner Wiki

Jump to: navigation, search
This is the talk page of an article that has been merged with Secret Pages. Please do not participate in the discussions archived here. If you can provide a reason for the existence of this page that hasn't been discussed below, you may start a new section. Please refer to the inclusion guidelines that are generally applied to judge an article's merit.

Ummmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm... how's it scary? --Jnelson09 19:07, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I've removed that part, as it seems non-neutral and unnecessary. Heimstern Läufer 19:09, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] PATZ or PA7Z

That doesn't look like a T to me. Awexome 18:22, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Redirect

How does this deserve its own article? It's just a random hidden page. --Trogga 19:24, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

It deserves a page. If it doesn't, why does Super Brave have it's own page? User talk:Sam the Man Sam the Man 19:29, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Then why we don't we have an article for every secret page? --Trogga 19:33, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
I don't see why Matt Cake should have its own page. (And, as I understand it, comparisons (to Super Brave or any other page) aren't the way progress is made. See Talk:The Spirit of St. Louis.) OptimisticFool 19:36, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
I agree that it doesn't deserve a page. Tire cake is about the same thing and it has no page, as well as everything else in that section. This page is only four sentences long! - Saddy Dumpington 19:41, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
I don't see why it shouldn't have it's own page. Our job is not to downgrade the wiki or make information less accessible. Only so much can be put to a table. Also, I don't really like a table output of many things. It slows up my surfing and loading, when I have to load and go through all kinds of information I don't need to access one sentence in the bottom that I do need. And it can't be good for server, either. It's like loading up the all images list to find a image that starts with a Z. If anybody's asking me, I think we should leave this as is. --Sysrq868 19:43, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Reply to Saddy Dumpington: It doesn't matter if it's 4 sentences long. Some pages are even 1 or 2 sentences long. User talk:Sam the Man Sam the Man 19:45, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
How do most users find Matt Cake? From Secret Pages, which I'm sure draws a lot of its clicks from the Main Page. And from Secret Pages, who wants to open a bunch of separate articles for descriptions that can easily fit in a table on the page they've already found? Talk about slowing down your surfing! OptimisticFool 19:53, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but I've done some information design in my time, and big lists with a lot of irrelevant information is pretty much the exact opposite of a well-designed document structure. To find Matt Cake, I have scroll pretty much half of the darn long page down to find it! And it's not about who finds it, where, when or how. To access that page, I have to load 75 images and 32 kilobytes of data. That's a bit too much for my liking to read 4 sentences. I still feel we should keep this. --Sysrq868 20:02, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Then maybe we should consider splitting Secret Pages up into different pages, rather than different tables. Wouldn't that solve the problem? Is that a terrible idea? OptimisticFool 20:08, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
If you mean, that we should create like a subpage for each table, I like the idea. I'm not sure whether that's how this wiki likes to operate, but I'd do that immediately, if I knew for sure. --Sysrq868 20:11, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Started discussion at Talk:Secret Pages. OptimisticFool 20:20, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

The only thing I find notable about this secret page is that it is the 1st appearance of Little Girl. But other than that, I believe it should be deleted. Bad Bad Guy 01:13, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

It appears It's dot com made the executive decision that this subject is closed - no change is to be made. (See Talk:Secret Pages: "none of the pages linked from [Secret Pages] should be merged into a table; they should remain linked individual pages") What admin wants, admin gets, I guess. <sigh> That's the way this works, right, It's dot com? OptimisticFool 05:58, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Absolutely incorrect, this is a community, not a dictatorship. When it comes to things like this, It's Dot Com is still only one voice. — Defender1031*Talk 11:55, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Indeed. You'll notice I used the word should, not must or will. At any rate, I stand by my opinion that the table gives an overview of the various pages, and each page gives further information; nearly all of the individual pages are too long or too detailed to fit nicely into a table, so there's no compelling reason to combine them all. On the other hand, I was speaking generally, and perhaps was hasty when I said "none". There really isn't much to this page that wouldn't fit in a table, even if other pages would be too long to be merged. It hasn't been a separate page for that long, either. — It's dot com 02:44, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

we should still delete it. Slipknot6477 13:00, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Personal tools