On 10/02/2008, Relata Refero refero.relata@gmail.com wrote:
Isn't that list a particularly bad example? It merely mentions the particular Quite Interesting things brought up, and makes no effort to duplicate banter.
"Duplicating banter" is a good thing?
some of that stuff is *really* interesting.
[[WP:INTERESTING]]
And much more actually encyclopaedic than "On the surface, tumbleweeds blow across dirt tracks as the landing party make their way towards the buildings. T'Pol doesn't detect signs of weapons fire. Archer sends Mayweather to the communications tower to see if the data buffer is intact in order to copy their last transmissions." (From a random ST:E episode article.)
I believe there is a specific name for the fallacy that "X is fine because Y is worse", but it escapes my mind at present.
Regarding whether the content of the list is encyclopedic, the first sentence of [[WP:TRIVIA]] is "Avoid creating lists of miscellaneous facts." That in this case the list is a summary of miscellaneous facts mentioned in a random television program does not make it any more encyclopedic.