On 10/02/2008, Relata Refero <refero.relata(a)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.
--
Earle Martin
http://downlode.org/
http://purl.org/net/earlemartin/