On 10/02/2008, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
On 10/02/2008, Earle Martin wikipedia@downlode.org wrote:
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?
No, it's a bad thing, which is why it's a good think that the article makes no effort to do it - try reading more carefully before replying.
"A particularly bad example" is ambiguous in this context. You mean, then, that Relata was saying that the list is a bad example of a bad article. The way phrase "makes no effort to duplicate banter" sounds like a criticism also.
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.
It's not a random television program, it's the television program that's the subject of the article.
...that I encountered randomly. How would you feel if the program was something like, say, [[Ikebukuro West Gate Park (TV series)]]? (Substitute something equally foreign to you if you happen to watch TV in Japan.) All articles on TV shows and other media should be approached by their writers with the totally unfamiliar audience in mind, and aim for clear and succinct explanatory writing, not a robotic parroting of every minor point of the show's content ever broadcast.