On 10/02/2008, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 10/02/2008, Earle Martin
On 10/02/2008, Relata Refero
Isn't that list a particularly bad example?
It merely mentions the
particular Quite Interesting things brought up, and makes no effort to
"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.
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
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