On 10/02/2008, Earle Martin <wikipedia(a)downlode.org> wrote:
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.
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.
"X if fine because Y is worse and Y is considered acceptable" (the
last part was implied) is perfectly valid logic. (I dispute the
implied assertion that that particular plot summary is acceptable, but
that doesn't affect the logic.)
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
It's not a random television program, it's the television program
that's the subject of the article.