On Feb 11, 2008 2:19 AM, 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, its a bad thing, they dont do it, hence its a bad example for your thesis.
some of that stuff is *really* interesting.
[[WP:INTERESTING]]
..and not an indiscriminate collection of information. And I chose that phrase as a joke, because the title of the show is ... oh, never mind.
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.
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. And I was still talking about how its a really bad example to choose if you want to make your point.
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.
Not a random television programme. The subject of the parent article.
RR