On Feb 11, 2008 2:19 AM, Earle Martin <wikipedia(a)downlode.org> wrote:
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?
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