[WikiEN-l] Overlong episode summaries, what to do?

[Thomas Dalton]

On 10/02/2008, Earle Martin <wikipedia at downlode.org> wrote:
> On 10/02/2008, Relata Refero <refero.relata at 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.

> 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
> encyclopedic.

It's not a random television program, it's the television program
that's the subject of the article.