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

[Relata Refero]

On Feb 11, 2008 2:19 AM, 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, 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