On 10/02/2008, 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, 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.