Forum:CT Archive/Formatting of "Behind the scenes" - bullets or not?


 * There seems to be some confusion about whether asterisks/bullet-points (like the one at the start of this paragraph) should be used in "Behind the scenes" sections. My personal view is that they're useful, but some people dislike them, apparently because they see them as too list-like.

Contrary to what some people seem to think, there is no explicit policy on this issue. The nearest was this, which reached no consensus.

I know where I stand, but I'm not in this to win -- I just want to get the policy clarified.

Allow Bullet points in Bts

 * 1) Yes. Why? Two reasons. Firstly, it encourages people to keep Bts minimal, and prevents fanboyism: information, nothing more, parsed right down. Secondly, it defines the Bts section visually as something separate from the main text of the article. I think both things are very useful. --McEwok 03:43, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

No Bullet points in Bts

 * 1) Text should flow as prose, not as a list. And marking off paragraphs of prose with bullet points is just, well, silly, especially when paragraphs flow into the next. We should encourage better-written BTSes, not limited, choppy ones. Havac 03:47, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) Per Havac. Plus, bullets tend to lend the Bts to become a "trivia" section, which is bad form and generally frowned upon here.  Master Aban Fiolli  {Alpheridies University ComNet} 03:51, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) Perhaps the biggest no-brainer of all time? Toprawa and Ralltiir 04:03, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
 * 4) Per all of the above, and I am more than willing to entertain disruptive circular arguments regarding this. It's about time certain users began to understand that quite often precedent provides guidelines where policy has failed to assert itself. Graestan ( Talk ) 04:06, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
 * 5) BULLET POINTS GO BOOM!-- Goodwood [[Image:Rebsymbol2.png|20px]] ( Alliance Intelligence ) 04:10, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
 * 6) No bullets. The people who actually do things don't like them. Precedent says they go. If there's an FA with a bulleted BTS, the Inq needs to kill it. -- Darth Culator  (Talk) 04:22, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
 * 7) But see below. &mdash;Silly Dan (talk) 04:23, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
 * 8) Bullets are for note taking. BtS aren't notes. - Redemption [[Image:Redemptionusersymbol.png|25px]] (Talk) 05:07, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
 * 9) With the exception that it is possible, albeit highly unlikely that there is an appropriate use of bullets in BTS, per Silly Dan. Atarumaster88  [[Image:Jedi_Order.jpg|20px]] ( Talk page ) 06:08, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
 * 10) ...although I consider this not a "never use bullets" but rather a "don't always use bullets." If we need a list, we need a list. But the idea that BTS sections should be minimal is flat wrong. BTS isn't a footnote; it's as much a part of the article as the in-universe info proceeding it. We need to be encouraging thorough coverage of BTS material. -- Ozzel 06:24, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
 * 11) About time we got this codified. Per Havac, Fiolli, Graestan, Silly Dan, Redemption, Ozzel . . . well, basically, per everybody. jSarek 07:06, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Comments
Exceptions could be made if the best way to format part of the BTS is as a list. In most cases, a list is not the best way to do it. (I'm not adding this as another option, though.) &mdash;Silly Dan (talk) 04:23, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Per Dan on this specific matter, as there are sometimes benefits to having lists alongside other out-of-universe information, but we should always be mindful of our trivia policy when dealing with BtS. Often, disjointed and unsourced lists of unconnected statements result from the whole bullet point mentality, and it's something that vastly affects the professional appearance of the site as a whole. Countering McEwok's point, I do believe that the bullet points typically encourage fanboyism in this manner. Also, in accordance with our other policies regarding content, the BtS really should be considered a part of the main body of an article, as its information needs to be verifiable just as well as in-universe data does. Graestan ( Talk ) 04:35, 6 February 2008 (UTC)