Forum:When to use bullet points

There's been some chatter and article reversion recently about whether bullet points are required when a section has just one item.

Two such articles are Atraxi 3 and Grandma Connolly. Although I can understand using bullets for single items in sections where more points will be added at a later date (for instance, when you're the first person to list a continuity point on a story page), I can't at all abide them on pages where a list is unlikely. We should, I think, always preference normal paragraphs where it's at all possible. mini-mitch would seem to disagree with me, on the basis of a discussion elsewhere. In discussing the matter over Atraxi 3, Tangerineduel felt that bullets kept the item from "wandering". I'm honestly not sure what that means, nor do I understand The Thirteenth Doctor's counterpoint that a bullet on a single point would somehow save editing time. If there's only one point, you save a keystroke by not using an asterisk, surely.

I think there should be a rule in-universe articles (that is, not story pages), that says that bullets cannot be employed until there are at least two bits of distinct information. (And even then, bullets should be allowed, but not required. It's quite possible to write reasonable paragraphs that don't require the use of bullets. Bullets are kind of a lazy way of writing, IMHO. For instance, I don't want to have taken the time to have constructed a multi-paragraph section, only to have another editor come through and chop it up with bullets "because the MOS said to". )

What do others think?
 * Personally, bullets should always be used under sections like BTS and Trivia, even if there is only one item, simply because that is how the formatting naturally works. Plus, there is always the possibility that more info will come. Ultimately, I don't see a problem in any way with the single bullet points. This is like the 'Big TOC' issue: if it isn't broke, then don't try to fix it. -- Bold  Clone  18:00, February 12, 2011 (UTC)


 * I think bullet pionts should be used in those sections. This topic has given me an excuse to bring an issue I have up too. I can't stand bullet points in infoboxes, it just looks naf, we should be using "br" instead in my opinion. Thoughts? --Revan\Talk 18:03, February 12, 2011 (UTC)
 * ...well, again, I don't really have a problem with bullet points in infoboxes. -- Bold  Clone  18:09, February 12, 2011 (UTC)


 * I think that bullet points should be used for all the behind the scenes notes (even if there is only one point). As I feel that it makes the information look much more presentable, easy to read and easy to identify points. Information will look much more tidier. If information if place without bullet points in the BTS section, it just looks really bad and like BC said, 'that's how formatting naturally works' and I also agree with him on the point 'If it isn't broke, then don't try to fix it'. I agree with the use of bullet-point in the infoboxes.  seems to make it look so much better. Bullet points muck the infobox up. In my opinion, bullet-points so only be used: with a list, BTS, see also, other information and other relevant sections. They should not be put in the infobox box, but only used in the body of the article. Mini-mitch\talk 18:11, February 12, 2011 (UTC)
 * You guys are making it sound like there's a policy in place and I'm arguing for some kind of change. The old "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" line doesn't work here because we've never formally discussed this issue as a community.  There are some articles where you'll find bullets being used for a single point, and there are some where you won't.  The point of this discussion is to define policy, not to change it.  So kindly stop acting like bullets are obviously the best way of doing things.


 * I utterly reject the notion that "that's how formatting naturally works". Proof, if any is needed, surely comes from the granddaddy of all wikis, Wikipedia.  Oh, yes, I know:  we're not Wikipedia.  But by their sheer size, they are much more likely to be the determinant of what's "natural" to do with the formatting allowed by the MediaWiki software than we are.  I urge all participants to this conversation to carefully read wikipedia:Wikipedia:Manual of Style (embedded lists) for a thorough, side-by-side comparison of the advantages and disadvantages of bulleted lists.  I also point you to rule #1 at wikipedia:wikipedia:Manual of Style which says, "Do not use lists if a passage reads easily using plain paragraphs".   That seems utterly sensible to me.


 * Again, I want to make it clear that I'm not talking about usage in infoboxes or on story pages. (If I were, I'd say I much prefer simple commas and no coded formatting in infoboxen.) I'm saying in an in-universe article, if there's only one thing on the page, there's no need for a bullet. If another thing happens to be added to that section, fine, then throwing up a list is allowable but it shouldn't be required.  In no way do I want my writing to be chopped up and needlessly bulleted, if I've taken the time to write a proper, prose section.  And anytime I see one point bulleted it makes me think, "That list isn't finished".  Not, "Oh wow, that looks neat and organized."

Bullet points are for listing. If there is only one point, how can you list?--Skittles the hog-- Talk 20:47, February 12, 2011 (UTC)