Battlestar Wiki talk:Real point of view

From Battlestar Wiki, the free, open content Battlestar Galactica encyclopedia and episode guide

Clarification Needed

Is this to consider an idea for a header noting a mostly "out-of-universe" article as opposed to episode articles, for example, which are typically in-universe perspective? --Spencerian 13:48, 16 January 2007 (CST)

I don't know if articles are typically in-universe so much as they are usually so grounded in canon/cited that they are "on-screen" only. I guess the in-universeness might be the fact that we don't automatically call a Hummer a Hummer, but it's not like we're having to suppress anything or pretend not to know anything. It's a pretty omnicient pov. --Steelviper 13:59, 16 January 2007 (CST)
Sort of the logic I had with the Religion articles. Just because we know that the Greek gods are similar doesn't mean we should make an repeated point about it in the article body. --Spencerian 14:04, 16 January 2007 (CST)
I wouldn't use for actor pages though for example, as those are obviously out-of-universe per definition. I'd mainly use for articles where one might expect an in-universe POV from the title, but which are written from another perspective for one reason or another. The best example would be the one where you voiced the criticism in the first place and which gave me the idea. The small arms article, that doesn't explain the weapons on the show so much, as it compares them to real-world weapons. Or mythological references, though the "references" might indicate clear enough that it deals with real mythology as opposed to the show's own mythology.
Personally I don't really see the confusion though, as long as the POVs aren't randomly mixed. You were the one who seemed the most in favor of a strictly in-universe POV. But even many of the "in-universe" articles make it clear that we are writing about a TV show and not some pseudo-historical document. It depends on the articles. Some stand to treat them strictly in-universe, while others are helped with more real-world references. --Serenity 14:05, 16 January 2007 (CST)
Agreed on actor bios and any other cast/crew/behind the scenes info. Yeah, I'm trying to wrap my head around what I've seen and what we've done. Most of the time in episode and item articles, we speak in-universe, but often mix out-of-universe comment and comparison. No, I don't think its a very serious problem except where an article's context has significant real-world comparison. Small arms is a good example, but contrast Computers in the Re-imagined Series where contributors (of which I've been more of the primary contributor) have mixed the voice a bit. Perhaps I should drop by Memory Alpha again to review; I think that's where I saw the struggles they've had in voice. My goal is to keep the voice mixing to a minimum by establishing a writing pattern (as we have with the use of present tense), although practically out-universe voicing shouldn't be fully stopped (take Articles of Colonization -- the article completely loses context without its non-footnoted, out-of-universe comparisons). The problem stems more from our explanations than our documentation of what we have seen; voicing is all context. --Spencerian 07:45, 19 January 2007 (CST)
Small arms is the best example of this proposed policy. It is a perfect argument of REAL world article. I have a pretty straight forward view. Episode Guides are guides; not real world point of view in anyway and most "Real World" language. We have to explain how the "technolobale" works for the avg. user. We "nerds" "geeks" understand, but it has to be in laymans terms. Anyway, that's it. Shane (T - C - E) 21:06, 14 February 2007 (CST)

Opposing Argument

First, let me link to my two previous comments on this matter:

Second, I will repeat and summarize my viewpoint, so as not to belabor the issue: I believe that Memory Alpha's policy of distinguishing between "in-universe" and "real-world" POVs is deeply flawed. Battlestar Galactica deserves to be treated as a literary work, and critiqued and commented on from a "real-world" POV at all times. It is frequently necessary to mix "real-world" commentary with content that is otherwise mostly "in-universe", and a policy establishing a strict dichotomy between the two will make such commentary difficult or impossible. Furthermore, I would like to reiterate that what I call the "false document mystique" holds no appeal for me. I am not interested in constructing an Encyclopedia which might exist in (any of the numerous) BSG continuities, but an Encyclopedia which exists in the real world and documents three television series, two failed continuation projects, three prose novel continuities and four comic book series. --April Arcus 14:08, 14 February 2007 (CST)

Well said, Peter. -- Joe Beaudoin So say we all - Donate 17:19, 14 February 2007 (CST)
I agree. I know that I had a hand in suggesting this, but not necessarily because I agree with it, but because one or two other people voiced some concerns over mixed points of view. Personally I think, it's usually perfectly obvious which is which --Serenity 05:29, 15 February 2007 (CST)
Peter's comments are well founded. The problem now is to work up a practical means to enforce such a practice with our contributors. To write articles in a "false document" mode is not the goal here; that would compel contributors to fashion themselves as authors that write a variant fiction here, which is a Bad Idea. It's voicing that needs to be adhered to, where in-universe and out-universe comments are mixed so heavily that the article becomes difficult to read. I concur in that we don't need or want Memory Alpha style formatting, but we do need to ensure that voices and real-world references are not mixed about in a confusing manner. When possible, articles should be simply encyclopedic to the topic, only, IMO. --Spencerian 08:49, 15 February 2007 (CST)

Major Update

I had a small caffeine-induced epiphany and was able to write out what I think is a clear note on where and how out-of-universe data and in-universe data combine and collide. The article was empty, and so I filled it, big time, based on comments here. Hopefully, this helps give some guidance on what is needed. --Spencerian 10:37, 16 April 2007 (CDT)


  • Date Started: Tuesday, December 4, 2007 at 12:00 (UTC)
  • Date Ending: Tuesday, December 11, 2007 at 12:00 (UTC)

Instructions: Use {{Support}}, {{Oppose}}, {{Abstain}}, and {{Neutral}}, supported by a reason and appropriately signed using the four tildes (~~~~).

Other users are encouraged to vote as well, simply use {{vote}} to add your vote. Refer to Template:Vote for complete instructions.

  1. Joe Beaudoin Jr. - Symbol opinion vote.svg Comment Uh, what are we voting on here? In the future, please specify what we're voting on so that we may, uh, know what we're voting on. Thank you. -- Joe Beaudoin So say we all - Donate - Sanctuary Wiki — New 17:37, 5 December 2007 (CST)
    • Symbol opinion vote.svg Comment I think the actual creation of real world point of view articles, along with the use of the template to identify them. Which... is something we've been doing anyway. I think this is basically something people had assumed was already policy, but hadn't yet been formally voted on. (?) --Steelviper 18:15, 5 December 2007 (CST)
      • Symbol opinion vote.svg Comment Aha! There's the difference (thanks, Peter!). Real world vs in-universe, I guess, even though almost all of our articles just straightforwardly document the series. I guess it's just whether your tone treats the material as being "real" or not? --Steelviper 18:18, 5 December 2007 (CST)
  2. CalculatinAvatar - Symbol abstain vote.png Abstain. Automatic leave of absence due to inactivity.
  3. Catrope - Symbol support vote.svg Support --Catrope(Talk to me or e-mail me) 12:38, 5 December 2007 (CST)
  4. Day - Symbol abstain vote.png Abstain. Automatic leave of absence due to inactivity.
  5. FrankieG -
  6. JubalHarshaw -
  7. Mercifull -
  8. April Arcus - Symbol opinion vote.svg Comment What am I voting on here? My comments above seem to have been received well, and yet the policy still includes provisions for the {{POV Real}} template, which I believe to be strictly redundant, as all articles on BS Wiki should be written from a real world POV. --April Arcus 17:31, 5 December 2007 (CST)
  9. Serenity - Symbol support vote.svg Support --Serenity 03:08, 5 December 2007 (CST)
  10. Shane - Symbol support vote.svg Support Shane (T - C - E) 17:06, 4 December 2007 (CST)
  11. Spencerian -
  12. Steelviper - Symbol support vote.svg Support --Steelviper 08:18, 5 December 2007 (CST)
  13. Talos -

Update Needed

This policy page, as it stands, does not accurately reflect the policy hashed out last year, and is therefore unintentionally misleading. For my own reference, has currently accepted practice changed since my time as a regular contributor, or are all articles still written from a real-world point of view? --April Arcus 09:14, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, it's a combination of both. Articles such as William Adama are written with both points of view. The "in-universe" perspective is used for the character's biography, while the "real world" perspective is used for the notes. What changes do you suggest? -- Joe Beaudoin So say we all - Donate - Battlestar Pegasus 05:49, 17 December 2008 (UTC)