Clarification Needed
Since Battlestar Wiki bases itself with a in-universe perspective of a fictional work, I'm certain Wikipedia's NPOV principles don't fully apply. However, I recommend the following corrollary, which I enter here for review before adding to the policy:
Most of Battlestar Wiki's articles chronicle characters, situations, and principles in a work of fiction. As such, as with the people, places and events of the real-world Earth, interpretation is likely and natural as part of the entertainment value of the Original Series, the Re-imagined Series and other official derivative works.
However, it is important that, even with a work of fiction such as Battlestar Galactica, not to assert an opinion of an event as a matter of fact. On Battlestar Wiki, violations of NPOV often occur when a contributor writes a contribution in the form of a review or essay, where the comments are personalized by the contributor and appear to have a single, polarized voice on a subject.
Any articles on cast, crew or other real-world contributions of the show itself should fully adhere to the Wikipedia NPOV principles.
You can review Wikipedia's policy on neutral point-of-view for the overall principles of the policy. When editing Battlestar Wiki articles, please keep this one point in mind:
*Let the facts speak for themselves.
It isn't appropriate to say, for instance, that Gaius Baltar or even Count Baltar is evil. The best way to document their intentions is to chronicle their actions in the articles and cite your sources. The facts tell the story to the reader neutrally, allowing the reader to form their own opinion and not to base their opinion on your own.
--Comments? --Spencerian 12:49, 12 January 2007 (CST)
- Looks good. -- Joe Beaudoin So say we all - Donate 12:59, 12 January 2007 (CST)
- Maybe something discussing the "in universe" POV should be elaborated as well. --Steelviper 13:02, 12 January 2007 (CST)
- So what about creating some kind of "behind the scenes" template for the few cases where a non-"in-universe POV" is needed, like real-life weapons used on the show (Small arms) or Filming locations? --Serenity 14:26, 12 January 2007 (CST)
- I have always argued strenuosly against the adoption of an in-universe POV. All our articles deserve to be written from a perspective which affords them the opportunity to be works of critical analysis. The mystique of the "false document" encyclopedia is completely lost on me. As such, at this time, all articles are written from a "behind the scenes" POV, and such a template is unnecessary. --April Arcus 16:06, 13 January 2007 (CST)
- For the previous discussion on this topic, see Battlestar Wiki talk:Standards and Conventions/Archive02#Verb Tense 2 --April Arcus 16:18, 13 January 2007 (CST)
- I have always argued strenuosly against the adoption of an in-universe POV. All our articles deserve to be written from a perspective which affords them the opportunity to be works of critical analysis. The mystique of the "false document" encyclopedia is completely lost on me. As such, at this time, all articles are written from a "behind the scenes" POV, and such a template is unnecessary. --April Arcus 16:06, 13 January 2007 (CST)
- That would be the most logical thing. Not to force all articles into a uniform look or voice, but afford them the freedom they need. To be honest, I don't see what the fuss is about, as long as there is a clear voice and not too much mixing of the points of view within one article. However, it seems some (especially Spencerian it seems) feel differently. That's why I suggested that. --Serenity 16:19, 13 January 2007 (CST)
Update
I expanded on the proposed language I noted above, and was able to contrast it to the real-world POV policy, and have added it to the article. The two now make much more sense, but do read, comment and/or change any mistakes. The one thing that this and its sister article try to note that BS Wiki is not a general encyclopedia on real-world objects, and there are times and places to write about the shows itself, or write about its events. --Spencerian 11:17, 30 April 2007 (CDT)
- I don't think such a complete divorce from the real world is appropriate. We all understand that this is a work of fiction, and understanding fiction is rarely best done by pretending it's real. Like all fiction it's full of allusions to the real world, standard techniques of fiction and drama and more. I'm no English Major but I do understand their role. In addition, in the context of this as Naturalistic science fiction I believe that contrasts and references to real-world science are entirely apropos, even if it is to document errors. We have pages on continuity errors and science, but I don't think those pages are the only places to mention such items. This show is not just SF, it's a mystery too, and the rules of SF, drama and mystery all apply to understanding it.--Bradtem 14:16, 30 April 2007 (CDT)