Jump to content

Talk:Babylon 5/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

Michael O'Hare in season 2

Rather than starting some contrived editing war, I'm going to use the page set aside for such disputes.

Personally I view a cameo as a most often none speaking, background roll. Sometimes a little more, but often as described. Michael O'Hare is credited as starring in 'The Coming of Shadows' (at the end of the episode to avoid spoiling the surprise presumably). Now I accept it is maybe not a 'recurring' roll, but it was more than a cameo. Also, Patricia Tallman is listed as 'recurring season two - three', even though she was credited as starring in one episode of the season also.

I'm open to suggestion, but I disagree with the use of the word cameo, though am unable to think of anything inbetween cameo and recurring. Anyone's thoughts? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.12.89.129 (talk) 11:12, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Previous Discussion

I have archived the previous discussion page at Talk:Babylon 5/PreviousDiscussion. It was getting way too long and cumbersome.

Perhaps, but there was still some current ongoing discussion, which I'm now restoring. Cain Mosni 11:21, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Moved to Talk:Babylon 5/Archive 1 in order to make easier the naming and categorisation of any future additions. Steve T • C 14:17, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Babylon 5 wiki encylopedia project

If anyone is interest in creating an independent Babylon5 Wiki reference (analagous to the Memory Alpha Star Trek Wiki), I'd love to participate. I began a personal B5 encylopedia project a year or so ago, and it currently measures several thousand entries, at my estimation (although it is still nowhere near completion), and I'd love to offer that up as the beginning of a Babylon Wiki Project. I would set one up on my own, of course, but I lack the technical expertise and resources to do so. If anyone is interested, please let me know... Seth Ilys 03:35, 13 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Count me in! Ausir 11:30, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Me, too! --Phil | Talk 15:30, Jun 22, 2004 (UTC)
And me (and now I'm really going to bed!) — OwenBlacker 00:46, Jun 28, 2004 (UTC)

Before you create your own B5 wiki, you may want to consult with Steve Grimm, who runs The Lurker's Guide to Babylon 5. That web site is a highly comprehensive guide to the series, and a wiki would be largely redundant to it. I think he should be contacted anyway about maybe bringing his episode info pages into this Wikipedia to fill in the B5 episode articles which exist here (somebody went to a LOT of trouble to create an article here for every episode, but they're all far too stubby). Brian Kendig 03:43, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Has anyone followed up with the suggestion above, now over six months old, about merging the content of the The Lurker's Guide to Babylon 5 into Wikipedia? It is an outstanding resource, and I'd like to see its content mirrored if for no other reason than to preserve it. I'm a big fan and Wikipedian, and I'd love to help with the transfer, but obviously this content is copyrighted and a license needs be secured. Anyone? Alba 01:02, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Take a look at the Babylon Project over at Wikicities. I think you might be pleasantly surprised. And if you aren't, get editing!!! (:-) --Phil | Talk 09:55, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)
Unfortunately, that project has since collapsed. Wikia wants someone to adopt it. I am thinking about it. However, I need to fill two volunteer positions before I start.
  • The "Artistic Manager" would be in charge of the site theme. This would include the logos, CSS files, style of all templates, and all copyright issues. This person may want to delegate some of those responsibilities. To apply, please state what you use for editing PNG, JPG, and MPG files. (Unlike Wikipedia, I do not believe that OGG has enough players.) Also, can you create SVG files? How about APNG files? (That is a animated version of PNG where the first frame is stored where all PNG parsers can see it. Subsequent frames can be ignored by parsers that only understand single frame PNG files.)
  • The "Promotion Manager" would be responsible for telling the world about our wiki without anything that might be thought of as spam or, on Wikipedia, vandalism. It would help if you do sales for a living.
Will 05:13, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Technomages

I think technomages should have their own page and should be mentioned more here. Anyone feel the same way?

If someone decides to discuss technomages, it should be done within the Crusade sub-section. A paragraph should suffice. The technomages were marginal in B5. As far as I can remember, they were only present in 1 episode, and perhaps mentioned a few times by the Centauri. EDGE 03:47, Sep 22, 2004 (UTC)
While they only occur once in the series itself, Galen is a regular presence in Crusade, and over the course of that series they hint at some of the background of the technomages. The story of the technomages is also exhaustively detailed in the Passing of the Techno-Mages book series (Which is itself based on outlines from JMS). In any case, there is now an article for the technomages.--Mattmcc 07:59, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
Did plans exist for fleshing out the tecnomages more with episodes that were never written?--Will 07:57, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
It is clear from a couple of the Crusade episodes that they were to be explored at least in the context of Galen's strained relations with them. Cain Mosni 11:25, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Babylon 4 Propulsion System?

66.255.108.148 mentions in his edit that babylon 4 has a propulsion system? Does anyone have a refrence of where this is mentioned? I'm 99% positive it's not in any of the 5 seasons of B5 or Crusade or any of the movies. I'm not doubting you per-se, I just am curious.

Take a look here. Actually it was a well-known fact that B4 had its own propulsion system: that was why it was so much bigger than B5 (over 6 miles long), and also why it was chosen as a platform to lead the previous fight against the Shadows.
The cited webpage sounds like it has material from outside the B5 canon — Babylon 5, Crusade, and the TV movies. (For example, where in the TV shows was Babylon 4's secret fate after the earlier Shadow War mentioned?) Information from other sources cannot be considered "well-known" except by serious B5 fans. Is there a canonical reference to Babylon 4's propulsion systems? — Jeff Q 12:40, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Found it on the Lurker's Guide (this is JMS himself answering a question):
Question
Did B4 have more firepower than B5?
Answer
Yeah, B4 had more firepower, and it had one thing B5 doesn't...engines that can move it forward if necessary.
HTH HAND --Phil | Talk 16:54, Jan 12, 2005 (UTC)
The comic series "In Valen's Name" is considered canonical, I believe, and reveals the fate of Babylon 4. Lokicarbis 10:52, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Does someone have a reference as to why B4 had more firepower?--Will 07:59, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, the link directly above references JMS saying that it does. --Eyrian 16:25, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Will, if you want an "intent" why, I believe that after B4 was destroyed the Earth government was barely able to approve B5, and weren't willing to commit as much money to it as to B4.


Spoiler tags moved. Also: RfC

I moved the spoiler tags. Does it look OK? Also: There is a dispute on whether or not spoiler tags are appropriate for Wikipedia. Some editors wish to remove spoiler tags while other editors wish to keep them and/or update their guidelines and appearance. A request for comment has been started at Wikipedia:Spoiler warning/RfC with a structured discussion page on Wikipedia talk:Spoiler warning/RfC. All editors are invited to share their input on any or all of the issues being discussed. --GunnarRene 03:54, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

RE: Spoiler tags moved.

Good call on the spoiler tags on the "Trap Door" section. I'd stupidly forgotten to put those in when I added that section. Mea Culprit.

Were there possibilities of more seasons?

I know the main plan was for 5 seasons. However, did that plan limit the producers to just that many? Most series are open ended in that they continue until ratings fall or someone gets tired of the series (like David James Elliott and JAG).--Will 07:52, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

That's the thing, B5 was not open ended. It was planed for 5 seasons, that's all. Many of the plot likes could have theoretically continued in the spin-off series, Crusade and Legend of the Rangers. However, Crusade only ran for 13 episodes and Rangers never made it past the pilot movie. Koweja 19:32, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Stracszynski said from day one (as I witnessed first hand at a very small huddle at a convention in 1995) that Babylon 5 itself had a 5 year span, and no more, but that at the end of it all there would be one core item that might itself be the basis of a series, and he is reported to have said the same consistently on a number of separate occasions before and after that conversation.
At that time he refused point blank to elaborate further, but most people assume that the "one issue" was the Drakh (and their revenge), which ultimately led to Crusade which had a much more open-ended and episodic format. Clearly this wasn't altogether true, however, because there have been several films, and an attempt at another related series after the failure of Crusade. It is possible that with Crusade being canned so early in its run and surely greater issues than just the Earth's predicament to be unveiled, Legend of the Rangers was going to draw on the same story material and make some effort to replace the former. Cain Mosni 20:07, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
I think at some point JMS said they were wrapping up season 5, and the network got in touch to talk about season 6. His reaction was something alomg the lines of "You're kidding, right?"
Duggy 1138 00:17, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

It's funny that I missed this section. First off: about the sixth season. Straczynski discussed it at one point, and in fact, I just added that note to the article about the DVD series recently. He had discussed the idea in 1996 of doing a sixth season that would be an anthology show, following individual characters in non-arc stories. Seems that now, he's got his wish.

Also, note that the hook that Straczynski had talked about certainly seemed to me, at the time, to be much more significant than the Drakh turned out to be. My guess is that he was referring to the overall idea that the first ones packed their bags and left in a relative hurry, and there would be consequences. The Drakh are certainly an element of those consequences, but I would be surprised if they were the only element that was to be explored in Crusade. If you're curious, you can always ask him. He still responds to posts on the B5 newsgroup. -Harmil 04:07, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

You're right. The Drakh plague was to be just one part that was going to be explored in Crusade, and was to be resolved in the first year or two of the series already. However, there would be behind the scenes political machinations going on at earth, and left over shadow tech at other places that was being abused, after which everything was going to spin out of control again. It would've been interesting. For more info, see the answers he gives in this interview here, after the "Where would Crusade have gone?" question and the couple after it. --Codemonkey 04:31, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I have removed external links to discussion forums as they are a violation of WP:EL. -- MakeChooChooGoNow 09:07, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Except that the Babylon Podcast is not a discussion forum, it is a *podcast* with actual actors and crew from the show. I'm reverting the edit. TheRealFennShysa 15:23, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Please, stop reverting - according to WP:EL blogs generally should not be linked (and podcasts are blogs with audio attachments).Futurix 16:45, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
While in general that seems to me to be an overly strict interpretation of WP:EL (A podcast by the creators/actors is often practically official material, and seems appropriate to me), in this case, it appears that only one of the podcasters was associated with the show, and judging by his bio on the site, citing him as an "actual actor" doesn't give the argument much strength. -- Fru1tbat 17:15, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Methinks it should do to the personal article of the actor/author then.Futurix 17:24, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
The Babylon Podcast has had the cooperation of many of the cast and crew of B5, plus has the assistance of Jeffrey Willerth, who was not only the producer's assistant, but also was the performer in the Kosh suit. Speaking as someone not only connected to B5 (but not the podcast), but very informed about its history and/or fandom, please stop removing the link, as you're misinterpreting and/or over-interpreting the guideline. TheRealFennShysa 18:46, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
And according to WP:EL, the link should be included - see item 5 under What should be linked to where it mentions interviews. TheRealFennShysa 18:58, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
It does not mean that every single website with interviews should be linked. Besides a huge part of website in question is fan's discussions about B5 - not interviews. Futurix 23:12, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
This is at best a grey area that probably hasn't been addressed yet by policy: the recent creation of quasi-professional, fan-created podcasts with significant involvement from the (clearly notable) artists involved in the subject. I would suggest that unless and until it has been thrashed out on a general basis, it is better to err on the side of limiting ourselves to Wikipedia:reliable sources, in which fan productions are almost never included. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 23:40, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Hey everyone, I was considering linking to AOL, where you can now watch the episodes for free. It only has seasons one and two (and part of three), but they are free to watch. I was wondering if you guys thought that was a good idea. And if you do think they should be linked, should the individual episodes on In2TV be linked to the individual episode article page (instead of linking on the main B5 page to the main B5 page on In2TV)? Thanks for your comments--Benhood 18:19, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I think there does need to be an In2TV link somewhere associated with the article, legal free episodes seem very relevant (even if they have ads in them) and in my reading WP:EL it is silent on this type of link. Having an individual link for each episode page seems a bit excessive, I would go with a single link on the main page. Monty845 02:19, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Nope, no can do. See my note farther down the page re: "Free" video sites. --Orange Mike 03:00, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Theme section needs major overhaul

One of the main themes of B5 seems to be missing from the themes section. This missing theme is (roughly stated): "How Races of Vastly Different Levels of Evolution Interact With Each Other." The show deals extensively with how advanced races (Vorlons, Shadows, First Ones) interact with less advanced races (Humans, Minbari, etc.) An idea often mentioned is that ants are to humans just as humans are to Vorlons. Is this show primary about light vs. dark, or is it about possible scenarios that can occur when races of vastly different tech levels co-exist? Personally I believe it is the latter, and other themes such as light vs. dark and order vs. chaos are particulars of this main theme. The Shadow War resulted in Vorlons and Shadows abandoning their fight and letting the primitive races learn things for themselves. To me this is not about light vs. dark or order vs. chaos. It's about how very advanced races choose to deal with the primitive races; in this case, letting the primitive races evolve on their own. I wonder how the rest of you think about this. It would also be very interesting to know how JMS thinks about this.75.84.83.99

I wanted to post here that my intentions are good in my edits to the theme section of the article. I've come across some problems with the sub-sections, and so I'm going to adress the major ones here and hopefully the minor ones are clear (I've removed some of the more obvious OR). I've also tried to make it more prose friendly.

  • The "Authoritarianism vs. chaos" section currently is all over the place. While it rightly mentions the first two questions: "Who are you?" and "What do you want?", the third one (and the vague 'unknown' 4th) don't fit at all in the context of "light vs. dark". I've removed the rest because it just didn't meld properly. If the Theme was reworked entirely into "Questions", then it could fit.
  • While I'm trying to keep a NPOV in my edits, I just don't personally see how "Fighting the system" is a core theme, when most of the attributes take form in any other, especially the "Light vs. Dark" or "War and Peace" sections. If I'm wrong on this please add this section back in.
  • The "War and Peace" section can completely do without the timeline. While it is helpful, it's something that breaks the entire flow of the section, and would be better without it in my opinion as the text can speak for itself on the subject without needing extra explanation.

References still need to be added, but I hope that these changes are viewed as positive changes, and if anyone has any questions I'd be happy to discuss them. Radagast83 05:38, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I also should ask, is this page about Babylon 5 the series, or Babylon 5 the franchise? If it's supposed to be more focused on the series, then perhaps the Spin-off, Novel..., and especially the video game sections should be reduced masively, as more attention should be focused at least on the series at hand, of which the "Novel" section would be important, but the video game section (of which no offical video games have ever been released) and the spin-off section (which should have a more concise explanation of the spin-offs) should have some work done to reduce the size a bit to make it more clear and in keeping with the article's focus. Radagast83 06:16, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
Again, in terms of the overall series, how notable is the "Ethnicity and language of characters" as well as the "Usage of English"? Personally I'd feel they're pretty low on the notablility of the series, and the article probably should give these sections less weight and probably could be handled in two well written paragraphs total. Radagast83 06:58, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
"References still need to be added…". I think this sums up the basic problem of the plague of "theme" sections for TV-show articles: they're all original research. That's not to say they don't have accurate information in them, or even that some of it is known to have been discussed by the creators, players, and reviewers. It's that no one ever sources what are clearly original essays on these subjects. Editors just write what they think they know or see on the screen, completely ignoring one of the most important policies of Wikipedia: verifiability. You can't just say, "well it's obvious from watching episode so-and-so!" We're supposed to have proper secondary sources for this material. The references should come first. The best thing to do would be to remove the entire section until people do their homework and actually research the topic (by reading the secondary sources, not by watching the shows) before expounding upon it. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 07:03, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
I agree. Find a source first, then write it. Same is true for a lot of the other sections here though, although most aren't as susceptible to OR as a a 'themes' section. E.g. the trap door section has no sources (and does need a bit of a rewrite), but can be fairly easily salvaged, so I wouldn't suggest outright deleting the poorly sources non-themes sections. (I was able to find sources for the trap door section with relative ease, although I haven't had time yet to properly rewrite that section and integrate the sources I found: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8]). In short, I think this entire article could do with a good rewrite, reorganization, and tightening of the writing. I'm willing to dedicate myself for a bit to that, and with some time I think it would not be that hard to drastically improve this article. --Codemonkey 11:48, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
I don't think it should be too difficult to come up with references (hopefully from multiple sites (instead of just the JMSnews site, but in the case of Babylon 5 it seems difficult since the show ended before the huge internet craze, and the show has more of a cult following then something such as Star Trek, which has at least dozens of professionals who have analyzed episodes at a greater-than-fansite level. A slow process of looking at the existing information, coming up with sources and references, and removing all the very unsourced crufty information, should not take too long. I cleaned up the first Theme sub-section hopefully making the section passable at the moment (with need for more proper details to come once we clean out the "garbage" on the page). Radagast83 15:54, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
Unfortunately after doing some searches, the only section that I could really support with any references was the "light vs. dark" section. The rest, while they may be "true", stink of Original Research and must go. I've copied the text and will probably try in the near future to find sources, but as is, it must go. The Trap Door part should be moved up in the page, and perhaps the season episode section could be merged with the DVD section and have that be re-written a bit to more focus on the seasons/episodes (with notes to when they were released on DVD). It could make the article flow just a bit better (and be shorter). Radagast83 03:23, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Sourcing vs. removing

After a discussion with Radagast83, I'd like to bring this concern to a larger audience, since it affects the whole page. Babylon 5 is a TV show that lasted 5 seasons, and was almost entirely written by one man who liked to communicate directly with the public. This is, to say the least, unusual. Because of this, there are strong themes in the show which was written as a single story, not as episodes, and we can find sources for those themes. I would ask that, rather than simply deleting material, people seek sources or clarifications for what is here. For example, while the religion section was poorly written, it is key to the story of Babylon 5, and Straczynski makes it clear that it was an important theme for him. Cleaning up and sourcing that section was not much harder than deleting it, and doing so gives us a final article with more depth and more clarity.

Please, consider this as you edit. Thanks. -Harmil 18:54, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

How about a compromise when it comes to the Language issue. The way I see it now (after review) is that the "Usage of English" section should be renamed to just "Language" (or something to that effect) with all language parts moved there from the "Ethnicity and language" section into the new section. Distilling the less meaningful trivial information (the cases of guest characters speaking in a different accent), and making a strong section that covers all the various languages and their different accents, or what have you. Example: The "Earth language of commerce" is important, but the trivial mention of one character saying something in Spanish isn't (if you feel it is, I can just do the merge, and leave the actual language bits in until further discussions can be done). Radagast83 19:54, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Update: As I said, in retrospect, I see how language is important to the show. However, I don't see how (in the context of the entire show) how ethnicity is as important to the big picture (to a character yes, but not the entire arc), especially after previewing a edit I'm about to implement (to strengthen the Languages aspect before including citations). The section is now up in the "Concept" section (where it was about 5 days ago). I've kept almost all the language section intact, save very trivial sentences, and moved most of the accent/language parts from "Ethnicity and language" into the Languages section. I hope the changes are agreeable. Radagast83 20:57, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
How many episodes have to touch on something for it to be important enough to fit your criteria? How much plot does it have to impact? Ivanova's background is fairly key to her character. Her Jewish and Russian heritage is revealed throughout the first season, and informs her character in obvious and subtle ways throughout the series. Why would you drop ethnicity as a subject? (For the record, first season shows that involved Ivanova's background: Midnight on the Firing Line, Born to the Purple, TKO, Eyes) -Harmil 22:56, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
It has to make enough of an impact to make sense adding it to the main article page. I'm not against any of her personal information making it on wikipedia in some form, just the location (I feel it fits best in her character's article). It is a matter of weighing the value of the information compared to the other information that is in the article. The ethnicity section was weighed down by mostly either language information and character summaries. Unfortunately, when you distill and move merge the information about language with the rest of the language information (It was mostly about what the auidence hears as English), the ethnicity section turned into just a character summary section. It shouldnt' belong on here, or we're looking at a 60K+ article length with mostly redundant information. I just want this article (as well as the other B5 articles) to be as clear and organized as possible. Radagast83 02:35, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion in this section demonstrate why sourcing is so important. People are arguing about their own opinions of what is important, rather than letting the secondary sources, that Harmil correctly says are available, determine what is considered important. Anything else is original research. (Please read Wikipedia:Reliable sources#Some definitions for explanation of why secondary is preferred to primary, like the episodes themselves.) If we start with the sources, rather than grafting them on after we compose our own opinions, we don't need to argue about what's important.

Of course, we may miss some topics that some feel are important. But not everything that is "true" is necessarily suitable material for Wikipedia. To quote the very first line of Wikipedia:Verifiability: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." (Emphasis in the original, and the bold phrase is repeated twice in the article to make the point.)

As far as sourcing rather than removing, WP:V also includes the following policy, again bold in the original:

  1. Articles should contain only material that has been published by reputable sources.
  2. Editors adding new material to an article should cite a reputable source, or it may be removed by any editor.
  3. The obligation to provide a reputable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not on those seeking to remove it.

This is probably a practical guideline, based on the kind of work that our editors are likely to do. We all like to write; that's why we participate. Many of us like to do cleanup as well. This labor is cheap, even for the free-contribution market. Getting proper sources is much harder. Most sourcing efforts never extend beyond Google searches and discussion boards, which are also easy to add, even if they aren't reliable sources. Very few editors take the time and trouble to get proper sources, especially if they're print. (When was the last time any of us went to a public library to check on something for WP?) Considering all this, Babylon 5 editors have it easy. As Harmil points out, JMS was unusually interactive with the show's fans, and quite a bit of material is available electronically. The extent to which we haven't even bothered to collect these sources and use them to write the theme sections shows how much harder it is to get sourcing done properly than writing and cleanup.

Finally, even if we ignore the idea of starting with sources and simply must have the original-essay texts of the Theme section as a basis, that material will always be available in the history if someone finally gets around to backing it up with sources. Deleting this material (and keeping it deleted until good sources are collected and cited) is an excellent means to motivate us to do the job correctly. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 01:39, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Ulch. Deletionism at its most refined, Look, I'm not saying that the cruft about true seekers was relevant (it's a phrase used in the show, but it was taken out of context here) or sourcable. However, you're mistaking an argument over what elements of the show make the grade for discussion on this page with some sort of desire to keep anything anyone has typed, forum-style. I'm certainly not in the latter camp, but when you just remove something such as the note that Straczynski, an atheist, specifically made religion a major theme of the show, you are removing an important element of the history behind the show, and there's no particular assurance that someone who knows better is going to notice that you've done so and fix it. No, it wasn't correctly sourced, and yes, it should have been tagged {{fact}}. Why does deleting slowly (e.g. makring those things that need sources, and retiring them after some period of time) hurt the page, since these sections have been here for quite some time already anyway?
Now, on to the idea that external sources must be the only guide in developing an article. This is complete nonsense. I defy the adherent of this mantra to read July 28'ths featured article, Bulbasaur and explain to me how this showpiece of Wikipedia was guided by reliable sources only. It's a deeply non-notable subject (a side character in a children's video game series) and one on which there's no such thing as scholarly treatment. And so, we pick and we choose, and we debate notability of elements of the topic. When we are done debating, we prune and preen and dust and try to cite our sources as best as one can, given the topic. Now, B5 is a much richer ground for good sources, and that makes our job easier. However, the importance of Ivanova, for example, to the overall story is still questionable. You can still debate the inclusion of her background, and so we do. You won't find an article in Newsweek that will help you decide... you just have to make the call you think is right for Wikipedia. -Harmil 03:53, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Overlooked in trapdoor section

In the trapdoor of Talia Winters the "data crystal" plot is in fact used (episode 2x20).

GA: Cast and primary characters

This was part of the WP:GA review, above:

"Cast and primary characters" section: List should be Actor, Character (not other way around). The real-world context is an actor played a character (encyclopedia) - not the character was brought to life by an actor (fansite).

Eh? Can someone point me to a policy page for this? We could just as easily say:

List should be Character, Actor (not the other way around). The article is about the show, and its characters, which involves detailing who played those characters (encyclopedia) - not a fan site for the actors and what roles they have played (fansite).

We're talking about a fictional show, so any article treads the line between fanish and encyclopedic. Somehow I'm just not seeing that the ordering of fake and real names is somehow tipping that balance one way or the other. -Harmil 19:00, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Archive sites

I hate to get nit-picky, but I just want to point out that the use of JMSNews: The J. Michael Straczynski Message Archive is something that I've been meaning to bring into question for a while. I have found a number of his postings to Usenet which the archive does not seem to contain, and the information in the headers is often WRONG (JMS posted from two different accounts to Usenet, one early on and one on AOL later, JMSNews only lists one address for all). A more reliable archive at this point is Google News, which is what I try to use for most of my citations of Usenet these days for two reasons:

  1. You can get at the original message's format and headers
  2. You can cite conversation threads as well as articles (this came in handy for citing a controversy in Perl 6 development, recently).

I hope this helps. I'm not saying we must not use JMSNews, but perhaps if you're going to go looking for a source, you should consider something else first? -Harmil 19:12, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

FYI: This is the search string that I use on Google Groups: 

( author:straczynski@genie.geis.com | author:jmsatb5@aol.com ) ( group:rec.arts.sf.tv.* | group:alt.tv.* )

Just add your search terms to that. You might also want to limit the search by dates (it's hard to search for specific things from someone who has been posting for over 12 years!) -Harmil 19:36, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Images

Q Original (talk · contribs) has placed a new image of the cast on the article, which I think is redundant. Redundancy has two impacts when it comes to fair use images: first, it takes up space that a more informative image could have filled. Second, it brings into question the fair use status of the use of the images, since the claim that we required the image to illustrate the topic is brought into question. If these images were from different seasons, then perhaps we could place one on each season, but as it is, I simply don't see any reason to add the new image to the page. Q Original's claim on my user talk page was that "my image is the biggest and coolest," which doesn't really seem to support the image's use and certainly doesn't overcome the hurdle of fair use rationale. -Harmil 18:17, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Since no one responded, I've removed the redundant image, though there's an article about the cast, and that image (along with the other promotional shots for that season which included individual shots of each major character) could be used there, I'm sure. -Harmil 18:19, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Captain Jack

The actor playing "Captain Jack" in "Racing Mars" spoke with a strange combination of Australian, American and Cockney accents. - Might he be South African? Only guessing... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 140.203.12.241 (talk • contribs) 6:17, 20 September 2006.

I think that his accent is a somewhat strangled "British" accent, as first used by Dick Van Dyke in the film Mary Poppins. The recent crop of American actors can now do a very convincing "English" accent (even if regional dialects still fox them), so I assume that Captain Jack's bizarre mode of speech was left in as a sort of private joke. Paul-b4 16:42, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Some comments

I bet User:Harmil is getting sick of me! :)

Right.

  • "It was also the first sci-fi series to respect Newtonian physics in its space battle sequences, with particular emphasis placed on the effects of inertia." Do we have a source for this? I think a claim to be the first of anything needs to be backed up with a reasonably good source, particularly something like this where something obscure might have done it without most people realising.
  • Does "trap doors" belong so high up in the article? OK, I find it particularly interesting, because among other things I'm a writer and like to study the techniques used to write any fiction I enjoy. I don't suspect it's a priority for most people, though.
  • Similarly to the first point, if JMS really was the first to write a full season of TV shows, we need a better source than a newsgroup post for it. Newsgroups aren't reliable sources for anything controversial, which such a claim may be. Or change the text to "Straczynski claims to be...". Or something.
  • Later in the same section: Talia's data crystal was either never used, or JMS used it in a short story. Both can't be true.
  • "Babylon stations" section: Might be nice to point out that the fates of the previous stations play into important themes in the series, i.e. sabotage by growing anti-alien sentiment on Earth & more directly in the whole stealing B4 story arc.
  • "Themes": the introduction of the shadow & vorlon questions could probably do with some explanation. Somebody who hasn't seen the show would probably have a WTF moment on reading that.

Hope this is helpful. JulesH 13:52, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Good suggestions.
  • I seem to recall this being debated previously to no avail. Perhaps changing it to "one of the first"? In any case, we should find a source to back up this claim.
  • In one sense it does fit there because the previous paragraphs are about how B5 is a miniseries with a story that was complete from the beginning and the trap doors are related to that. However the way it is structured and the length of the section make the trap doors seem like one of the most critical aspects about the show. I would prefer it was later on in the article. Possibly as the third sub section of Original Series (#5), a sub section of Regular Cast (#2.1), or even in the Trivia section (#10).
  • What JMS was refering to didn't happen on screen. He had said that he had the entire history of the B5 universe planned out for at least a decade past when the series ended, so some of the things that happened viewers never saw. This part should be clarified to say that the data crystal was never reused in the television series after Kosh recorded it, even if JMS had created a storyline about it.
  • I think it is fine the way it is. We don't want to go into too much detail, especiall about B4. There are links to the episodes which feature B4, so the reader can go there for more information.
  • Agreed. It is pretty confusing the way it is now.
Koweja 15:42, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

A few of my suggestions (to both JulesH and Koweja):

  • I have heard that it "respected" Newtonian Physics, but not that it was the "first" (also we aren't sure if it was "one of the first at all"). I'd say tag it with a citation notice for the time being.
  • I moved the "trap door" section there because it fit better there than elsewhere in the page (it used to be near the trivia). Personally, now I'm thinking it should probably be the last section of the "concept" section. I think the whole part needs an overhaull. Splitting the "concept" part (which is a bit vague) with a "production" section (which would include how the show "began" which the "internet marketing" section could easily be culled down to important facts and reintegrated) and then right below the section with the cast section second and then a "plot" section (which would contain the rest of the information about the station, the "universe", civilizations, "trap doors", and the "languages" section. (this would be closer to a format that is used by the wikipedia television project, and would make a lot more sense. Trap door and language sections needs to be edited down a bit.
  • Yes, a lot of information is not always good. People should not be using this article to substitute watching the show.
  • The theme section is really tough, but it's leaps and bounds better than just a few months ago.
Radagast83 07:19, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

By the way, should the article really have (or need) pictures of each DVD cover? Radagast83 07:54, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Radagast83, this is a plague upon Wikipedia. People keep adding DVD covers, and quite frankly, we need to police it closely, and without mercy. Over-use of images that are used to create galleries rather than illustrate content weaken fair use claims. Thank you for pointing this out. A cover or two is reasonable. Beyond that you really have to have a reason for each (e.g. you might show a Japanese LD cover of The Gathering in a section about foreign distribution). -Harmil 16:15, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
JulesH, I am not at all sick of you, and I welcome your comments. Some of what you point out might be better suited to a section on Internet marketing and fan influence on Babylon 5 or even on its own article about the ways that Babylon 5 changed and/or refined the process of arc-driven TV production. -Harmil 16:15, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
Well, my keyboard failed me again, so the edit summary sucks, but I have reduced the images to just one of the season box covers, which we can make reasonable fair use claim for, given that it's a section about the releases. -Harmil 16:18, 30 September 2006 (UTC)


Suggestion on Internet marketing and fan influence on Babylon 5 page

Okay, here me out. I've been in the process of cleaning up a bunch of other Babylon 5 pages, when I finally got to looking at the aforementioned page that I noted in the header. There's already a page for Babylon 5 influences, so I propose that the information there should probably be moved into that article (the article currently needs a lot of work but that will come later). If that's done, currently all the information of the Internet marketing section is already in the main Babylon 5 article, so the article wouldn't really be necessary. I'd love to have some input on this matter before I tag anything or are too bold in my editing. What do people think? Radagast83 07:12, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Good idea! But I think that influences article should be cleaned up before move. Futurix 09:37, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
Yes, that would be a good idea regardless if the article is merged or not. I'll get on it soon. Radagast83 16:33, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
I think the articles are fine as they are, and don't need to be merged. It's nice to have all the fan influences in one place, which keeps them from spilling over into articles where they might not belong. Also, the main list of influences focuses on story and stylistic influences on the show, while the list on the fan influences page is more weighted to the production side. A merge would be misguided, IMO. - EurekaLott 00:01, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
I see where you are coming from, but don't really see what you see with the influences page. I see it as a conglomeration of a lot of different topics, and some of the trivia points on the internet marketing page are tenious at best on that list as is. Perhaps a re-write of the section is in order before any final decision (re-writing it into prose), as it may turn out that it isn't sutable for the influences page, and would be more sutable in a truncated form on the main article (Franke triva into music section, and so on). I'll take a closer look at it later to form a better opinion. Radagast83 02:26, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
I strongly agree with EurekaLott, regarding Internet marketing and fan influence on Babylon 5. The article needs to exist as a stand-alone article. I could see a good argument for re-naming it, and it certainly needs to be expanded, but Straczynski's 12-year-long direct interaction with fans over Genie, Compuserve, Usenet and AOL has been so unusual in Hollywood that even today, in the age of blogging, very few television writers or producers have such an extensive interaction with the public (Warren Ellis comes to mind, though his series, Global Frequency, was canceled before it aired). That history spans the various elements of the Babylon 5 franchise, and most of Straczynski's other work (comics, Jeremiah, etc.) There's just too much history and influence in both directions for that to be a footnote in Babylon 5. It really does need its own article. -Harmil 04:22, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
If that's the decision, then the article really needs to be renamed and some serious work needs to be put into expanding the article since most (if not all of the information currently) could be easily integrated into the main article without any loss of meaning. The page needs to either be about the internet marketing, or be about the fan influence, or a totally different title needs to be used that would include the two in a more cohesive (and logical) way. Radagast83 04:56, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
OK, I've re-written the intro and moved the article to Babylon 5's use of the Internet. I still think it's worth keeping as a seperate article, but the "Fan interaction" sub-section still needs to be re-written. Babylon 5 influences isn't the place to put the fan interaction info, though. "Babylon 5 influences" is about the background material from which Babylon 5 draws, not the impact that feedback had on the show. If anything that's more suited to the "Babylon 5's use of the Internet" article, but again, I'm agreeing that it's currently not terribly well constructed (no section should be a pure bullet-list unless it's an appendix like "See also" or "References"). -Harmil 17:17, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

DVD article merge

Why is there a seperate article for the DVDs? Not only is it unncessary, the use of the images is far beyond any fair use rationale (it appears it was the only reason it was spun off in the first place). I say it should be merged back into the article and restored back the way it was just a few days ago. Radagast83 17:43, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

I merged the articles. If anybody has a good reason for covering the DVDs in a seperate article, then please revert my edits. - EurekaLott 03:50, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Theme music

Previous request has been partially satisfied: I have added a soundtrack section. I want to list the titles of all 28 episodic soundtracks, but that would take too much space. Perhaps a new article dealing with Babylon 5 soundtracks is in order?75.84.83.99 03:24, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I thought of having a section for the theme music, the general music in each episode and possibly posting each season's theme music. The show had pretty groundbreaking music... What doez everybody fink?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 211.29.211.112 (talk • contribs).

Sorry but we could not post the theme music here. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 14:48, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Ardwight Chamberlain as Regular Cast on Babylon 5

User:Jet7111 keeps changing Ardwight Chamberlain, voice of Kosh, to regular cast. As he is never listed in the main credits, I assert that he is a recurring character. However, before I run afoul of WP:3RR, I want to understand the greater consensus. What is it? --Eyrian 03:16, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Is there a Wikipedia wide policy on what defines someone as regular cast vs recurring? I believe that as far as studios, the writers'/actors' guilds are concerned, they have to be in the credits to be considered regular cast (I recall JMS saying sometime on the Lurker's Guide how importaint it was where in the credits people were placed). However, wikipedia obviously isn't bound by those policies. If we aren't going with that definition, then I don't see why he couldn't count as regular cast. Koweja 03:29, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
I think that being listed in the main credits is an important part of being in the "Regular" cast. Most episodes didn't have Chamberlain. I fail to see how his appearances warrant that designation (and the idea of a Vorlon being described as "regular" is...) --Eyrian 04:12, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
WP's task is to document fact, not re-assess it. I can't remember the cut-off but the distinction between regular and recurring is based on the proportion of episodes cast members appear in during any given season. Chamberlain does not, and did not at the time, fulfill those criteria. He definitively was not a member of the "regular" cast. It's black and white. Cain Mosni 12:07, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
Agree as well, I reverted the change a few days ago. He should stay a recurring character. Radagast83 21:59, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
Completely agree, he was at best a recurring character (for someone who didn't actually appear in the show) who as I've read turned up once or twice a year to read some lines. Ben W Bell talk 13:25, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Tenses

I've changed some tenses in the introductory paragraphs to reflect the proper use of present tense to represent works of fiction as they exist in the real world. Babylon 5 is a television series, just as "The Tragical History of Hamlet, Prince of Denmark is a tragedy by William Shakespeare". It is appropriate (and necessary) to use past tense when discussing events in the show's production and other history — including its airing schedule — but that does not change the fact that the show exists and can be seen as easily as one can pick up a copy of Hamlet to read. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 19:33, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Fair comment. It was just that the prior edit changed the tense of the first sentence making it inconsistent with the rest of the paragraph and (I thought) other references later in the article. As you say the distinction needs to be drawn between historical events in production (or indeed narrative) and the end product as a specific entity. Cain Mosni 10:15, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Since there seems to be a bit of a revert war brewing, I think we should discuss the proper course of action before things get out of hand. To that end, I'd like to ask for more extended discussion on the inclusion of the http://www.babylon5scripts.com/ link than is typical of an edit summary. --Eyrian 20:26, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Doesn't overly bother me as it is an official Straczynski website. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 20:34, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Well, the first question that comes to mind is "is there a valid, non-commerical site with equivelent information?" If so, obviously we should use that. If not, I see nothing wrong with including a link to a commerical site if it adds to the encyclopedic content. Koweja 20:41, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Hm. Shoulndn't we be linking to the official site for the scripts (as linked above) rather than a third-party fan site? That seems like the most logical option to me at least. --GunnarRene 20:45, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

[9]Hu12 (Talk | contribs) (REQUIRES payment to view the relevant content,exists ONLY to sell the scripts,It is NOT the official Babylon 5 site.. violates External links policy #2 #3 #4)

It is an official site that verifies that the scripts exist. The scripts themselves are not available for free anyway. It does certainly not fail #2 or #4, or are you arguing that it's a fake website? It is there to sell a product, but that product is the very subject of the article, and it is the site of the publisher, not that of one of many sellers. If you have ISBN numbers too that would be great, but we also need the site linked for factual confirmation. --GunnarRene 20:51, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Just one thing that should be mentioned, the external links policy is mostly about links in the External links sections that end up on the bottom of most pages (and in the main part of the article, in the rare instance that it is appropriate). The link to this site was in a referece, which is something completely different. Koweja 20:57, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Good point. Perhaps we should add the site to the external links section as well. There's certainly no rule against it, but perhaps the citation links are enough?--GunnarRene 21:00, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
I wouldn't put it with the links. I was responding to the edit summary claming it violated the EL policy by pointing out that it couldn't have violated the EL policy because it is not an EL. It definatly should be left as a reference and I would prefer to keep it out of the ELs. We are mearly backing up a statement (reference), not directing users to other sites for information (external link).Koweja 21:50, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
OK. There's a comment in the links section asking only to have it as a reference. Fair enough. --GunnarRene 21:07, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Confirmation from the horse himself, so to speak: http://www.jmsnews.com/msg.aspx?id=1-17437 --GunnarRene 21:00, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

  • from the site, This is the official site of J. Michael Straczynski. The Babylon 5 Scripts of J. Michael Straczynski compilation © 2005, 2006 Synthetic Worlds, Ltd. Synthetic Worlds, Ltd. is infact Straczynski's company. Maybe proper labling it and adding only one, not both links, would be apropriate for the article in its proper location..the external links section. Hu12 21:36, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
    • The site should not be listed in the external links section, because it fails clause three rather spectacularly. The primary purpose of the site is to sell scripts and other merchandise. However, as noted above, the guidelines for references are not the same as those for external links. The site is a legitimate reference, and should be included as such, both here and at the J. Michael Straczynski article. - EurekaLott 21:53, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
The notice provided by J. Michael Straczynski is a much better reference than the pure merchandising link. For one thing, none of the sentiments attributed to JMS in this version[10] are actually contained at The Babylon 5 Scripts page. CovenantD 22:14, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
  • I agree compleatly with CovenantD on that point. I'm not sure how legitimate a reference can be that needs to be purchased in order to be referenced on a free encyclopedia. Readers can't possibly verify the content and it fails the guidelines for references see Embedded Citations. Its Egregiously Spammy and viewd as external link spamming, which is covered under External links policy. Hu12 22:31, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
    • What are you talking about? You don't need to buy access to the website to see that there are scripts available. I think you misunderstand WP:EL. Are we going to delete all the other official sites on Wikipedia that sell something in the same vain? You can't download Windows XP from any of the sites listed on that article either, yet the links are there. Why do you think that is?
    • ISBN links on Wikipedia also don't provide free downloads of the books that they refer to. Should all such ISBN links also be deleted? --GunnarRene 22:57, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

How about we all do ourselves a favor end this revert war and reach a concensus before the article gets locked? Koweja 23:31, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Too late. Now, lets make our minds up so we can unlock the page. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 01:04, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
Sigh. No progress... I've unprotected it. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 11:54, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Similarities between Babylon 5 and Star Trek: Deep Space Nine

Some i***ts deleted Similarities between Babylon 5 and Star Trek: Deep Space Nine. I can't even find any word about it in this article. So perhaps some information should be added here. --89.51.116.22 22:20, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Remain civil. If you must read it there is a mirror here. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 22:30, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
89.51.116.22, as described in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Similarities between Babylon 5 and Star Trek: Deep Space Nine 2, the article was deemed original research, which is unacceptable content in a Wikipedia article, let alone the entire content. Too many editors believe that they can merely wax eloquent on a subject to create an article, but a primary goal of Wikipedia is to compose article text based on reliable sources, so that the information can be verified. Even when people write based on what they "know" (which is probably far more common), every statement made should be backed up by a publication with professional editorial oversight, or its equivalent in the various media. Please read the policy pages behind the links above to understand why this is so important. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 03:56, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
I don't agree. Although you can discuss if the list of similarities was original research or not, the rest was not more original research than most articles on Wikipedia. Even the list was only a comparison of two original sources. Every article that quote from more than one source is a comparision of sources. Anyway, at least the fact of the wide discussion about the similarities should at least mentioned somewhere in an article of B5 (and DS9). --Lasttan 20:52, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
As soon as a source for "the wide discussion" can be found that meets Wiki criteria, it can be considered. Until then, it's just editors putting together their own thoughts. CovenantD
There are more than enough sources. Try google. --Lasttan 22:07, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
But are the sources reliable? Radagast83 00:39, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
Yes. There are more than enough reliable sources. Try google again. My last comment to that boring discussion. Sorry I haven't enough time at this moment for such a simple task. --Lasttan 01:56, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
You want this in the article, YOU find the references and bring them here for others to evaluate. I personally don't have any desire for such a section in the article. CovenantD 01:58, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Vorlons as authoritarian

Hello I think there is one misconception in it about Vorlons. Vorlons were not at all authoritarian and the question "who you are" is completely misperceived by the writer of this article.

This is prooved by the bery Episode in Babylon 5 series where a vorlon questioned one woman. She said that she is what her duties and ranks are but all these questions were wrong. and she got punished for that. The meaning of vorlons was "what you are without your names and positiongs and designation?" I request this point be overviewed as I am damn sure by looking on this episode that the point is greatly missed thus making the whole "Authoritarianism vs. anarchy; order vs. chaos; light vs. dark" chapter a blog. 213.35.239.31 20:55, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

First, this article has been written by many editors, and I'm sure that even the section you refer to has had many contributors. Second, the material is supposed to be backed up by sources, not simply speculations or analyses of the editors. There is room for improvement here, as the last two paragraphs have no cited sources. Finally, I believe you are reading too much into a specific plot, namely the ";;;risk all for one" theme of "Comes the Inquisitor", where Delenn was tortured during her many failed attempts to answer that infamous question, "Who are you?", and was only released when her actions (and those of Sheridan} showed, rather than spoke, their answer. Despite the Vorlons' motivations, their actual effect as authoritarians is adequately shown by the sources. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 00:12, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Confusion about anarchy

The section about "authoritarianism vs. anarchy" misuses the word anarchy. Anarchy is a political philosophy and isn't chaos. The Vorlons represented authoritarianism and order, the Shadows represented chaos, and the "third way" represented by the humans. Minbair and others are an example of anarchism or anarchy. Anarchy is about self-determination, which was the choice made contra the Vorlons and Shadows. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.94.183.180 (talk • contribs) 04:07, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually, according to Merriam-Webster Online, Cambridge Dictionaries Online, and our own Anarchy (disambiguation), "anarchy" can certainly mean "chaos". But this article currently does point to the political philosophy, which is not part of the sources cited as references for this information. In fact, reviewing those sources, it looks like there is more in them about "good vs. evil", "order vs. chaos", and the need for conflict (vs. an enforced peace, presumably) than "authoritarianism vs. anarchy", per se. We really do need better sourcing. The problem, I suspect, is that the material was written first based on original research, then backfilled with easily found sources only partly relevant to the points the editors wanted to make. This is a common problem with Wikipedia articles, especially ones about subjects with serious fan bases, and is exactly backwards from the way that material should be added. I'd urge the regular editors of this article to read (or re-read) the published material discussing these subjects at length and synthesize what is said in them (with plenty of specific citations), not just look for individual sentences in JMS discussions that justify opinions. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 04:27, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Region 4 DVD Releases ?

Does anybody know if B5 DVD sets are available in Region 4 format ? 161.24.19.82 18:30, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes. I own all 5 seasons plus The Gathering/In the Beginning, Movie set (all 5 movies), and Legend of the Rangers. All are local (Australia, Region 4) releases. All are PAL format except for The Gathering/In the Beginning (and possibly Legend?) which is NTSC. - Waza 23:38, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Here's the relevant passage from Wikipedia:Spam#External link spamming: Adding links to online free videos that promote a site or product is not allowed.... A video is a spamming video if: ...

  • It has links on the video page—the page that plays the video—that go to a commercial site or to another spamming video, even if it is only one link among many legitimate links....
  • It has text at this video page that would lead readers to a specific commercial site.... --Orange Mike 02:56, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
I would advocate a slightly less strict reading of the policy. While it certainly is possible to consider the link as violating the spam policy it should be considered in light of its value to the article. While it is a comercial site, its buisness is providing of episodes. My reading of the spam policy, and external link guidelines, is that they are designed to target links included with the purpose of promoting the site rather than contribute to the article. Which makes the fundemental question - does the link add enough value to the article that it overcomes its somewhat spammish nature? As you can probably tell I believe it does. Legal, full episodes of the series that the wiki article is covering will definitly be of value to readers interested in Babylon 5. Also unlike some other spamish links, as far as I know there are no other sites legally offerng the same thing, making the site not only valuable, but also a unique source. (Though I'll leave it alone unless there is some consensus in favor of re-adding the link) Monty845 11:42, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Sounds like you need to go to the talk page for that policy and advocate for changing the policy; a perfectly legitimate thing to do, whether I agree with your reasoning or not. Thank you for not insisting on re-inserting the link in the meantime, as some people have been wont to do in such circumstances. --Orange Mike 14:07, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Actually, I think this falls under the exception - Generally, a video is not a spamming video if it is posted by the official site associated with the Wikipedia article. Since In2TV is an official outlet for Warner Bros product, legally made available, and the links are NOT inserted as part of a mass spam attempt by In2TV but by random editors, I believe this qualifies and should be kept in the article. TheRealFennShysa 15:46, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
This is a commercial ad-supported site, full of links to non-B5 material; it is NOT an official B5 site, and thus fails "posted by the official site associated with the Wikipedia article." If this was the Great Maker's own site, that would be different; but it is not: it's just another way for AOL to make ad revenue, and thus a major violation of the Wikipedia spamming guidelines. Will somebody else please remove it, so that I don't run afoul of the 3R rule?--Orange Mike 16:24, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a spam database (the dmoz is, I believe) -- This is the type of link that is not appropriate for Wikipedia, firstly it's ad-ridden, secondly it distributes crapware/spyware. The link fails Wikipedia's "rules" by a mile. Matthew 17:05, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
I still think it is important to consider the value that including the link provides, namely access to episodes of B5. If you could link to a television broadcast (of course you can't but bear with me) of the show, but it contained commercials, would that disqualify the link? Alot of people, myself included, don't like anything related to AOL on principal, but that is not a good enough reason to ignore the benifit of including the link. As far as I can tell this paticular issue has not been specifically addressed in any policy discussion. Similar issues, such as linking to book retialers have been addressed by including the book's ISBN but not links, unfortunatly that would not seem likely to work here... I guess my point is this, if you were interested in Babylon 5 what would you find more valuable, a link to a collection of comments made by the creator, or a link to a site offering the episodes for free download? That the link would benifit the site, or that the site carries ads is worth considering, but should not preclude inclussion. Remember, most wiki policy statements are not hard-fast rules but need to be applied on a case by case basis. Allowing approriate, valuable links to highly relevent commercial sites is a far cry from turning wiki into a spam database. Monty845 17:59, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
You are arguing for a major change in a Wikipedia policy, and need to be making your case in the relevant forum, rather than create an inconsistent and policy-violating difference here on B5, our last, best hope for peace. --Orange Mike 18:06, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
General quarters! Please do not re-add those links (specifically the AOL link) - they are disputed, you have no consensus for the addition. Thus do not re-add without a consensus. Matthew 18:31, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Actually, even though I've left off re-adding the AOL/In2TV link, there's no consensus for deleting them, either. Matter of fact, it looks like it's 3/2 in favor of keeping them, at the moment. Just sayin'. MikeWazowski 19:58, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
I think Monty makes some good points - I'm for leaving the links in, since they do come from an official Warner Bros. source. I've also reverted the removal of the "Babylon 5 podcast" and "Early B5" links - both come from people connected with the show (Jeffrey Willerth & John Hudgens), and have relevance here. Also, the removal of a link to Hudgens' site, immediately after he posted an opposing view here (he posts as TheRealFennShysa) raises a red flag, IMHO, in regards to civility and/or motives - that one should not be removed again without serious reason. MikeWazowski 19:50, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
If there was a spam-free site provided by the Great Maker, where the episodes were available without swimming through a sea of commercial ads, pop-up windows, etc., you would have a point. But this is just another commercial site from somebody who is not JMS, and thus is in complete violation of the spam definition I quoted above. Wikipedia is not a collection of links; this article cannot become a link farm for every site of interest to B5 fandom, which is why I support Matthew's decision to remove links not fitting the criteria for external links. This is not a B5 wiki; this is an already-over-long article being made longer by restoring inapproriate and guideline-violating links of purely fan interest. --Orange Mike 20:02, 6 April 2007 (UTC) (lives for th One, dies for the One)
I might grant you that - but Matthew's removal of the B5 Podcast and Early B5 pages was in error - they do not violate the guidelines, IMHO. I also found the timing interesting, since he's edited the page before, and didn't see fit to remove them then. MikeWazowski 20:10, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Folks... lets keep the debate here on the talk page instead of going back and forth on the article. I am very close to locking the article because of this edit-warring. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 20:29, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

The article is now protected. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 21:10, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
It should be noted that the editor who broke the truce is somebody whose only reason for having an account seems to be to add links to AOL videos! (There are several of those.) It was not anybody from either side of this discussion - people who on both sides care about the topic and the article. --Orange Mike 21:15, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
I understand that, but locking the article prevents other such users from ignorantly adding links that are likely to piss off one side or another of the debate here. Locking for now until consensus can be achieved is the best thing for the article. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 21:22, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

In response to some previous suggestions I've raised the topic in the WP:EL talk Wikipedia_talk:External_links#Linking to legal episode downloads of a show (commercial site with ads) Spam/EL issue which seemed the most on point. Monty845 22:07, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm frankly confused. There's honest disagreement here. On one side are the people who are interpreting the rules in a strict and literal way. On the other side are the people who feel that the only official outlet on the Web for the TV series which is the topic of this article should have a link, here. Has there ever been a clearer example of the need to ignore the rules when they conflict with the purpose of an article? It's not that the literal interpretation of the rule is wrong or that people are wrong to read the rules to the others, here, but we really should be ignoring the rules in this case. As for the statement that this is not "the official site".... this is the single site on the Web that offers the official version of the show. That's close enough as doesn't matter, and we would seem well within reason to ignore the literal rule and stay to its spirit. As for ads on sites... ads are ads, and they happen. They don't make a site any more or less helpful in researching a topic. -Harmil 23:06, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
To me, one of the reasons for the "official site" rule is to respect creator control of a project. The site is question (spammy links to which have been salted all over Wikipedia, including for such sterling programs as Gilligan's Island) is a commercial site which makes money from showing the episodes and those of dozens of other shows. (On the one occasion I went there, I was bombarded with pop-ups and other webcrap). It is not JMS' site, nor does he control it: the very opposite of an "official site" as I understand it. --Orange Mike 17:29, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
Thought I should mention, we are dealing with an official guidelines, not official policies (I didn't realize that at first) so there is more flexibiity in deciding whether to apply it. Also I haven't noticed popups from the site, but that could be popup blocking on my end. Monty845 17:45, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
The "official" tag is always a bit tricky with B5... no, it isn't JMS's site, but JMS does not own B5. It is "Warner Bros', lock stock and barrel," to use JMS's own words. They own the rights and may do whatever they want with them, with or without JMS, although, in practice, in terms of content, Warner Bros isn't stupid and won't make creative moves without JMS. In any event, AOL is owned by Warner Bros which owns B5. That does not make this official if you just look at the site just as an online ad-supported distribution channel... --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 17:52, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I favour staying with a strict interpretation of policy and not allow the link. However, I think it is notable that the episodes are available to download and would encourage someone to update the article to note this with an appropriate secondary source as reference. Eiler7 15:17, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Potential Compromise: what about adding an "Other Releases" section following sound track releases, saying "Seasons 1-2 and parts of season 3 of Babylon 5 have been released as advertisement supported downloads through the In2TV download service." By linking to the WP article on In2TV those interested in the episodes will be directed in the right direction while avoiding a direct link to the commercial site. -- Monty845 15:33, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Missing story information

Why is no synopsis of the story? This whole article is about how great JMS is. And states over and over that B5 was the bast show ever because of the deep plot lines and symbolism etc. The article never actually talks about the show itself. Please add some brief outline of the over all story for each season.The Goat 18:33, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Guy's got a point. Ben W Bell talk 19:13, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
+1 from me - I came here looking for a 500-750 word synopsis of the whole show (or at least a paragraph synopsis of each season). The article doesn't actually tell the story of the show itself :-) Natebailey 13:30, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm sure we can get this done, as soon as we get an editor here who is more of a Wikipedian than a B5 fan. Frankly, I'm tired of arguing this idea (see above) with people who believe that inappropriately fannish TV-show articles elsewhere in Wikipedia somehow justifies doing this disservice to the best SF series ever, too. /* end snark */ ~ Jeff Q (talk) 13:47, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
I don't think B5's story could be summed up nicely in only 500-750 words (which is standard for episodes/films). Anything longer would likely attract the "OMG! Too long" police. Matthew 14:11, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
I check B5 section of Wiki every week or two and I must say that there is enough info about the plot - there is really no way to put all the story into short paragraph. Moreover, I think that any reader interested in the series can find enough info via internal/external links. 81.195.205.152 14:29, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Matthew, you don't think it can be summarized because you're thinking like the intense B5 fan that most of us here are. Just about anything can be summed up in 500-750 words; you just have to pick the appropriate level of detail. The current article has a perfectly fine one-sentence summary in the lead paragraph, which leaves out just about every detail. There's plenty of room for many kinds of summary between this and the Lurker's Guide. ☺ ~ Jeff Q (talk) 15:17, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Okay, I'll put my money where my mouth is. Here's a 133-word summary I just whipped up on the spur of a moment:
The primary storyline of Babylon 5 centers around the station itself, a "place of commerce and diplomacy for a quarter of a million humans and aliens". Earth is still recovering from near-extinction after an interstellar war. As it joins the existing communities of space-faring species, the government of Earth establishes Babylon 5 to promote communication and trade among the diverse civilizations. But ancient, powerful forces are building up tensions among the races, eventually engulfing all the worlds in both civil wars and star-spanning genocides. Throughout the turmoil, Babylon 5 serves as a focal point of the larger conflict, and its people are forced to adapt their mission to the changing universe. As old enemies battle, new bonds are forged, and the human race moves toward the Third Age of Mankind.
Maybe it's a bit hackneyed, but it might give you an idea of what to shoot for. Feel free to use anything in it you wish. (But if you use the quote, cite it properly. It's from John Sheridan's voiceover in the title sequence of Season 2 episodes. I'd cite it as coming from "Points of Departure" [2.01].)
Were I to spend more time on this, I'd probably add a second paragraph of similar length that summarizes the 1,000-year span of the series and connects it to the five-year series. Then I'd play with it a bit to make the flow of the two sections complement each other. Anyway, that's the general idea. Hope this helps. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 15:43, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Dawn of the Third age of Mankind

It is particularly noticeable that no mention is made of the above, which was included in most of the introductory voice-overs according to my admittedly-fallible memory. Anybody have any ideas as to how to work that into the article? TIA HAND Phil | Talk 15:28, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Oops. We had a little edit conflict. I mentioned it in the sample summary above that I wrote while you were posting, Phil. For a summary, simply mentioning it (possibly as a cited quote) is probably all that will fit. Explaining what it means would need some proper sourcing and likely turn into another theme-like section, the kind of which I try to argue against. Just my 2 credits. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 15:48, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
I believe Sheriden says it in a voice over in the sixth episode of the fourth season that the Third Age was with the First Ones leaving the galaxy and for the first time in their history the races of the galaxy are not in a position to make their own decisions without being guided by the First Ones. There's info on it here at the Lurkers Guide. I'll see if I can locate a script as my DVDs have been packed away now. Ben W Bell talk 07:30, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Added

I added a 1,300 word summary of the main plot lines. It could probably be chopped down a little. The article still doesn't explain why the series takes place at "the Dawn of the Third Age of Mankind", which is indeed in introductory voiceovers. I was actually looking for that info when I stumbled across the plot summary request. I'm not sure if it's the activation of Babylon 5 which is supposed to mark the beginning of the Third Age, or the departure of the First Ones from the galaxy, leaving humanity and the younger races in charge of things, in some sense. -- Beland 07:06, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Excellent work. About time there was a plot summary there. But I'm going to take a pass at it, if you don't mind. Rather than it being too long, I think it could do with expanding in a couple of places, so I'll have a look at that towards the end of the week. Breaking it into sections (2258, 2259 etc.) should lessen the impact of coming across that great mass of text and stop it seeming too long. - Steve T • C 11:35, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Done, and done. Could probably do with a pass by someone with better writing skills than me, but it should do pretty well for now. Steve T • C 11:48, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Speculation?

I've added a "citation needed" to the following paragraph:

"Jeffrey Sinclair was intended from the beginning to become Valen.[10] As originally planned, this would have occurred at the end of the series, but with Michael O'Hare's departure at the end of Season One, Sinclair's transformation to Valen was moved up by what became several years."

Simply because, while there is strong circumstantial evidence to point towards this being the case, from what I remember (and can find in archive) of JMS' Usenet posts, he always denied that the Sinclair/Valen transformation was originally supposed to be the true ending of the series; indeed, he said that Sinclair was always intended to be replaced. Personally, I think he was fibbing, and that the text as shown is correct, but it is only speculation, no matter how widely-believed. -- Steve T • C 01:45, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Boosterism

Beland has removed some text (15 July) on the grounds of boosterism removal. I do not agree with the change. As I wrote it, perhaps someone else can review it (see the history) and decide if it merits restoration. I certainly think all of points are worth covering in some fashion and quoting Walter seems like a good approach although others may have different ideas. The article is not saying that we should agree with Walter, just noting his comments.Eiler7 23:53, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure. It is boosterism, but whether excessive or irrevelant I can't say. I certainly wouldn't object too strongly to its appearance in the article, though it would benefit from being placed elsewhere. Steve T • C 08:17, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Recent edits

A number of things were changed recently by Liquidfinale (Steve), which I'm not sure I understand the need for.[11] This includes removing information about the timeframe of the initial creation of the B5 idea relative to JMS's statement that it was during his time on Captain Power and The Twilight Zone; removal of the comment indicating that JMS specifically wished to avoid a Wesley-like child on the show, not just children in general; and the creation of a parenthetical out of a perfectly reasonable stand-alone sentence; and so on. What was the motivation behind these changes? Certainly the removal of well sourced information has to be looked at critically, and I'm not sure that I can see why these edits were needed. -02:22, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Hello! I'm sorry my edits irritated you; I shall do my best to explain the motivations behind them. Firstly, I feel that the Captain Power and Twilight Zone references are pretty much irrelevant. The date, 1991, is given, and this article is about Babylon 5, and is not a biography of JMS. Secondly, I removed the "Wesley" because I felt that the article had already enough information about JMS' wish to avoid the staples of TV SF, cute kids, etc, and that not everyone reading the article would necessarily know who or what "Wesley" referred to. However, I see no problem with reinserting it, as long as it includes a wikilink to Mr Crusher, and I shall do so now. Best regards, Steve T • C 07:36, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Plot Summary Question

Having edited the plot summary to include more information about the broader arc of the series, I was wondering if it's now necessary to include references to individual episodes where these events occur. For example:

"During 2258, Commander Jeffrey Sinclair leads the station. Much of the story revolves around his gradual discovery that it was his capture by the Minbari at the Battle of the Line which ended the war against Earth[1]."

Which would add as a source a reference to the episode And the Sky Full of Stars. I realise that in this example the plotline runs throughout most of the first season, but only a reference to one episode which features it strongly would be required.

Your collective thoughts would be appreciated. Steve T • C 10:10, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I think making references to a few key episodes is fine. --Eyrian 13:00, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

"Epic" status

An anonymous user has recently removed the word "epic" from the description of the series on at least 2 occasions, claiming that it is NPOV in this context. I must disagree. As evidence, I submit the article Epic poetry. Many of the characteristics of an epic poem are clearly present in Babylon 5. Henrymrx 17:29, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I looked for an appropriate citation or wikilink to add as a reference when this person made the change this morning; I must say, I was disappointed to find no Wikipedia article which suitably described epic fiction. The closest ones are purely for film, and the aforementioned poetry one. Steve T • C 17:35, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
It's more a job for wiktionary, surely? I know of no canonical classification as which prose is or is not epic. --Orange Mike 17:42, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
Yes I looked to see what I could link myself and only found the poetry and film ones. I disregarded the film article as the massive budget and production quality seems to be a big part in a film being described as "Epic." Ben W Bell talk 17:43, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
There's also epic fantasy, which might be slightly more appropriate. I'd rather see the word unlinked than pointing to an article that's not a clear fit. - EurekaLott 18:29, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
Eureka's got a good point. I'm gonna de-link it, because B5 isn't poetry. Anybody know how to format a link to the Wiktionary? --Orange Mike 19:28, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
My immediate reaction was that linking to Wiktionary was a good idea. But then again, we'd have a mess if we linked to every word in this manner. In the context used, epic has has a clear meaning. I reckon it should be left in, unlinked. Best regards, Steve T • C 19:37, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
If there is a continued objection to the use of the word, a hidden inline comment directing one to this thread should suffice. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 20:17, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
I don't believe there is, or will be, continued objection to the use of the word; for now, it's just one anonymous user and we should perhaps leave things as they are. However, should the issue resurface your idea is the best course of action. Steve T • C 21:31, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

For your consideration

In line with the Good Article recommendations at the top of this page, I intend to rewrite the start of the Concept section to change the list to prose, as follows:

In a 1991 post to to the GEnie service,[2], J. Michael Straczynski set five goals for the Babylon 5 series. He said that the show "would have to be good science fiction" as well as good television ("rarely are SF shows both good SF and good TV; there're (sic) generally one or the other"); it would have to do for science fiction television what Hill Street Blues had done for police dramas, by taking an adult approach to the subject; it would have to be reasonably budgeted, and "it would have to look unlike anything ever seen before on TV, presenting individual stories against a much broader canvas."

Now, the last time I did this, it was reverted, so I thought I'd post it here first to see if anyone has a problem with it. Best regards, Steve T • C 13:22, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

This looks good to me. The only potential problem that I could see is that someone may object to the reference being an online source. — Val42 00:37, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
When it comes to JMS, the threshold for what is allowable in terms of sourcing is quite different. It's a fact that he has interacted with fans online long before anyone else, and any USENET/GEnie/Compuserve/AOL post from Straczynski is obviously and easily verifiable. While there are some ignorant people who cover their ears, close their eyes and sing loudly rather than accept the obvious, most folks have come to accept the veracity and importance of Straczynski's posts. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 00:44, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
I know. I was reading his online posts at the time he was making them. However, some people don't know this history or will even accept online references. — Val42 05:14, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
With the Spoo FAC and FARCs, for instance, most people are fine with the references, but in each case, there is always one person who just did not get it. Overall, I believe, there is a general acceptance of JMS's posts, and it doesn't take much to point out that they are not only notable and relevant, but verifiable and necessary. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 06:16, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Languages: Marcus Cole's accent

The article states that Marcus's English accent is "without regional inflection". However, to my ear, he has quite a distinct London accent. Not all of us in England speak that way. What do y'all think? User:Robhogg (Midlands via Yorkshire) 2 September 2007 03:39 UTC —Preceding unsigned comment added by Robhogg (talk • contribs) 03:40, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

To my ear, it doesn't sound like his accent is from London's fashionable London at all, and is indeed mostly free of any regional inflection. However, that's original research, so it would be worth having a hunt for a proper reference. I guess I'll go do that now... Steve T • C 06:08, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
I removed the portion of the sentence completely. Radagast83 03:40, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Lesson on capitalisation (Human/human)

Please note, "human" should not be capitalized unless it starts a sentence. I know, I know, it's ostensibly a species name, and one's tendency would be to do so. However, the only reason adjectives such as Minbari, Martian and similar are capitalized is because they derive from place names (Minbar and Mars respectively). There is no place called Hum from which humans derive. If you wish to capitalize, Terran or Earthling are perhaps correct, if rather naff, substitutes. Yours, Steve T • C 20:59, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
EDIT: Also, the Wikipedia Manual of Style has this to say about the capitalisation of president and emperor. Many thanks, Steve T • C 21:39, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

When did they stop airing it?

I'm curious, does anyone know exactly when the Sci-fi Channel stopped showing Babylon 5 in the US? --Howdybob 13:16, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Season pages

Is it worth creating individual articles for each season, similar to the pages for 24??? Pat 00:24, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

No, because they don't have individual articles for each episode. We'd only have to do that if those were deleted. In actual fact, that's a much better way of doing it: quality over quantity. A better example would be something like Smallville (season 1). If I thought it would pass, I'd propose a mass-merge of the B5 episodes into such a page, as per WP:FICT. Best regards, Steve T • C 00:40, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
No, if there is any series that should have individual season pages plus pages for each episode, its Babylon 5. The nature of the series makes it ideal to have season-by-season overviews, and the quality and significance of the individual episodes, plus the sheer wealth of information available for each episode (in terms of JMS's internet posts, several books, and the scriptbooks), makes individual episode articles necessary. And plenty of series have both season and individual episode articles (The Simpsons, for instance). --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 01:54, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
Good point on the Simpsons episode pages, which several editors are well on their way to getting to FA status. I was merely saying it should be one or the other, and that my preference would be for the season pages. But who am I kidding; I know such an idea would never pass - someone proposed a similar thing on the Angel pages recently and all hell broke loose. Best regards, Steve T • C 07:31, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
I agree. If there was a move to season pages I think that the episodes should be merged into them. I used to be a big supporter of them, but for the most part they're extremely crufty, hard to manage, and include long winded plot summaries (there are better resources out there for them anyway - The Lurker's Guide). Just because it's elsewhere doesn't set a precedent. Radagast83 05:38, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I mean, we know don't we, that at present pretty much all of them fail WP:EPISODE and even general notability? Several could be spruced up to meet these guidelines, I'm sure, but there'll still be some which offer little in the way of real-world context... Still... [resigned sigh]... don't worry, I'm not planning a long and tortuous merge discussion which results in my inevitable and ignoble defeat here; I'm just blowing off some steam, maybe seeking further opinion, and pointedly avoiding finishing off the last two parts of the themes section. Maybe after Christmas I'll knock a season page together in my userspace to see how it might look, and whether it actually serves Wikipedia (and the show) better than the individual articles. Best regards, Steve T • C 00:20, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Awards, moved to Talk for now

-- Moved to Talk for now --

- Awards -

  • 1993 Emmy Award for Special Visual Effects for the pilot "The Gathering". [3]
  • 1994 Emmy Award for Special Visual Effects for the episode "The Parliament of Dreams". [4]
  • 1996 Hugo Award for Dramatic Presentation for the episode "The Coming of Shadows". [5]
  • 1997 Hugo Award for Dramatic Presentation for the episode "Severed Dreams" [6]



-- Writtenonsand (talk) 21:17, 17 November 2007 (UTC)


Hi, yes, I was a little vague, sorry. I was merely referring to the recommendations made after the GA review, listed at the top of the talk page. Lists are perfectly OK, this just had too many of them at the time. But I placed too much emphasis upon that in my edit summary; my main point is that the article already contains the awards information, as prose (though it wouldn't hurt to expand upon it a little), and a whole new separate section wasn't warranted, especially considering the length of the article at present. Best regards, Steve T • C 22:23, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Any Talk of HD-DVD or Blu-Ray?

Has there been any talk about bringing out B5 on HD-DVD or Blu-Ray ?

--Neilrieck (talk) 01:44, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

No not to my knowledge, and I'm not sure it would be. Due to the amount of computer effects in the series, and the fact they were only done for TV resolutions I'd doubt it'll come out. Plus it's time has really passed, a shame but there you are. I think the best you can hope for is to buy them on DVD and use a decent upconverting player to bring them to nearer HD quality. Though be warned, I'm watching them again in this way and the effects and even normal film quality from the first season look pretty poor upconverted. Ben W Bell talk 02:33, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Funny you suggest this because that is what I'm doing right now. Most DVD titles upconvert properly on my Toshiba HD-DVD A30 but a legally purchased B5 box set does not. Upon further investigation I discovered that my whole box set of 32 discs are really after market burned CD-R disks (they've got stamped labels but when you load them into a PC you'll notice that none of them have a capacity greater than 4.7 GB. I've seen commercially pressed disks between 7 and 9 GB --Neilrieck 22:43, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Centralized TV Episode Discussion

Over the past months, TV episodes have been reverted by (to name a couple) TTN, Eusebeus and others. No centralized discussion has taken place, so I'm asking everyone who has been involved in this issue to voice their opinions here in this centralized spot, be they pro or anti. Discussion is here [12]. --Maniwar (talk) 00:17, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Informal split request

Would someone please split this article into the two titles below?

Babylon 5 (franchise) - or - leave this as the franchise article
Babylon 5 (TV series)

There is a difference, unless the franchise is called something else. - LA @ 08:07, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Such may be warranted if this article gets much bigger, but at present it's of a manageable size, and even then there are a couple of sections which conceivably could be spun-off first as per WP:SUMMARY. Can you explain why this is necessary? All the best, Steve T • C 08:23, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Steve...It isn't necessary, but in my opinion, there should be an article on the franchise and a seperate article about the television series. It is only a personal preference to have something to link to which covers the entire franchise. The series of Babylon five has the 5 seasons of episodes. The franchise has Babylon 5, the spin-off Crusade, films, books, merchandise, etc. It is a personal preference, thusly an informal request. - LA @ 13:09, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Fair enough, and there's no harm in asking the question to see what the informal consensus on the matter would be. I've actually been mulling this over quite a bit since you brought it up. For the record, I'm undecided one way or the other. Steve T • C 13:36, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Games

Wikipedia seems to have very little data on the PC games produced for B5.

Of significant, if not saddening, relevance is "Into the fire" a Sierra game that was canceled just a few months before release. The latest rumour I've heard was the possibility of Sierra selling the license and the game being published by another company, about six years ago. There may some info in IGN news or forums.

The original site is mirrored here http://www.firstones.com/b5games/


Another game,"Babylon 5: I've found her" which seems to be an independent production and is free to download may still have some development. The most recent news on the main website was posted last year, but the forums are still active. A new game pack has been promised, but discussion and news of it are virtually non-existent.

http://ifh.firstones.com/

Also, I found a download for the game here.

ftp://ftp.virginmedia.com/blueyondergames/blueyondergames/b5ifh

I had some difficulty downloading the original game from the website, but the links for an updated version seem to be working, albeit with terribly low bandwidth (i suppose this is not a concern for wikipedia). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.62.244.9 (talk) 20:22, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

  1. ^ And the Sky Full of Stars
  2. ^ J. Michael Straczynski (1992). "Babylon 5 posts by JMS for November 1991 through Jan, 1992". Archived from the original on 2007-06-30. Retrieved 2007-07-19. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= and |archivedate= (help)
  3. ^ {{ url=http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0106336/awards }}
  4. ^ {{ url=http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0517711/
  5. ^ "Past Hugo Winners". Locus Online. Retrieved 2007-08-22.
  6. ^ "Past Hugo Winners". Locus Online. Retrieved 2007-08-22.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Babylon_5/Archive_2&oldid=1136295930"