Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Babylon 5

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Sister project links

I'm not ready to commit to this WikiProject (as I'm too thinly spread already), but I do watch B5 and plan to contribute informally. I'm a little confused about some of the sister project links currently in the article. First, why is there a meta link? Meta-Wiki is not about subjects, it's about Wikimedia projects. Second, how should we include multiple links in a single project? Wikiquote currently has two articles under the B5 umbrella, q:Babylon 5 and q:Crusade (TV series). ~ Jeff Q (talk) 02:48, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Maybe we can split up the Wikiquote page. As far as the meta, those sister project links are standard that come with the template for a Wikiproject I used. CynicalMe 09:08, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I'll Join

Yea, I'll join, I've already done a whole station's worth of articles (all the crusade eps, lost tales etc) and will love to do more, how I join? User:Tom walker 12:23 22 August 2006

Just add your name under participants, and continue your work. :-) CynicalMe 09:06, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I've joined too. :) This is the first time I've decided to join a wikiproject, but I've been in a bit of a B5 mood lately, and this sound like a fun project, with articles that need a lot of work in places.

I would like to bring some uniformity to the episodic articles, and I think it would be useful to have at least one article that would be elected to be polished up to stand as example, and the others should be created in its image. Keeping the suggestion of this consensus discussion in mind. For instance the Midnight on the Firing Line episode has a really long plot synopsis, almost scene for scene, that I feel is a bit too much, and indeed the above mentioned consensus conclusions advice against it. On the other hand, there are some articles where the synopsis is barely more than a sentence (e.g. A Spider in the Web), and not much else in the article either. I think we can do some interesting things with the episodic articles, both because of the nature of the show as a 'novel for television' with big interconnected story arcs, and because we are writing them with the advantage of hindsight (as opposed to the Lurker's Guide for instance) so we know what connections to make where.

Also, I would like to bring up the main B5 article to at least GA article status, which I feel it already is pretty close at, and possibly try to go for FA.

I'm not sure about the this wikiproject page though. It seems to cut off in a pretty odd way in the first sentence?

As a PS, I completely rewrote the lost tales article. And I will try to make it my task to keep that one up to date as the months go by. --Codemonkey 18:26, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Excellent. I totally agree about bringing those articles up to higher standards. As far as making an example of an article, how about War Without End? It ties in with so many other episodes, plus 'In the beginning'. CynicalMe 19:00, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Ooh, WWE is a tricky one to get right, with the massive payoff to stuff being set up earlier in the show, and all the flash backs and flash forwards, and stuff that is set up for later happenings. But that does probably make it a good choice. I'll try to formulate some rough ideas on how what the episodic articles should cover tomorrow, and how that coverage should be structured, keeping in mind both WWE, while trying to go into a bit more detail than the consensus advice I linked to above. Basically, most of the B5 articles will consist in large part of covering "The episode's relevance in ongoing story arcs, if any", because of the nature of the show, and we could do with a bit more of a detailedly formulated approach there. At least, I find it helpful for myself to do this. Nothing too elaborate though. --Codemonkey 22:04, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Joined

I joined, though I don't know how much I'll be able to participate. Most of my efforts are absorbed into admin tasks or WikiProject Figure Skating. But I think this wikiproject is way cool. :) --Fang Aili talk 14:41, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I've joined as well. I've been on a tear working on the Babylon 5 main page the last few days. I'm hoping my edits are helpful. I'd really like to see the article make GA (and someday FA). Most of my time lately seems to be spent fixing up the Philmont Scout Ranch article and making sure that Lost (TV series) episode articles don't get screwed up. But this show is one of my all time favorites, and it seems to need a lot of work here, so I'm offering my services. Radagast83 06:36, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rough outline for the episodic articles.

I took the time to quickly whip up a very rough outline for our episodic articles. I put some thought in it, but I still wrote it pretty quickly. For instance, I wrote in two separate sections that basically cover 'arc significance', and I'm not sure if this is a good idea or not. So, feedback would be appreciated.

(1) Leader. First paragraph basically telling what the episode is. '<Episode title> is the Xth episode in the Yth season of the science fiction television series Babylon 5. It was broadcast first...' If there are really signicant production details for the episode; first or last (regular) appearence of a cast member, awards won or nominated, it should follow in the first paragraph.

Second paragraph is a couple sentence worth of short plot synopsis. Not too strong on spoilers.

(2) What happened in the episode, i.e. full plot Synopsis. 3-4 sentences per act, maybe 1.5 x times that lenghth for two parters? Depends on how much happens in the episode.

(3) Break down the major events, and state what in previous episodes set up those events, or how the big events of this episodes tie themselves into events in previous episodes. E.g. in WWE we finally get to see the G'Kar/Londo death scene in context; here we would mention the vision he had, in what episodes this was shown, and what he thought about it then. (basically, what led up to this episode)

(4) Set up for future episodes, shorter than section (3), basically saying where certain things in this episodes get resolved, or further explored. E.g. in WWE end we first learn that Sheridan and Delenn have a son, called David, and that something happenened there. Here we would mention the later mentions of David, in very a brief fashion. Something like:

"In this episode we first learn that Sheridan and Delenn will have a son, called David. In the episode Wheel of Fire, we find out that Delenn is pregnant. In the episode Objects at Rest, we see Londo giving an urn to the couple to be given to their child when he comes of age, containing a Keeper. And in the episode The Deconstruction of Falling Stars, we learn there were troubles with David during (forgot how explicit the episode was with regards to timeframe here)."

Just quick navigational aids, sentences filled with wikilinks to future episodes for those reading an article wondering 'how and in which episode did that play out again?'.

(4) Notes. On the production, behind the scenes stuff. Critical reception. Impact on popular culture. Trivia. Basically, a catch all section, where you can state anything interesting you have turned up (from a verifiable source).


The Lurker's Guide can be a useful tool in making these also. They have an unanswered questions section: often, we can answer them because we know how the entire five years worth of story played out. So these questions may be helpful guidelines on what to cover in section (4).

We should not have a seperate 'jms speaks' section I think. However, he has said a lot of pertinent things, and those should be mentioned where what he is talking about comes up naturally in the flow of the article. Preferably with links to JMSNews.

What do you guys think? --Codemonkey 17:53, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Nobody has any comment on this? Guess I'll just start chomping away at the WWE article with this in mind, starting with rewriting the synopsis, and see how far I get. If it turns out some ideas don't end up working, or some of you don't like it, we can always change it later. --Codemonkey 06:13, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
Generally sounds good. Go for it, love to critique it when it's done or give input as the process goes along. Radagast83 07:04, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Oh boy. I see I wrote this down a month ago, but I've been kinda busy with some other stuff. I'll see if I can finish up WWE in October at the latest. --Codemonkey 12:14, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
I just edited the Byron page from an out-of-universe perspective, with episodic references. My opinion is that this should be sufficient to keep most people who are obsessed with the Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction) happy.
Feel free to check out my comments on the MoS (fiction) talk page about in-universe styles. Personally I prefer allowing well-referenced in-universe style biographies in an otherwise out-of-universe style article. I made up an example template for a fictional biography.
Finally, I agree with an earlier comment that Babylon 5 seems a particular target for persecution, considering the sheer number of larger fan-projects that contain countless unreferenced in-universe character biographies. Dr Aaron 21:11, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Races (minor in particular)

I'm only going to propose this for the time being, but I really feel that the alien B5 articles should be re-written and reorganized. I understand that the episode guide is a priority, but I kind of think that since Codemonkey has the right idea so far on what to do, and I'll await what the final article looks like before persuing any of the other episode articles. For the time being I think I could address this to spend my time in a constructive way as well as reference and tweak the main B5 article (I really want the page to have GA status again!).

Okay, so the problems I saw (or solutions):

  • List of Babylon 5 races would be a good way to go (a la Star Wars) with all the information for minor species, and little blurbs and main article links to larger articles (Narn, Centauri, Mimbari, Vorlon, Shadows, Humans). Most of the minor races articles are stubs (or should be listed as stubs) and this would be a good way of making an article that describes at length the species in the universe without pesky stub articles.
  • Dilgar needs to be reduced (one example among many). Take out brilliant prose and possibly put into List of Babylon 5 races. One Dilgar was featured in one episode, and as far as I recall, they were never mentioned ever again in the series. Yes the war they had was important (immortality and the like), but from just glancing at the article, it's longer (or almost as long) as the Narn, Centauri, and Mimbari pages! Far too long for such a minor species.

After we discuss it a bit I'll eventually get around to it if it sounds like a good idea. I want to hear ideas before I do anything too bold. Radagast83 06:37, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I was bold and moved most of them there myself. Personally I think it fits a bit better, as the civilization's page is more detailed and doesnt just mention the "main civilizations." I do think that one or two more need to be moved, and have their images not used elsewhere and whatnot. Radagast83 22:00, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sources?

I like to hit the random button and see where it takes me - tonight I ended up at a Babylon 5 article - it had no sources, I clicked onto another one - it had no sources. I think by the time I got bored I had tagged all 20 articles I had checked. I'll do more tomorrow. The causal reader or wikipedia editor has no way to determine what is unsourced good information and what is original research and guesswork (which is a shame as the articles by and large were well-written and interesting reads).

Can I suggest that as a priority for the project that the provision of sources be very high. Indeed I'd suggest that is a higher priority than creating new articles - quality rather than quantity? --Charlesknight 20:40, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] B5 Template locations

I've noticed that on a great many B5 related pages that the template is pretty much "all over the place." At the top is convenient, but doesn't look very good from an aesthetics point of view. Most series, or topics that have templates are located at the bottom of the screen. Should a move be made to do such a thing? At the very least it would be consistant. Radagast83 05:43, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm thinking of altering the template. It is all over the place because of the way it's made. I think it might be time for an update anyway since it's been like that since December or last year. FaithLehaneTheVampireSlayer 22:20, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Project Directory

Hello. The WikiProject Council is currently in the process of developing a master directory of the existing WikiProjects to replace and update the existing Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory. These WikiProjects are of vital importance in helping wikipedia achieve its goal of becoming truly encyclopedic. Please review the following pages:

  • User:Badbilltucker/Culture Directory,
  • User:Badbilltucker/Culture Directory 2,
  • User:Badbilltucker/Philosophy and religion Directory,
  • User:Badbilltucker/Sports Directory,
  • User:Badbilltucker/Geographical Directory,
  • User:Badbilltucker/Geographical Directory/United States, (note: This page will be retitled to more accurately reflect its contents)
  • User:Badbilltucker/History and society directory, and
  • User:Badbilltucker/Science directory

and make any changes to the entries for your project that you see fit. There is also a directory of portals, at User:B2T2/Portal, listing all the existing portals. Feel free to add any of them to the portals or comments section of your entries in the directory. The three columns regarding assessment, peer review, and collaboration are included in the directory for both the use of the projects themselves and for that of others. Having such departments will allow a project to more quickly and easily identify its most important articles and its articles in greatest need of improvement. If you have not already done so, please consider whether your project would benefit from having departments which deal in these matters. It is my hope to have the existing directory replaced by the updated and corrected version of the directory above by November 1. Please feel free to make any changes you see fit to the entries for your project before then. If you should have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you. B2T2 21:57, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry if you tried to update it before, and the corrections were gone. I have now moved the new draft in the old directory pages, so the links should work better. My apologies for any confusion this may have caused you. B2T2 13:39, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New format

I cleaned up the project page and added some color/organization. It's modeled after Wikipedia:WikiProject Figure Skating. Let me know if you approve/disapprove. --Fang Aili talk 17:49, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] In-universe writing

There are a number of articles written from a wholly in-universe style, such as Minbari, that say absolutely nothing from a real-world perspective about them, focusing entirely on a summary of plot events with no reference to what shows or stories depict these events. I think a lot of cleanup is in order. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 23:45, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Good point, though Babylon 5 is hardly the only fictional universe that does this, while Babylon 5 articles are doing this, the number is a fraction of the number that Star Wars or Star Trek has in terms of in-universe articles. Another user just added tags to each character article. I don't know if they'll bother editing, so I'll get to it eventually (I'm busy working on the maintenance collaboration currently, so I don't know when I'll get to them). I can only hope that many people including yourself could help out. Radagast83 23:11, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
A lot of people do not actually read the articles (as you may of seen by Night Guys history..) last nights tagging was done in the space of 20 seconds each. Matthew Fenton (talk · contribs · count · email) 23:35, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm sure most of them could be easily fixed with a few changes, some might need more work. I just wish that people who tagged a lot of articles could help fix them as well. Radagast83 01:12, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Yea.. ttoally {{sofixit}} Matthew Fenton (talk · contribs · count · email) 01:14, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
I just heard back from the guy who did the tagging (see my talk page) after I left a note for him asking him to elaborate. Considering the large amount of in-universe focussed fan work on Wikipedia, I think the policy should be looked at. I think many who are trying to "enforce" the policy believe that fictional works should not be described in any great detail on Wikipedia; rather Wikipedia should focus on more dry, intellectual, factual material.
While I agree that unreferenced speculation on fiction should be minimised, summarising of fictional work, even in detail, is not outside the Wikipedia charter. Certainly it is something that is of interest to a great deal of people.
Certainly I find "in-universe" description no more extravagent than cell biology projects I'm involved in that catalogue every gene/protein in existance. Despite the proteins being "real", I'm sure they'll be of less interest to the general population than a vastly popular television series. Hopefully we can resolve this issue as I find the boxes quite annoying.
Dr Aaron 02:05, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
I totally agree with you, frankly the in-universe clean-up box is abused to much and added with no regard. Matthew Fenton (talk · contribs · count · email) 02:08, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
I just noticed this going on - hell, it motivated me enough to stop lurking, create an account and have a go cleaning up the David Sheridan article myself, but apparently it's back on the chopping block. (Any tips for article formatting? Anyone who's got those books in recent memory and can fix up the sequence of events? My memory's a bit blurred, so I didn't edit the sequence of events from the novel.) I think every B5 character but Laurel Takashima got tagged for reworking - but don't say that too loudly or she'll join the list :-p . As for the characters tagged for deletion, I figure they should have a "minor characters" combined page at the very least - then we can have a debate about minor vs major, instead of just wiping them out. Quack 688 09:00, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Minor characters pages work extremely well; I'd go for that. :) --Masamage 17:21, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Okay, I had a go creating a List of Babylon 5 characters and List of minor Babylon 5 characters - I left a few design comments on the talkback for the main page. These pages obviously still need some work, but do the basics look allright? (The main thing I did differently to the pages I ripped off was only putting the main list in category lists. I think it's neater to have all access into B5 characters going through the main list as the gateway, with the minor list only accessed when needed. Quack 688 15:36, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Signing In

Ok, I've signed in... Just point me in a direction, and I'll do my best (and I'll stroll around, seeing what I can do).

I am quite a fan of the B5 Series, and own every B5 episode, as well as all five movies, but sadly do not have Crusade. Dablueeagle 22:33, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi Dablueeagle! You could use the to do list on the project page, or just start clicking and doing things as you see fit. :) --Fang Aili talk 23:29, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia Day Awards

Hello, all. It was initially my hope to try to have this done as part of Esperanza's proposal for an appreciation week to end on Wikipedia Day, January 15. However, several people have once again proposed the entirety of Esperanza for deletion, so that might not work. It was the intention of the Appreciation Week proposal to set aside a given time when the various individuals who have made significant, valuable contributions to the encyclopedia would be recognized and honored. I believe that, with some effort, this could still be done. My proposal is to, with luck, try to organize the various WikiProjects and other entities of wikipedia to take part in a larger celebrartion of its contributors to take place in January, probably beginning January 15, 2007. I have created yet another new subpage for myself (a weakness of mine, I'm afraid) at User talk:Badbilltucker/Appreciation Week where I would greatly appreciate any indications from the members of this project as to whether and how they might be willing and/or able to assist in recognizing the contributions of our editors. Thank you for your attention. Badbilltucker 16:20, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] CFD notice

Removed cfdnotice, cfd has completed. --Kbdank71 15:09, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Don't discuss it there, discuss it over here. B5 isn't being picked on; this discussion is for all the 'Actors by series' categories. I recommend converting your category into a 'List of...' article while you still have it for reference. --Masamage 17:40, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
Please also note Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 February 20 for a review of the decision regarding Category:Actors by series. Tim! 08:10, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] I'll help

But I'm hopeless new to Wiki and the edit system so I'm not actually changing stuff incase I FUBAR. Instead I'm making notes on the talk pages if that helps.

I did manage to add the CCG to the Project though. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iscariot Ex Machina (talk • contribs)

Sounds great. :) Just remember to sign your posts by typing --~~~~ at the end. --Masamage 17:37, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
Argh, I keep forgetting that, too used to forums that sign stuff automatically.Iscariot Ex Machina 18:17, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] B5 episode infobox

WikiProject Television episodes is currently working on seeing how much of the showspecific infoboxes we can replace with the Template:Infobox television episode. This should eleviate maintenance and create more consistency among the various pages we hope. What Template:B5 episode currently has that the standard box doesn't is:

  • a color
  • year

Wether color will be added to the more general infobox is currently under debate. Note that i will not directly replace this template if color is not added, i will put it up for discussion at TfD to see what the concensus will be. The year is information from fictional world. Although in general if it is important enough, it is allowed, i don't really think this specific piece of information is a good idea. My reasons:

  1. most of the time it's one of 6 numbers
  2. most of the time that number corresponds directly to the season this ep was part of
  3. it's not essential/defining information in most episodes, there where it is (flashback/futureflash), it should be noted in the article regardless.

Therefor, if I would be replacing this template in the future, my current assessment is to remove the "year" information from the infobox. I don't want to start a riot, so i'll appreciate any feedback of the project. TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 16:49, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Original airdate in episodes

Currently, the page for "Chrysalis" lists the airdate as October 26, 1994. However, this is the not the original airdate, but rather when the episode aired in the US. The UK aired the episode on October 3, 1994, over three weeks earlier.

There is a discussion going on over at Talk:List of Heroes episodes about whether the airdate listed for the most recent episode should be its US airdate (since it's a US show), or its Canadian airdate (since they aired it a day early this week, and will do so again next week). This is probably something that Wikipedia should be consistent with, so interested parties may wish to join the discussion there. --ΨΦorg 01:16, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Is there a problem with listing them both? --Fang Aili talk 14:44, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Indeed. See Talk:List of Heroes episodes. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 14:58, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Personally I don't have a problem with listing 2 dates, one with the first air date, and another with the first US airdate (if they are different). This makes sense because B5 was a US show. OTOH I haven't looked closely at the template and don't know if this would be technically unfeasible. --Fang Aili talk 22:27, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
All the US did was pay bills didn't they? Not to mention how can you have two /original/ air dates? thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 22:30, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Apparently there is a Wikipedia policy regarding air dates that says that the first worldwide air date is the one to list. To address the factual point raised, Babylon 5 was produced in Los Angeles in an off-lot production facility. JMS wanted to be off the Warner lot, but close enough that he could go in for meetings. He did figure out that Vancouver was better and cheaper for Jeremiah, I believe. Avt tor 22:58, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Yea, read a newsboard posting from him about filming Jeremiah in Canada. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 23:10, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] TfD nomination of Template:Crusade episode

Template:Crusade episode has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. I have nominated the template because it's duplicating {{Infobox Television episode}} in its functionality. BTW. the Crusade episode pages need serious work. They are a long way from being good articles. If someone gets tired from working on B5, try taking a swing at some Crusade articles for a day. :D --TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 01:34, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] replacing B5 episode infobox

I've replaced the contents of {{B5 episode}} with a call to {{Infobox Television episode}}. This will later be subst: by a bot. The Year information is currently lost, but since this information is consistent on about 98% of the episode pages I do not see this as a problem. This information is represented by the main article, and If there are episodes that deviate from that timeline then this should be noted in the prose (and as far as I could see it already is in most cases). --TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 12:50, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Assessments?

I note that your main project page has a link to a nonexistent assessments page. If you want such assessments set up, please let me know and I can create one. Contacting me directly at my talk page generally works best, as I am most likely to see it there. John Carter 22:22, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Spoo featured article review

Spoo has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. --Nydas(Talk) 12:08, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] My first contribution

To this project anyway. I've started a stub entry on General Richard Franklin if anyone wants to expand it. Douglasnicol 17:52, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I merged the article into List of Babylon 5 characters, because the article could probably be deleted over notability concerns. You may want to see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lyta Alexander. Hope that works for you. - EurekaLott 18:32, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Naming Conventions

Can we have a set list of confirmed spellings/renderings for names, locations, organisations and entities?

I've just been through most of the Season 2 episodes, editing errors and I've seen various different versions of even common names.

If we can get confirmation of the canonical way of rendering the majority of terms then I'll begin to go through the project correcting the small inconsistencies. As a point, the CCG cannot be used as a basis for naming conventions as it has inconsistencies with the established canon. Iscariot Ex Machina 21:51, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

What names, specifically, are you concerned with? (And what is CCG?) --Fang Aili talk 14:43, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
CCG-Collectible Card Game. Precedence made a Babylon 5 card game. Douglasnicol 16:26, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
Douglasnicol is correct, Precedence Publishing released a CCG (Collectable Card Game, Magic: The Gathering sort of thing) and they often misnamed or renamed character to suit game play and card size. One example would be Tonia Wallace, and ISN reporter in the show whose named was shown in the guest credits. Precedence altered her name to Tonia Wallis, small change, but significant.

As for names it's mainly general stuff, a letter/capitalisation here or there but an agreement would be useful. I've seen Narn names with and without the letter after the apostrophe capitalised (G'Kar and G'kar for instance, I believe that capitalised is the 'correct' written form as established in the show) also small variations such as Nighwatch and Night Watch as well as various capitalised forms of the 'Conspiracy of Light' (I favour this version including the quotation marks as it is shorthand, not and established entity within the show), other items include confusion such as the name of the main Narn cruiser class, G'Quan or G'Quon, the inconsistencies are all over the project. Iscariot 17:27, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

For the more common names, we can go with what's in the credits or actually shown in the program. For other stuff, what can we consider definitive? DVD inserts? JMS's Usenet comments? --Fang Aili talk 17:58, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
I think we've got to use sources considered 'canon' first and then run with other sources as necessary. I believe certain novel as well as the miniatures games produced by Agents of Gaming were considered canonical, the show obviously is. My main point of this section is that we need a comprehensive and definitive decision made on this as it will allow articles to be polished and updated correctly rather than look like pointless fandom Iscariot 18:19, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
Gotcha; I agree that canon material should dictate the correct spellings. How about we start Wikipedia:WikiProject Babylon 5/canon. We can list the canonical sources, and the canonical spellings. --Fang Aili talk 18:58, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Legions of Fire: Out of Darkness

I have just added a detailed plot summary for Babylon 5: Legions of Fire - Out of the Darkness, the 3-d novel in Peter David's "Legions of Fire" series.

I am rather new to this, so I would very much appreciate any comments, criticisms and suggestions. Also, maybe someone more experienced can edit this article further.

Thanks, Nsk92 14:49, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] G'Quan class heavy cruiser

This article is mispelt as 'G'Quon' class, although the correct spelling is used elsewhere, is there any way to correct the articles main name? Douglasnicol 20:58, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Add it to the list, Minister Virini has the entirely wrong name. Iscariot 13:31, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New guideline on fiction: Delete B5-related articles?

I would like to call the attention of members of this project to the recently revised guideline at WP:FICT, which now states that all sub-articles on fictional subjects must independently meet a new (stricter) notability ruling than what was in place prior to the new guideline. If enforced, the new guideline would likely result in the deletion and/or merging of hundreds of articles on fictional subjects, such as fictional characters, television episodes, fictional locations, etc. There is active discussion / disagreement related to this issue at Wikipedia talk:Notability (fiction), and in the interests of ensuring the topic is fully discussed by interested editors, I would invite members of this project to participate in that discussion (whether you agree with the new guideline or not). Fairsing 22:20, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I suppose as long as the information is trans-wikied to The Great Machine or The Babylon Project before it is deleted (if something is proposed to be deleted), it wouldn't be so bad. Now, I have a good question about which one is either more "legit" or "official" (I realize neither is "official" - but do you catch my drift?), meaning: which one would be better to contribute to if things start getting deleted on Wikipedia? Radagast83 04:33, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
This is a touchy debate as there potentially could be a LOT of subjects and articles deleted from Wiki. Just how far does this go, and really what harm does it do to have these articles? Douglasnicol 17:45, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Oh, it won't be that bad. Any time something is threatened with a deletion, just merge it into a list. --Masamage ♫ 17:54, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Personally I'm against that in a lot of cases. It wasn't so long ago there was a vote for deletion of an entry to do with the Wing Commander games. Attached to one AFD were 113 others, and some of those articles were very big. Lists would end up breaking the page limits. I'd really like to know why this sudden thing against fiction. Douglasnicol 20:45, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
I don't think it's sudden; it's just being addressed more seriously lately. This is a long-fought battle between folks who want Wikipedia to be a huge general encyclopedia with excellent sources, and folks who want Wikipedia to be the sum-total of human knowledge focusing more on "accuracy" and completeness than sourcing. Both are laudable goals, but the latter, in which fiction fans often effectively attempt to recreate entire fan websites inside Wikipedia, cannot be done practically, even if it wasn't specifically rejected as a Wikipedia goal. I won't rehash the critical reasons behind reliable, independent sourcing here, but the need for it renders much of the popular episode, character, setting, and prop articles essentially unverifiable. The lack of independent sources for much of this material also suggests a lack of notability of the specific subject; i.e., it is not being discussed in established publications with the editorial oversight that stands for wiki-reliability. I believe that in the next 10-20 years, the massive increase of unvetted information flow that the Internet provides will force societies to create new approaches to verifiability and reliability in publishing that may make more of this information flood useful to projects like Wikipedia. But we're far from being there; WP's "reliable sourcing", "verifiability", and "notability" concepts are, for now, the chosen practical (if not fully satisfying) method to work toward accuracy and relevancy. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 21:19, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Spoo

FYI, after its featured article review and subsequent keep as a Featured Article, spoo has now been nominated for deletion. See: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spoo. --Fang Aili talk 15:02, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Can I get a link to the Featured Article Review that seems to have precipitated this? Iscariot 13:32, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Featured article review/Spoo/archive1. Best regards, Steve T • C 15:25, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mind burst

I've prodded this article for deletion. If you disagree, remove the template.Nydas(Talk) 12:04, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Centralized TV Episode Discussion

Over the past months, TV episodes have been redirected 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 [1]. --Maniwar (talk) 00:37, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Joined!

After some thought, I've decided to join this WikiProject. I own all the season box sets, Crusade, and all the movies except Legend of the Rangers, so I hope I'll be able to do some good. Already did a little work on List of Babylon 5 characters and Lyta Alexander, and I'll see what else I can contribute to when I get some spare time. :) -- Amber Vietzke (talk) 01:14, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Lyta Alexander

Did some work on the article and added sources. I also pulled out the in-universe tag. If anyone wants to take a look at it and see if there is anything else that can be done to improve it, that'd be great. -- Amber Vietzke (talk) 18:35, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Cleaning up the episodes

I'm going through all the episodes and cleaning up original research, unreferenced things, opinions and trivia, as per the Wiki rules. If you don't like what I remove, get a reference for it, so much of the trivia is "Straczinski said this and that" with no mention of where or when he said that, no proof that the writer is not some delusional fanboy turning his opinions into "facts". And that can usually probably get worked into the main content so there is no trivia section, as per the rules on such things. So much more of it is garbage that states something like a planet or species name is a homage without any proof or even saying it came from someone, original research. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.137.207.191 (talk) 23:55, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Go right ahead. Though you should probably be aware that several of those you have already removed original research from are sourced from the Lurkers Guide entry which is incorrectly listed in the "External links" section, so be careful with what you remove (trivia is fine to zap, though). That link should actually be moved to a "References" section if it's the main source of the article content. Steve T • C 00:33, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Episode titled "Infection". I'm watching it on VEOH and it is about a little boy with an infection in a family that has religious beliefs that don't allow surgery. The description of "Infection" in the pages for episodes is entirely different. Any explanation? Gregory Wonderwheel (talk) 22:44, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

You're watching "Believers," not "Infection." Jclemens (talk) 22:51, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, actually I just figured that out while I was looking further down the list. But then it is VEOH that has misnamed the episode, because it is titled "Infection" on their list. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gregory Wonderwheel (talk • contribs) 23:18, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Number One article

I began work on the Number One (Babylon 5) page, getting it up to at least start class in my humble opinion. I added the template used on Marcus Cole, flushed it out some, and wiki-ed up the article. I also added fair use for the pic being used there. Let me know if anyone disapproves of my changes. By the way, a good deal of this talk page is just about ripe enough for archiving, yes?

Kresock (talk) 07:35, 11 February 2008 (UTC)