Talk:Babylon 5

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Former featured article candidate Babylon 5 is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive.
Article milestones
Date Process Result
April 18, 2006 Good article nominee Not listed
July 8, 2008 Featured article candidate Not promoted
Current status: Former featured article candidate
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Babylon 5    (Inactive)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Babylon 5, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.
 
WikiProject Science Fiction (Rated B-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Science Fiction, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science fiction on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Television (Rated B-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of television on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject United States / American Television (Rated B-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject American television (marked as Low-importance).
 
edit·history·watch·refresh Stock post message.svg To-do list for Babylon 5:

IMPROVEMENTS NEEDED FOR WP:GA[edit]

Languages Section

  • Andreas Katsulas does not use a British accent in playing G'Kar. It's more correct to call that "standard English" or "mid-Atlantic English."

Religion Section

  • The Jesuits are not a different religion. They are a religious order of men (ie. priests, deacons and brothers) within the Catholic Church.

Well written

  • Weak Pass.
    • Further improve: Work on overall flow. The sections do not gel well with each other as a single article. Transitions need to be better. Too many lists that could be broken off or turned into prose. Subcategories should be parallel in format. Done

Factually Accurate

Broad Coverage

  • Passed. Many strengths.
    • Further improve: More on international reception.

NPOV

  • Passed.

Stable

  • Passed.

Appropriate Images

  • Passed.
    • Further improve: Caption quality needs to be consistent. "Another shot of the Babylon 5 station" is inadequate being that the largest object in the photo is a planet of some sort which is unidentified. Done

Real-world context for articles dealing with fiction

  • Failed. Too fan centric:
    • "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). Done Koweja 18:50, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
    • "Babylon stations" section: Reads like the fictional universe is real. Needs real-world context for readers who are unfamiliar with the series. Done --Angelstorm 10:55, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
    • "Ethnicity and language of characters" section: Reads like the fictional universe is real. Needs real-world context for readers who are unfamiliar with the series Section Removed
    • "Usage of English" section: Reads like the fictional universe is real. Needs real-world context for readers who are unfamiliar with the series Section Removed

Length

  • Failed. Too long
    • Consider moving the lengthy "Novels, novelizations, short stories, and comic books" list to its own article. Done Koweja 18:50, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Priority 1 (top)


Incorrect summary of final episode of 5th season...[edit]

I just saw the episode "Sleeping in Light" the other day. It was actually supposed to be Lorien that came back and took Sheridan beyond the rim of the galaxy, not the First Ones. One can debate whether or not Lorien did actually come back or not, or whether it was a hallucination, but if you take everything on face value, it was definitely Lorien and not the First Ones. What would be accepted as an authoritative reference for this fact?

Also did someone want to say something about this episode being filmed at the end of 4th season, which is why we see Ivanova instead of Lochley, and that it was only after they were brought back for 5th season that they decided to postpone this ending and had to write and film a series of episodes to fit between the end of 4th season and "Sleeping in Light"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.83.93.16 (talk) 15:58, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I'll take a look at the summary to try to fix your first point. As for the second point, the following is included in the "Writing" section:

The intended series finale, "Sleeping in Light," was filmed during season four as a precaution against cancellation. When word came that TNT had picked up Babylon 5, this was moved to the end of season five and replaced with a newly-filmed season four finale.

Hope this clears things up. Steve TC 07:56, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Critical Response[edit]

Seems to me that there ought to be a section detailing the critical response to Babylon 5. Might be easier said than done now that the series is 15 years old, but I'm open to thoughts on the matter. Stile4aly (talk) 15:32, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

  • I was just reading this page and thought the exact same thing. All entertainment pages for movies, tv shows, albums, etc, should have a critical response section. Kansaikiwi (talk) 22:44, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Links to Full B5 episodes on Hulu and AOL Video[edit]

I think it is appropriate to add links to the B5 episodes on Hulu and AOL video. It seems to me the best way to understand a TV show is to watch it. The wiki page for LOST, Ghostbusters (the Movie) and others link their wiki page to (offical) streaming video on the web. I've reviewed the WP:EL page and I don't see any particular rule that my suggested links would violate.

Putting a link to the show serves the reader. I see it this way: Reading about tigers in an encyclopedia tells you a lot about tigers, but if you can read the article and go to the zoo and actually see a tiger you'll learn even more.

I don't think the goal of the B5 wiki page is to simply to write an encyclopedic article about B5. I believe the goal is to communicate to the visitor an understanding of what B5 is. Therefore, we should include links that allow people to watch the show. NoahWolfe (talk) 21 July 2008 (UTC)

You are quite correct that it is appropriate to link to streamed episodes at Hulu and/or AOL video. In fact, WP:EL specifically says the page should link to such pages. From WP:ELYES:
What should be linked:
1. Articles about any organization, person, web site, or other entity should link to the official site, if any.
2. An article about a book, a musical score, or some other media should link to a site hosting a copy of the work if none of the "Links normally to be avoided" criteria apply.
3. Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to copyright issues, amount of detail (such as professional athlete statistics, movie or television credits, interview transcripts, or online textbooks) or other reasons.
4. Sites with other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article, such as reviews and interviews.
Seems very straightforward to me. I'm pretty astonished someone reverted your additions citing... WP:EL. The rabbit in the suitcase (talk) 16:54, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Template:B5 update[edit]

I think it can do for an update. I think it should look similar to this:

Besides in some of the articles, the current template's like all over the place and this format will keep it stationary. FaithLehaneTheVampireSlayer 14:33, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

What is a TV Movie?[edit]

Well, well. I t have seen, that the section TV Movies (6.6 I think) lacks of consense somewhat. Sometimes "Voices in the Dark" appears there and there is noch summary on "To Live and Die in Starlight". I´d suggest the following: Remove "To Live and Die in Starlight", since it is the Pilot for TLOTR, which never made it into production. It´s like "The Gathering" an backdoor-pilot. The other movies are all somewhat feature-length episodes of the show, that where produced outside the seasons. What do you think? 87.174.193.47 (talk) 21:50, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

They are TV movies, though I don't think The Gathering should be there as it was simply a feature length pilot. The rest, other than "To Live and Die in Starlight" were actually specifically made for TV movies with a much higher budget than the TV episodes, even a double episode. In The Beginning even got a limited theatrical release. Canterbury Tail talk 01:09, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
That the four TNT Movies are the TV-Movies is pretty undoubtful. And I agree with your opinion about The Gathering (although the "special edition" could be considered to be "repackaged" into a TV-Movie, but that is not part of the debate.)
About the legend of the rangers: I think, it´s not a B5-TV-Movie, but a series, that never made it beyond it´s feature-length pilot.
And the Lost Tales bare pretty much the same definition. It is a DVD-Series, that only was produced until the second episode.
Who agrees? Who doesn´t? Comments please? ;)

87.174.235.2 (talk) 23:04, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Since jms himself referenced "The Gathering" as "The pilot *movie*" multiple times, I would call it a TV movie. ("We'll do the movie, and prove our point. When that's done, we get the full pickup.", "The B-5 movie is going to air this year, in the fall/winter.", "...the script for "The Gathering" pilot movie;...". Go with the authoritative source on this one. JoeD80 (talk) 20:23, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Childhood's End as an influence[edit]

The main article mentions "sagas" that were influential upon J.M. Straczynski's original B5 idea. As examples, it presents the Foundation novels, Lord of the Rings, Dune, and Childhood's End. This last book is a standalone novel, and not even a long one as novels go. Does it count as an example of a saga? If it is really true that this book was an influence on JMS, we might just rephrase the passage to something like "... science fiction and fantasy sagas such as the Foundation novels, The Lord of the Rings, Dune, as well as genre novels like Childhood's End..." SrAtoz (talk) 17:10, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Then again, please consider that Childhood's End appears only as an example. We might just as well simply remove it, without any loss to comprehension but with the advantages of uncluttering the text (therefore making it easier to read) and making it indisputably true. Opinions? SrAtoz (talk) 17:21, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
Well, I think it's clear that Childhood's End was an influence on Babylon 5. In particular there's the bit where the alien is revealed to be a devil, just as Kosh is revealed to be an angel in Babylon 5. --Howdybob (talk) 15:12, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
All those influences need to be referenced, we can't just make up what we think obviously influenced it, it needs to be referenced as third party sources. Canterbury Tail talk 15:38, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
jms has mentioned Childhood's End more than once, and this quote mentions it as a definite influence where jms says B5 is not influenced by Star Trek so much as sci-fi literature: "This show owes more conceptually to historical themes, and the kinds of sagas that come down to us in the Lensman books, Childhood's End, the Foundation books, Dune and others than any TV show, including and especially Star Trek." and also mentions in this quote about the reason for doing B5: "As a lifelong SF fan myself, I loved the sagas, the huge cycles: Foundation, Childhood's End, Lord of the Rings, Dune, and kept wondering, "Why hasn't someone done this for TV?" To which the only answer is, "Nobody's tried."" JoeD80 (talk) 20:30, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Spin-off Section[edit]

There´s something odd about section 6. It is titled Plot Summery and is indeed a plot summary until section 6.7 Spin-offs, which is talking more about the Production, not plot of the spin-offs. I think the Spin-offs could make their own section (Section 7). I´d also suggest to remove The Legend of the Ranger as a TV-Movie, since it is technically not a Babylon 5 (series) TV Movie and is dealt with in the Spin-off Section. Maybe the TV-Movies section could also be expanded upon and be made it´s own Section (Section 7 with the Spin-offs becoming section 8). In that case the Plot Summery Section would really be simply about the Story of the Series.87.174.193.31 (talk) 21:35, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Original Concept[edit]

I haven't seen Babylon 5 yet, but I came across this review of The Scripts of JMS, Volume 15, where he talks about an original 10-year concept. This 15th volume might be worth a look. Remco47 (talk) 16:47, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

2009 DVD Release[edit]

Most of the region 1 DVDs were published in 2004. I just notices new region 1 DVDs with a 2009 published date and much higher prices. Does anyone have any knowledge about any differences between 2004 and 2009? (and perhaps you would add this information to the main article?) --Neilrieck (talk) 14:52, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

When I researched this it seemed to me that one retailer had mis-priced the collections at 3x other retailers prices. While my evidence is weak (from a comment on that retailers web site), since the item is "merely a repackage" according to the retailer, I can't find a compelling reason to add the info to the main article. More info is needed from someone who has both releases to tell us if there is any significant or "notable" difference, it seems to me. --Aladdin Sane (talk) 18:01, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I ended up buying the 2009 DVD package only to discover that WB has moved from cardboard packaging (2004) to plastic packages (2009) so don't waste your money if you don't have to. On a related topic, I have started a "Babylon 5 on Blu-ray" petition here: "http://www3.sympatico.ca/n.rieck/docs/babylon5-hi-def-petition.html" (I doubt that the moderators would want to see this info on the article page). Neilrieck (talk) 20:24, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

I know Wikpedia isn't a forum, but I don't want to see B5 on Blu-Ray. The film footage will upscale okay, but the special effects and digital backdrops where all done for 480 US TV. Updoing them to Blu-Ray will be no better, or maybe worse, than upscaling your DVDs to HD. TV computer low res graphics won't look good on Blu-Ray, so I doubt it will ever happen. If you want higher resolution episodes you could buy better quality DVDs from Europe of a higher resolution of 576 than 480. Canterbury Tail talk 21:50, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Time to resubmit article for WP:GA?[edit]

The last Good Article nomination failed. I see in the history that all the concerns were addressed except citations. Going through the article, I'm not finding a great deal more to cite except the 111 references already provided. I am finding that some stuff is not redundantly cited (such as the Emmy reference). Will adding redundant and repetitive cites help push the article toward GA? If 111 references are not enough, what is enough? I need more specifics to fix it. I've looked at other articles on the GA list, and some of them have considerably fewer (less than half) the number of references of this article. --Aladdin Sane (talk) 22:48, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Request change in citation style[edit]

Per Wikipedia:Ref#Citation_templates_and_tools I'm required to beg your consensus for changing cite style from horizontal to vertical for this article.

I hope to go through and clean up the references in the article for consistency and operation (there is one broken cite that I have fixed in my sandbox, please take a look). The reference I've already fixed is in the introductory paragraph to the 'Themes' section. Be sure to look at the code.

My problem is, every time I try to work on the cites, my brain melts because they're, to me, unreadable in horizontal format.

I've also just added a vertical cite to the article in section 'Soundtrack releases' so you can see how it looks.

I feel we may end up with a better article that is closer to GA if you consent to this request.

If you do consent, please let me know if it is OK to leave in unused parameters. I feel that leaving these in makes it easier for future editors to further improve the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aladdin Sane (talkcontribs) 03:01, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Gee, thanks SineBot. (Slaps forehead with dead trout.) —Aladdin Sane (talk) 03:07, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
OK, then, I'll take silence as acquiescence in this case and begin. Fixed cites #1 and #2, and 3 cites in the Themes intro paragraph. I think this flag from the article edit page is worth noting: "This page is 101 kilobytes long. It may be appropriate to split this article into smaller, more specific articles. See Wikipedia:Article size." Also, I found the proper cite for my trout for future reference (just in case), WP:TROUT. —Aladdin Sane (talk) 07:02, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
Updated cites #3 and #4. Cite #3, Hugo Awards, has been split into 2 cites because the web cite template does not seem to let me do 2 URL's in one cite (if you know how to do this, please let me know). The splitting and adding of cites may cause any of the above or below messages to be inaccurate in the future. Stats: Page is at 103 kilobytes, Cites is at 115 unique cites. —Aladdin Sane (talk) 00:31, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
I think that cites #6–#9 are finished improving (I converted one from 'cite newsgroup' to 'cite web' to be able to provide more info). That's one section down and 12 to go. I am about to embark on the mysteries of cite #10 - the fuel injection system. No wait, actually I mean the 'cite video' template. Cites remains at 115 unique, size of article is now 108 kb. —Aladdin Sane (talk) 03:38, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

References at end of sentences?[edit]

Related to the above section, does anybody mind my moving references to the end of sentences to increase readability? Here's an example of what I'm talking about:

The pilot film premiered on February 22, 1993. The regular series aired from January 26, 1994 and ran for five full seasons, winning two Hugos for Best Dramatic Presentation[3] and two Emmy awards—for makeup and visual effects.[4]

Becomes:

The pilot film premiered on February 22, 1993. The regular series aired from January 26, 1994 and ran for five full seasons, winning two Hugos for Best Dramatic Presentation and two Emmy awards—for makeup and visual effects.[3][4]

Any 'nay' votes on the issue? —Aladdin Sane (talk) 20:06, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Babylon 5 and Deep Space 9[edit]

The section talking about one or the other of two networks (PTEN vs. UPN) seeking to develop a similar show, specifically to compete with the other, shows displays an embarrassing level of misinformed conjecture, considering that DS9 ever aired exclusively on UPN at any point throughout its run. It was a first-run syndicated show, just as TNG was, and remained so even after UPN was launched in 1995. B5 and DS9 never competed directly for viewers at a network level, and in fact aired on the same stations in certain markets. B5 was even broadcast on certain local UPN stations alongside Star Trek: Voyager (which *was* a UPN network show) as well. I'm going to remove the offending paragraph, but I thought I'd leave a detailed rationale here. 75.72.217.190 (talk) 07:28, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

I am puzzled by the statement "Babylon 5 and Deep Space Nine diverged and took different paths". On the contrary, Deep Space 9 increasingly imitated Babylon 5's format (season-long story lines, for the first time in STAR TREK) and theme (a multispecies war engulfing nearly all the known races of the story) CharlesTheBold (talk) 04:04, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, though this could be seen as an opinion on our part. The sentences make absolutely no sense, however, based on the actual history of the two shows and the facts brought forth in the article (B5 came first, period). For example, there was no "divergent path" as that assumes they started in the same place. There are other problems with that poorly constructed paragraph - I have [removed] it entirely. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 16:49, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
Concur - I've been having problems with the section ever since it got added. I wasn't sure what to do about it. The DS9 "controversy" sub-section needs to stay, I feel (because it is backed up by some pretty good references IMHO), but it starts to head back away from the GA 'too long' problem that was fixed. It also increases by about 5% the cites already existing that need fixing for GA.
To fix or at least ameliorate the problem, I would like to kill the last paragraph in the DS9 sub-section as well, and maybe do some good for the length problem. My argument: The DS9 sub-section is about an "annoying and notable but not litigated" COPYVIO by Paramount, and hopefully well-enough sourced to stick in the article (after all it came from the DS9 article in the first place). The last paragraph is about "competition", not "the controversy". Unfortunately, it does not hit "notability" within the article, in my opinion, due to the article's already extreme length. Plus I feel it is inaccurate. It demotes B5's ratings from 5.0-6.8 seen in cites sources at the top of the Broadcast History section, to 3-4% in an un-cited assertion at the end of the section. I noted that the editor who originally inserted the DS9 sub-section also seems to have inserted this subtle dig earlier in the section (in the now-2nd paragraph), "...approximately 1% lower than direct competitor Star Trek DS9,..." (see diff, you have to squint really hard to find the insertion). Again, unsourced, ahem. I note the editor seems to have been previously blocked for something Nielsen-related.
On another note, to all the editors currently interested in the section, there was an article on this at WP, but it got zapped. See "Talk:Babylon_5/Archive_2#Similarities_between...". That article still exists, in all its poorly-sourced-but-interesting glory at Similarities between B5 and DS9. —Aladdin Sane (talk) 17:50, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
OK, I killed the paragraph. Found I had to add a sentence for the unfamiliar reader, summing up what actually happened. —Aladdin Sane (talk) 22:34, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

The years of Babylon 5[edit]

in the article it says season 4 is 2261 but if you watch an episode it says the year is 2262 quite clearly in the opening credits can we get some clarification on this matter please —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.0.54.128 (talk) 03:36, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Um, it's already confirmed using the Region One DVDs (Yes check.svg Done). The Region One season four DVD's state 2261, spoken by Jerry Doyle, at the time a Hollywood actor, written by J. Michael Straczynski, a Hollywood writer and producer. You can click on the link provided in the article for that reason, for the confirmed letter by letter, word for word quote. Click The quote occurs at three minutes 33 seconds in episode one and four minutes 40 seconds in episode 22. While the time mark is as exact as possible, Hulu watchers (does Hulu have season four?) might find themselves up to 1000 milliseconds offset from DVD watchers (hopefully this is no big deal). You might be watching season five though. —Aladdin Sane (talk) 03:26, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
All five seasons state the year in the opening sequence, season 1 is 2258 and they advance one-by-one through to season five in 2262. Most likely is that you're watching season 5. Tom walker (talk) 18:02, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

PPG.[edit]

The chosen hand held weapon within B5 was the "PPG".

It seems to have been chosen as it presents no threat to the station "structure" while being effective against organic life forms. It is in effect a "safe weapon" for use within a space station, is it poses no threat to the structure of the station, but is effective at subduing/killing life forms.

What does "PPG" stand for? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.69.149.145 (talk) 19:36, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Phased plasma gun Dlabtot (talk) 19:39, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Edit to Star Trek: Deep Space Nine controversy[edit]

I removed the paragraph (and supposed jms statement) which relates to his decision not to sue paramount. There’s a number of reasons for that.

The first paragraph of the quote is part of a jms reply made in 1992 http://www.jmsnews.com/msg.aspx?id=1-7652.
The second paragraph is lifted from a completely different reply made in 1995 http://jmsnews.com/msg.aspx?id=1-13041.

If you follow those links you can also see that both paragraphs (as they appear in this article) have also been edited from the original comments jms made!!!

When asked directly about suing paramount jms has given very different replies. As can be seen from these replies.
http://www.jmsnews.com/msg.aspx?id=1-838
http://www.jmsnews.com/thread.aspx?id=_Deep%20Space%209
[edit – added the relevant replies from the second link as it covers a few things]
It was discussed with WB for some time, but they felt that it would be like getting into a protracted land war in Asia, and the litigation might prevent B5 from getting a fair shot by being embroiled in a conflict right out of the gate.”

Because, again, I do not *own* B5, not now, not before, not once WB bought it. The copyright belongs to WB, and they don't like to get into these kinds of tussels

It was WB decision not to sue, not his!! Don’t regular experienced editors who maintain this article check edits/additions made by anonymous editors! Minsk59 (talk) 02:50, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Babylon 5 franchise article?[edit]

Just running this up the flagpole to see who salutes - this page is still very long and it'd make sense to keep this page focused on the original TV series and move spin-offs, TV movies, soundtrack and games to a Babylon 5 (franchise) article, along the lines of CSI (franchise) and Law & Order (franchise). It'd help focus this page and make it easier to drive on for improvement, as well as avoid too much bloating. (Emperor (talk) 03:27, 16 November 2010 (UTC))

Makes sense to me. Dlabtot (talk) 05:43, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
Agree. It's the same thing that's been done with Star Trek and Stargate, and would whittle this article down considerably. Tom walker (talk) 09:41, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
Makes perfect sense to me. There is a lot that can go in there, even more than is already in the article, for instance the RPGs are woefully covered. Canterbury Tail talk 12:58, 16 November 2010 (UTC)


order v chaos section[edit]

This quote "and the self-delusion of a populace which believes its moral superiority will never allow a dictatorship to come to power" seems wrong. The show does examine the impositions on civil liberties but we do not see much of the Earth populace in the show. So it seems wrong to say that the show tackles that Eiler7 (talk) 06:24, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Recent changes to the article.[edit]

I noticed something which may have been down to some kind of creep, perhaps considered unnecessary or just overlooked. But the article doesn’t actually contain any information about things like the costume, prosthetics, SFX, etc. I’ve added/edited three sections over the last couple of weeks. They will be full of grammatical errors, typing errors, more than a few spelling errors and most likely don’t meet any number of wiki standards. I’m also planning on adding a few more that’s going to push the article to a ridiculously long length. The one problem I have is that I pretty well have no friggin idea what I’m doing, or if the content being added is helpful/suitable/wanted. So if anyone has any suggestions or advice that would be appreciated. Running a blowtorch over what I’ve added would be helpful as well.

I noted the above comments about setting up daughter articles which may improve the readability and flow. I’d be happy to be involved with that though, again, the assistance of more experienced editor(s) wouldn’t only be appreciated but fairly critical to ensure I don’t crash the wiki. ; ) Minsk59 (talk) 05:14, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

"Due to Warner corporate structure, the franchise is currently in production limbo,"[edit]

Sorry, I don't it. What is this sentence even supposed to mean? Isn't this just PR gibberish?91.39.123.189 (talk) 23:39, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

"Production Limbo" is meant to imply that no real progress is being made on a project, even though some progress was already made and non-specific things are holding it up. It's not the same as a cancelled project, as that implies no one has any plans on going forward with a project at all. "Limbo" implies it's neither here nor there. ——Digital Jedi Master (talk) 10:10, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Refllist formatting[edit]

I think twice now I've changed the references section to have {{reflist|30em}} instead of {{reflist|2}}, and it's been reverted. The reason I made this change is that some screens are too narrow to have multiple columns (such as mobile phones, or when you narrow your browser window farther than is typical). The "30em" version allows tmodern browsers to automatically determine the number of columns that should be displayed. Is there any particular reason why we need to force two columns, or can I put "30em" back in? Thanks! -- Beland (talk) 15:17, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

See Template:Reflist/doc#Columns for the reason why forcing a fixed number of columns is now deprecated. Reify-tech (talk) 17:08, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Official B5 website now gone?[edit]

A visit to http://babylon5.warnerbros.com/ now redirects me to the home page of http://mediatogo.thewb.com, a search for B5 on this web site produces no results.

Has the B5 website finally been taken down? If so we may want to change the link to point to something like the Internet Archive for a (hopefully near complete) archive of the site.

Skippingrock (talk) 22:12, 22 January 2015 (UTC)