Talk:Babylon 5's use of the Internet

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Babylon 5    (Inactive)
WikiProject icon This article was within the scope of WikiProject Babylon 5, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.
WikiProject Internet culture  
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet culture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of internet culture 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.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Franke credit[edit]

JMS's GEnie posts are available at jmsnews. Here a couple relevant ones about Franke's selection. He says that Franke was "suggested here numerous times" and that the discussions "bumped him to the top of our list and helped motivate us to take a look", but nowhere does he credit any single person directly. The only reason it does is because Jerry added it himself. Unfortunately, that's not a verifiable source. - EurekaLott 20:44, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I wish I still had access to SFRT archives from that time period, as those would confirm it. I'll edit it to make it more generic. Jerry Kindall 02:17, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Merge is a poor idea[edit]

rastb5m is about the newsgroup and its direct communication between fans and the creator of the show. Babylon 5's use of the Internet is about all of the various ways that B5 (a show launched when the Web was a research project only, and conceived before the Web) interacted with the public using the evolving Internet technologies of the day. There's substantial and unique ground to cover in both articles. -Harmil 17:49, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 01:09, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:B5discs.jpg[edit]

Nuvola apps important.svg

Image:B5discs.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 06:27, 2 January 2008 (UTC)


This was proposed at the now closed AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/, since it was clear the article would be kept, but not so clear what the consensus was on a merge. So, let us discuss. Beeblbrox (talk) 17:32, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

  • Strong Oppose for all the reasons for keeping as a solitary article during the AFD. Why do we have to go through all this again? This newsgroup is notable and the article is excellent; there's absolutely no reason to tear all this work down. --Captain Infinity (talk) 18:01, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Neutral I can see both sides. Why not, at the very least, use summary style to reference and The Lurker's Guide to Babylon 5. That way, we keep each article separate, but tie them closely together and can include summaries in this article as the prospective parent. Jclemens (talk) 18:38, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment Note that I've implemented this as part of the afd-prompted update. No one seems to have objected, and I think the use of summary style has eliminated the need for a merge. Jclemens (talk) 01:57, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose per my reasoning in the AfD. There is no need for this. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 19:33, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Both articles seem notable and sourced beyond a stubby threshold. They both need clean-up but we're not in a rush here. -- Banjeboi 00:32, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Support - these two articles have a great deal of overlap, and I don't see the need for having two separate articles on very similar subjects. Terraxos (talk) 12:37, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Support as I am concerned that the newsgroup does not meet notability criterion- the only possible sources meeting WP:GNG are in 'Legacy' and those dovetail nicely with the importance of Babylon 5's use of the internet in general; in other words, you'd strengthen the parent article by a merge; little content would have to be lost in the process. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 15:33, 21 November 2008 (UTC)


Most sillyestest Title ever[edit]

So this is about how a fictional space station uses the Terran Internet? Then of course the title makes a lot of sense!! -- (talk) 22:55, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree. Got a suggestion for a better title? Jclemens (talk) 23:47, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Babylon 5's use of the Internet. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:58, 13 November 2016 (UTC)