Template talk:Babylon 5
|WikiProject Babylon 5 (Inactive)|
Third request for a response.
The below messages are reposts of two messages originally posted to User talk:FaithLehaneTheVampireSlayer and now residing at User talk:FaithLehaneTheVampireSlayer/Archive 2. Since I did not get a response there, I thought I'd try here to see what happens, before making the reverts myself.
Is B4 a ship?
Faith, I noticed you moved B4 from ships to locations in the B5 Navbar. I desperately tried to do the same thing, based on evidence, a few weeks ago, and failed. User:Illythr beat me dead to the ground with proper references in this conversation: Talk:Babylon_4#Cite_needed. We agreed that "Because JMS said so" is a compelling argument within the scope of these edits. JMS says B4 has engines and can move in the cite Illythr provided.
What got me started was that I found B5 under ships in the Navbar, and went, "No way." So I moved it, since the locations category was already there to move it to. When I started reading about B4 to move it, I realized there was enough fan evidence of B4 being a ship to request a "real" cite for WP that meets both WP standards and the standards of the B5 Project on WP, that B4 is a ship before arbitrarily fixing it in the navbar. Since Illythr provided the reference I requested, I couldn't move it in the Navbar. —Aladdin Sane (talk) 16:54, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
Faith, I thought I'd let you know about Wikipedia:Manual of Style §16.10 National varieties of English, which by my reading asks for consensus before converting a document from British to American English.
I was hoping to get a response to my consensus request above about the disposition of B4, but have not received one yet.
The subject of Britishisms in B5 articles is important to me since I'm trying to revise the article Babylon 5 to a point where it can be WP:GA reviewed (See To-do list for Babylon 5 and Time to... and subsequent sections).
I can fix some of the Britishisms in the set of articles under Wikipedia:WikiProject Babylon 5 as I come across them, but policy tells me I'm not supposed to. So I did not "fix" the British spelling of "organisation" in the B5 Navbar. Instead, I found out about the issue in WP:MOS and other policy-related sources.
When investigating the issue I ran across two compelling reasons not to change the British language used in B5 articles: 1) Many times when I look at the User page of another editor who edited an article under Wikipedia:WikiProject Babylon 5, I discover they are indeed British, 2) The article itself, Babylon 5, points to the idea that B5 was/is much more popular in Britain than the US. Allow me to point you to this referenced quote from the article:
Ratings continued to remain low-to-middling throughout the first four seasons, but Babylon 5 scored well with the demographics required to attract the leading national sponsors and saved up to $300,000 per episode by shooting off the studio lot, therefore remaining profitable for the network. The fifth season, shown on cable network TNT, garnered lower ratings. In the United Kingdom, Babylon 5 was one of the better-rated US television shows on Channel 4, and achieved high audience Appreciation Indexes, with season 4's "Endgame" achieving the rare feat of beating the prime-time soap operas for first position.
While written in a very appropriate way for an encyclopedia, the quote says to me, "B5 did well enough to not get canceled in the US, but really rocked in the UK."
For these two reasons, I've spent the last three weeks studiously not changing Britishisms in the B5 articles, while making appropriate changes and citing my reasons and sources for doing so.
Faith, you will not find either this issue, or the B4 issue I already asked you about, in the edit history for the B5 Navbar. The reason is because I did not make the changes per the (above-referenced) discussions found elsewhere.