Talk:Babylon 5

Merging of Babylon 5 influences

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

No objections made to the merger as performed. ElectricalTill (talk) 13:56, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

---

As the nominator of Babylon 5 influences for deletion, I spent some time trying to gather sources for it as my original intent was to clear the article of its 'multiple issues' so it stood on its own. After a long time searching I concluded that most of the 'references' highlighted in the series to history, culture etc. were so vaguely stated that it would be next to impossible to convincingly cite them without exact keywords/phrases to look for. I am not making any assessment about correctness - a good number of the claims are very plausible, and in all probability those references were deliberate - unfortunately most of them are uncited and I was unable to find sources.

I found sources for 10-20% of what was there. I rewrote, consolidated and incorporated that 10-20% into this article when I nominated Babylon 5 influences for deletion. In my opinion the merge is done, but please add your thoughts. ElectricalTill (talk) 08:33, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Ivanova's departure in Season 4 summary

The season 4 summary here says " Ivanova is critically injured in the war, and decides to leave Earthforce". I could be wrong, but my memory was the on screen explanation for her departure from Babylon 5 was that she was promoted to Captain and given command of her own Earthforce ship. Also in the last episode, set about 19 years after we last see her, she is still in Earthforce holding the rank of General. Thus, I think this statement is wrong. The Ivanova article would also seem to confirm that she did indeed stay in Earthforce, but move to a new command. Dunarc (talk) 18:44, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Correct, I fixed it. --Masem (t) 18:56, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks - good to know my memory still works. Dunarc (talk) 20:51, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Articles for deletion

I am hereby letting people know that I nominated List of people involved with Babylon 5 and List of people involved with Crusade for deletion. – sgeureka ^t•c 11:54, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

"Alpha omega 3" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Alpha omega 3. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Gonnym (talk) 10:16, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

"Coriana 6" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Coriana 6. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Gonnym (talk) 10:19, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

"Spoo (food)" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Spoo (food). Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Gonnym (talk) 10:23, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Paramount settlement.

In a video from 2017 Patricia Tallman stated that there had been a lawsuit and an out of court settlement with Paramount.[1] She does not mention when this legal action and settlement occurred, although she was both in business with and married to Straczynski, so there doesn't seem to be any reason to doubt her statement. Although we have comments from Straczynski saying he thought a lawsuit would be unproductive those comments are from the '90s, and he suspects interference from higher level executives, and doesn't ever blame than the show creators directly. There don't appear to be any statements from Straczynski from around 2017 or later denying there was ever a lawsuit, and I see no reason to disregard the statement from Tallman. On the basis of Tallman's comments, and citing the video as a source I think it would be appropriate to add the following statement to the article, that "According to Patricia Tallman there was a legal case and an out of court settlement with Paramount."[2]
I know this can be sensitive subject and can see from the archives that it was subject to previous discussion, so even though I don't think this is a bold change, and even though I think this is a fair statement with a proper source, I'm making sure to ask for discussion first, in case there is some counterpoint I might not yet be aware of. -- 109.78.200.221 (talk) 14:28, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Dolby Surround 2.0

Either it is Stereo or it is Dolby Surround. If it is the latter, then it is a 4.0 sound system - consisting of Front Left, Front Right, Center and Surround channels. -- Alexey Topol (talk) 08:22, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

You probably are too young to remember analog Dolby Surround. … The whole damn point of analog Dolby Surround is that it is just stereo so it works over two-channel (stereo) equipment, but you can filter four channels out of it. So yes, analog Dolby Surround is always by definition stereo too, and in fact even though it will not sound as good, you can (and we did) listen to it with no decoding over normal stereo speakers too. The confusion stems from which layer you are talking about. It is talking about something else than you, that’s all. — 2A0A:A547:35EF:1:CF87:10A2:BAE9:47FB (talk) 16:05, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

"Dust (Babylon 5)" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Dust (Babylon 5) and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 November 28#Dust (Babylon 5) until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 16:01, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

CALLING ALL BABYLON 5 FANS!!!

to all Babylon 5 fans out there, can any of you help with two babylon 5 drafts, Draft:Untitled Babylon 5 animated film and Draft:Untitled Babylon 5 reboot. it would be much appreciated! Jstewart2007 (talk) 17:39, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

I don’t think those are encyclopedic enough to get articles. Perhaps add them to this one? Famartin (talk) 20:52, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

There is almost literally no information on these at this time. So they will not survive having individual article right now. Just add a mention to this article (which is already done) and re-assess when these projects turn up. Canterbury Tail talk 00:44, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Reboot status

Here's the latest comment from JMS on the status of the show: https://twitter.com/straczynski/status/1659723562952044544 He refuted the rumor that it was canceled. - Eureka Lott 12:32, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

@EurekaLott: Perhaps we can add ComicBook.com article's about possible cancellation and the tweet as a rebuttal. This will let the readers decide on their own whether it's cancelled or not. Michael has talked about Writers Strike being the reason it's not on CW schedule, but he doesn't mention the cancellations so I'm not sure if he's personally aware. Linkin Prankster (talk) 04:03, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

I'm sorry but a rumour/news site compared to someone who would have first hand knowledge isn't a comparison we need to make. Unless firm evidence that it's been cancelled comes out we don't mention any possibility of it with a real firm reliable source to back it up. Canterbury Tail talk 12:37, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

It is probably fair to say from a reliable source that most productions on the CW were dropped after the buyout in(month year) (source here), but JMS affirmed that the B5 remake was still in production. Masem (t) 12:44, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

@Canterbury Tail: The "rumour/news site" is quoting a TVLine article that directly contains the comments of CW President Brad Schwartz regarding these shows. TVLine is a very reliable source and when the network chief himself says they've returned the shows, we should consider at least adding it if not confirming the cancellation. [3] Linkin Prankster (talk) 04:45, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

And again as mentioned in the edit, prospective is a subjective word and we don't know if B5 was just listed as prospective or was actually approved. Additionally the quote says they've already been returned to the studios i.e. not recently, however JMS himself has said this is not the case, and JMS would entirely know if his show had been canned, moved around or the like. At this point we actually don't know, the only actual mentions of B5 itself are coming from JMS but we all would like a more third party source on that. Canterbury Tail talk 12:38, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Can we at least add the TVLine report and JMS' comments as a rebuttal, let's not say the show is cancelled. Linkin Prankster (talk) 04:51, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

If you can provide a reliable source that proves that that generic ambiguous reference also refers to Babylon 5, sure. However at this point it's so generic and ambiguous I don't think it's passes for a reliable source for the point you wish to make. The direct quote bit makes zero reference to what it's actually referring to. Canterbury Tail talk 11:39, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

So answer me this. Was Babylon 5 approved under Pedowitz or not? Linkin Prankster (talk) 08:02, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

No idea. What do reliable sources say? Right now we have an absence of sources mentioning Babylon 5 other than the specific JMS one. Since the others don't mention it it's original research and synthesis to interpret it to be included in sweeping generalised statements. We need specifics. Canterbury Tail talk 12:37, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

Mark Pedowitz was CW President from 2011 to 2022 [4]. Since Babylon 5 reboot was approved in 2021 [5], who would have the leader of CW when it would have been approved? I think you have an idea now. Linkin Prankster (talk) 04:22, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

I think you're missing the point. My opinion doesn't matter. Your opinion doesn't matter. We cannot do synthesis to come to a conclusion that a source doesn't state. Without anything being specifically mentioned by a source we cannot come to our own conclusions here. Canterbury Tail talk 11:31, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

You've avoided answering. Look man, this show isn't going to happen when the current network president says all shows from the previous regime were returned to the studios. JMS is believing it isn't cancelled since he hasn't received a call from WB about it. If you want to keep thinking for next many years until you realize this show is never going to happen on CW, feel free. Linkin Prankster (talk) 13:22, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

I am not avoiding answering, because my opinion is irrelevant to the actual status of it. Only what reliable sources clearly state. We cannot state something that isn't specifically called out otherwise it's synthesis. I'd recommend reading the links above on reliable sources, original research and synthesis. Anyway you said yourself above it was approved, but it was the prospective non-approved ones that were actually returned, so by your own words it's not included. Canterbury Tail talk 20:35, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

I apologize User:Canterbury Tail. Turns out I was wrong, TVLine recently confirmed that the show is in limbo but not dead. They should have clarified their earlier article about the cancellations though, as that's what caused the confusion. Though it's also my fault for trying to show the series as cancelled without explicit confirmation. Linkin Prankster (talk) 18:54, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Not a problem. This is why we stick to only stating what reliable sources state. If it's open to interpretation, or you need to read between the lines to get the information we don't permit it. Remember we're about Verifiability not Truth. You could quite easily have been right, but since it wasn't clear we couldn't included it. So this could have gone the other way with it's status. This was solely about reliable sources. I don't take it personally, I don't think you owe an apology, but it's a growing and learning experience that highlights the importance of reliable sources. So carry on. Canterbury Tail talk 20:32, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Na'Toth Actresses in Infobox

Is there a specific reason for Caitlin Brown and Mary Kay Adams not to be listed in the infobox? They were series regulars in seasons 1/2, respectively. Zelani (talk) 03:05, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

If they were listed in the opening credits then I would agree that they should be listed in the infobox, though I'd be open to hearing dissenting opinions. DonIago (talk) 03:13, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

I added both at the end, as they were both the last billed before Jurasik / Katsulas. Zelani (talk) 00:49, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

For the record: Mary Woronov (Ko'Dath) appears in the main credits in "Born to the Purple". But I honestly we can just let that slide on the basis of common sense. Zelani (talk) 00:12, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

'New external links'

Whatever edit I make to this article, I immediately get a message claiming that I have introduced new external links and demanding that I should fill in a captcha to prove I am not a spam bot. I suppose that some admin at some point felt there was too much vandalism and decided to make it harder for IPs to edit the page, but having the software tell every IP that they have added external links when they haven't is clearly an inadequate way to do this. 62.73.72.3 (talk) 21:55, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

This article isn't protected, so you should be able to edit it in the same way you can edit any other article. You might consider asking for support at the Teahouse or Help desk if you're uncomfortable creating an account, or we might be able to help you if you can provide more information regarding what change you're trying to make. DonIago (talk) 03:07, 17 October 2024 (UTC)