Talk:Babylon 5/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about Babylon 5. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Untitled

I think the section regarding the use of language is not particularly well written and of disputable accuracy (with regard to the pronunciations of 'Garibaldi' and 'Ivanova', and also with the incorrect assertion that 'Michael' is exclusively an English name). I think it should be heavily trimmed, or simply have what useful commentary it contains moved to other sections (such as the bio's of the relevent characters. I'll leave it up to others to see if they agree with me on this though. FridayUK

I think the diversion into B5's story relationship to LOTR is excessive and rather pointlessly off-topic. I am strongly inclined to edit it down to 1 paragraph or less. MartinSpamer

Put it in its own article rather than deleting it. SimonP 14:26 23 Jun 2003 (UTC)

I've moved the content to Babylon 5 Influences.

There is some new content which focus on 'fashionable' social issues. Why ? Babylon 5 has also covered Alcohol and Drug abuse, Abuse of power, Corruption, Racial Bigotry, Social Bigotry, Social Exclusion, unemployment, mental illness, Elitism, workplace stress to name a few.

Seems like the right thing to do is to add discussions of those too. --Tb 01:04 27 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Tried to make some of the information more in tune with the spirit of the series. ReciprocityProject

I seem to remember the special effects were in part generated using high end Amigas, which was unusal. Also the series is unusual in that the space ships flew with real physics, rather than airplanes in space.

I think the spoiler warning should be moved lower down, Probably to be between the introduction and the table of contents. There is little in the intro that could be considered a spoiler. What is the Wiki Convention for this.

Nice article, but I've never seen any of Babylon 5, and I'm none the wiser as to when it was first broadcast (cf Star Trek). If someone could add the specific dates (under 'Episodes'), or at least a date range nearer the top, I'd be grateful - Tim - 03:22, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Consider it done. Oh, wait, it is done! ;) -- John Owens (talk) 08:31, Feb 25, 2004 (UTC)

The Characters

This is a general topic, but I figured this is where to start. I've begun working on a couple of character pages slowly (Refa and Morden so far), but many of the character pages could really use some attention. G'Kar or Londo, for example, are practically stubs. If anyone else would like to jump in, please do. I'll keep going when I can. :) --Baryonyx 22:06, Aug 16, 2004 (UTC)

Books and comics

Could anyone write a paragraph on them (since they are all canon with a few exceptions)? I haven't read any B5 novels yet... Ausir 11:30, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Actually AFAICR out of the original 9 books, only 2 (#7 "The Shadow Within" and #9 "To Dream in the City of Sorrows") are canon; the other series are all canon. There is a (possibly incomplete) list on the Lurkers' Guide. If I ever get time I'll transfer some info across. In the meantime enjoy. --Phil | Talk 16:15, Jun 22, 2004 (UTC)

To Live and Die in Starlight

Is this available in the UK? I can't recieve the SciFi channel unfortunately, so I'd need it on DVD or VHS. Borrowing would be fine within the UK, and I'll pay reasonable postage. --Phil | Talk 15:12, Jun 22, 2004 (UTC)

It has been released on DVD. I suggest you try looking for it at British Amazon. Ausir 15:25, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Nope. I just get a bunch of travelogue-type items because the search system strips out the word "starlight" :-( --Phil | Talk 16:19, Jun 22, 2004 (UTC)

B5 and DS9

"Additionally, in several of these claims, Deep Space Nine actually had their "plagiarism" produced first"

Actually, Paramount was approached with the series premise and "B5 Bible" by JMS something like a year before the production of both series started, so they knew some facts of the future seasons before they were produced. Ausir 06:56, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Music scoring insertion

I moved the new Music scoring section down to just before The episodes because it had been added illogically within the section on Cast and characters, which includes Babylon stations. After looking over the current state of the article, it seemed to me that the flow from characters to stations to civilizations to themes seemed to work well. The episodes section seemed like a change of subject and a logical place to add the new music section. I hope this suits everyone. — Jeff Q 20:52, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

B5 widescreen

Visual evidence trumps any discussions, regardless of who is doing the discussing. I will provide such evidence to the page shortly. To put it quite simply, JMS lied so that geeks who think widescreen is cool would buy the DVDs. Legend of the Rangers is the only B5 that was intended for widescreen from the start.

Ibuki 18:12, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

According to my recollection of forum discussions at the time, the live-action portions of B5 were filmed in widescreen, with the pictures composed so that no significant action occurred outside the normal 4:3 format window, while the CGI was recorded in 4:3 only.

From the Compuserve archives: ([1])

[ Summary: Asks if the TV Zone article stating that "season one is not
  available in widescreen, period !," is correct. ]

#: 469058 S5/Babylon 5: General
   12-Mar-96  17:47:29
   Sb: #468985-Babylon 5 - Widescreen
   Fm: J. MICHAEL STRACZYNSKI

      No, the report is not correct.  Only the 2-hour pilot was filmed in
      normal aspect ratio; from day one, the series has been shot in widescreen
      format, cropped for current ratios.

                                                                      jms

([2])

[ Summary: Wants to know if B5 will ever be commercially available
  in widescreen format. ]

#: 470501 S5/Babylon 5: General
   15-Mar-96  13:53:25
   Sb: #470451-Babylon 5 - Widescreen
   Fm: J. MICHAEL STRACZYNSKI

      Eventually, yes, B5 will be available in widescreen.

                                                                      jms

([3])

------------------------------

Date: 20-Mar-96 07:02:57
From: Matt Allen 
To: J. Michael Straczynski 
Subject: Babylon 5 - Widescreen
Message-ID: <forum.sfmediaone.473306@compuserve.com>

Are the computer Fx also in widescreen?   I know Foundation used
LW and the PAR device to put the graphics to tape.   But as far as
I know the PAR can't put down widescreen stuff unless you screw
around with the output resolution?

Matt :)

------------------------------

Date: 20-Mar-96 22:26:50
From: J. Michael Straczynski 
To: Matt Allen 
Subject: Babylon 5 - Widescreen
Message-ID: <forum.sfmediaone.473739@compuserve.com>
References: <forum.sfmediaone.473306@compuserve.com>

      We'd pretty much have to re-render the CGI for important shots,
while more mundane stuff where there's nothing in the upper and lower
parts of the frame could be safely cropped and lose nothing.

                                                                 jms

-- Arwel 17:38, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I found these which provide ample evidence. Remember: garbage out does not mean garbage in. HTH HAND --Phil | Talk 18:19, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)

All of these references are written by JMS or by fans operating under JMS, Babylonian or WB's misinformation. To paraphrase a cliché, video doesn't lie. It'll be a few days before I have time to capture the appropriate footage for the side-by-side comparison, but I'll put it up soon.

Ibuki 19:07, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Potentially-defamatory paragraph

I have removed the following paragraph from the article:

Despite the assertions of J. Michael Straczynski and the Sci Fi Channel, Babylon 5 was not, in fact shot in widescreen. A comparison of identical shots from the 4x3 aspect ratio VHS releases and the matted 16x9 DVD releases will reveal the widescreen asserions to be false.

I believe that "no original research" applies. --Phil | Talk 09:18, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)

It's been two weeks since the original widescreen accusations were made, and the promised evidence has not been forthcoming. Are there any objections to removing the other paragraph? - EurekaLott 15:00, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I've removed the other paragraph, which read

The DVD releases of Babylon 5 are matted for a widescreen presentation. This effect is achieved by deleting the top and bottom portion of the video frame to conform to a 16x9 aspect ratio. In cropping Babylon 5, shot composition was in many cases destroyed. Characters are often conversing without the tops of their heads or chins in frame, and in one scene-damaging example, a fighter placed along a huge explorer ship to provide a sense of scale has been matted out of the frame.

- EurekaLott 00:14, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I was the poster of that paragraph. I've tried to make it less confrontational and made my description of the evidence clearer.(see below), and I will produce some screenshots tonight. Unfortunately, I do not have a DVD copy of "A Distant Star", so my screenshots will come from a first season episode.

Whether it results from an error in the DVD production process or that false assertions were made concerning the show's being filmed in widescreen, an examination of off-air recordings from the original run or early VHS releases as compared to the 16:9 DVD releases will show that the 16:9 footage is simply a matted version of the original 4:3 footage. This has the effect of damaging shot compositions cutting the tops of characters' heads and their chins out of frame in closeups, and in the episode A Distant Star, a Starfury that was shown flying below the Explorer class starship to give a sense of the immense size of the latter vessel is matted out of the frame.

Also, I don't believe this is original research. Anyone with a warner home video VHS release from the 1990s and a recent DVD release can view the evidence for themselves. If I tell you the sky is blue, you can verify my statement by looking out your window. All the skeptic needs to do is to look at the evidence and the facts become clear.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.160.81.194 (talk • contribs) 01:13, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

True meaning of "shot in widescreen"

It's not "False" to say that a program is shot in widescreen when the original negative is 4:3. This is common practice for cinema. The Back to the Future movies are shot like this too, and would fail the "side by side' comparison test that is mentioned above. When producing a 4:3 version of a film, it is far better (when possible) to expand the image into areas not seen on the movie screen then to crop out the sides that were seen. Pan-and-scan solutions are only necessary if the original negative is not 4:3, or if the expanded areas were not monitored and include cables, microphones and the like. Ironically, my criticism of the B5 widescreen version was precisely the opposite of the poster above. Studio shots were expanded into useless empty areas when they ought to have been cropped to compose the actors better.

HD Net showed widescreen HD versions of Hogan's Heros! (yes, the '60s TV show) It was surreal how well this worked. It must have been done entirely by cropping the 4:3 master, but visually I couldn't find a single thing wrong with it. I think that the B5 re-master just didn't get the same effort. Algr 15:59, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Novel info

I added a mention of information about a forthcoming new book line to the Novels section. - Brendan Moody 22 April 2005

Swedish Meatballs

There's a piece of trivia in the article, about the fact every alien race has developed a dish similar to our Swedish Meaballs. I'm not saying it's not interesting, but... could anyone tell me how it fits in the "Love and true seekers" subsection of the show's themes?

Also, Lenier mentionned that a word occured in every alien vocabulary, but with a different meaning every time. I forget the word. If anyone wants to look it up, it was in a discussion between Lenier and Molary in the Season 1 episode where Molary tries to improve relations with the Membari by taking Lenier out drinking and playing poker. My point is, shouldn't both pieces of trivia be mentionned together?

Remove "one per episode" wikipedia articles?

Maybe I'm begging for a beating by asking this here, but: as a user of wikipedia, I think the "One article per each episode" is sort of overwhelming. I don't like it for a few reasons:

It clutters up the namespace (example: while searching for "The Summoning", the video game, I end up at "The Summoning", the Bab5 episode. Given the huge number of episodes, that's significant.
Each individual article doesn't contain all that much data, but has lots of metadata.
The entire project is completely duplicative of The Lurker's Guide. If this was on a Bab5 wiki it would make sense, but I think it's a hell of a lot of overhead to jam into a general-purpose encyclopedia.

Am I entirely alone in this, or are there other people who think that this might be overdoing it a bit? If there's consensus on this, I'd like to propose the following:

Change all wikilinks in List of Babylon 5 episodes to point to their corresponding Lurker's Guide entries.
Mass delete all of the wikilinked per-episode articles, perhaps making an exception for the pilot movie.

Thoughts? I will also cross-post this proposal over on Talk:List of Babylon 5 episodes. Nandesuka 19:06, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

As a B5 fan myself (well, a fan of at least seasons 2-4) I'm personally happy to see an editable mirror of the Lurker's Guide material. Much of that site was written in "real time" as the episodes originally aired, and it's interesting to see what people have to add to descriptions of the episodes in retrospect.

However, as a Wikipedia editor, I'm not sure Wikipedia is the best place for an episode-by-episode guide to Babylon 5. This is an encyclopedia, and though I personally rather like B5, to someone else it's fancruft. Perhaps the episode pages should be "transwikied" into Wikibooks or another Wikimedia project.

They shouldn't be deleted wholesale -- it's certainly useful to have such articles around. If they can't be arranged to be moved to Wikibooks or some other wiki, they should stay. But if they can, it would probably be better. --FOo 19:40, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Sorry for the late reply, I only saw this today... I'd have to say that I totally disagree with changing wikilinks to point off Wikipedia because since there is no original research on Wikipedia everything here is already out there somewhere. The point of Wikipedia is collate useful information here rather than simply point people elsewhere. That said, I also don't think it's particular useful to have one article for each episode. What I think would be best is to organise the episodes into omnibus articles (as per WP:FICT) for each season, rather like they have for Lost season 1 episode guide then put the Lurkers guide in as an external link at the end. -- Lochaber 13:46, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

I like the idea of making episode guides into wikibooks. I don't see a pressing need to remove the episode articles, especially considering how common it is; Babylon 5 is hardly a serious offender if it is a concern. Episode articles also exist for both Stargate series, and all six series from the Star Trek franchise. If a decision to move away from per-episode articles is made, it seems consistency would encourage doing the same for other TV series as well. Mattmcc 22:00, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

I vote to keep them all. To address the original points: 1) the namespace impact is minimal: there are millions of articles. 2&3) They may have once been duplicative, but through the magic of Wikipedia, content has been added, corrections made, etc. Overall, I think B5 is fairly well organized and data-rich on Wikipedia: there are far worse offenders out there. B5 episodes also tend to *matter* a lot more than other shows (due to their serial nature and complexity), so if any series deserves individual pages, B5 surely does. Turnstep 23:03, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

A question/confusion regarding Sinclair and Sheridan

Well, I must confess that I am very confused so I hope that I didn't find a "hole" in the television serie, therefore Babylon 5 fans please help me in this little "quest" of mine and try to explain this to me; So here is my question/confusion...

As we all know, it is generally known/accepted that Jeffrey Sinclair was the first human with whom Minbari made a contact (i.e. they took him on the space-ship on Delenn's request to examine him), and also John Sheridan specifically said this in the first part of the season two (the part called "Points of Departure")

However, we all also know that it was in fact John Sheridan who was the first human that was taken on the Minbari space-ship after the unsuccessful negotiations attempt.

So what/where's the catch ??

regards Wayfarer-Talk

on September 30, 2005 at 10:50 GMT

I am no expert and it's been more than 5 years since I saw the show, but I thought that John Sheridan was the first human to ever win a battle against the Minbari.

--Neilrieck 20:25, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

I believe Wayfarer is alluding to the incident in Babylon 5: In the Beginning, where Sheridan and Franklin are captured by the Minbari after a Centauri-sabotaged secret negotiation between them and a Minbari representative, who is killed. This clearly occurred before Sinclair was captured in the Battle of the Line, where the Minbari took Sinclair aboard ostensibly to examine one of the race they were about to exterminate. I don't have the DVDs of B5:ItB and B5 Seasons 1 and 2 (where the Sinclair incident is first described within the actual series) handy to check on the apparent discrepancy. Can someone check on this? ~ Jeff Q (talk) 06:48, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

No Sinclair was the first human the Minbari ever interrogated/examined not contact. The war had been going on for years by this point so it seems unreasonable that no contact would have been made (especially since there was ground combat going on between the two sides). Sinclair was the first human they used a triluminary on, and hence the first time they ever had the oppurtunity to see that they had Minbari souls. Ben W Bell 06:59, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

For an encyclopedia article, I'm asking for sourced evidence, not statements like "seems unreasonable" which suggest speculation, however well-considered. Can someone provide quotes within the movie and/or the episodes that shed light on the question at hand? ~ Jeff Q (talk) 08:09, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Can't provide quotes at the moment. According to the Lurkers Guide [4] Sinclair is the first human to have direct contact with the Grey Council and thus the first human to be scanned by a triluminary. It is possible that the scan showed up specifically in Sinclair due to him having Valen's soul and thus it being more obvious (especially since Valen was the one who provided the triluminaries in the first place). However Delenn does state that they brought more humans on board and they all the scans showed the thing, that Minbari souls were being reborn in Humanity. Sheriden was never scanned with the triluminary, Sheriden was the first one scanned hence they didn't find out until that point. Ben W Bell 09:57, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, Ben, for the "Points of Departure" link at the Lurker's Guide, which is, I believe, the closest thing there is to an official website for Babylon 5. I see there that JMS makes the following statement under "jms speaks":

Sinclair was the first human the Minbari (or at least the Grey Council) had ever met, having come this far for the final victory. The Earth Explorer vessel was part of a military fleet that encountered a Minbari convoy, there was a miscommunication, a misperceived threat, and our ships opened fire. There was no person-to-person contact.

I suggest that we can interpret the show's creator's statement, along with the events portrayed in B5:ItB, to infer that the Grey Council had had no direct contact with humans until Sinclair, and that although the Minbari were later (our time) shown to have had direct contact with humans (B5:ItB), it was brief and unrevealing (as you point out about the triluminary). I hope that answers Wayfarer's original question. (I'm not sure if it has a direct impact on this article; I haven't examined it more than cursorily for related text.) ~ Jeff Q (talk) 11:01, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks all for your "replies"...

regards Wayfarer-Talk

on October 8, 2005 at 23:10 GMT

Writing Style

I wanted to post this personal observation but didn't think I should do so in the main article area.

When I was learning about writing styles in college, we were told to choose a number of interweaving story threads depending on the target audience (lower for children). For example, on most TV sitcoms the number is usually 2 or 3, although some shows like Seinfeld were higher. In a 2005 Arthur C. Clarke novel (Sunstorm) it seemed to vary between 4 and 5. When watching episodes of Babylon 5 I have counted up to 6 threads (but there may have been mini threads I missed) so I must infer that this program was definitely targeted to adults.

--Neilrieck 20:48, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Interesting. Did your course make any attempt to differentiate between the ages and development stages of the child audience? It sounds like it undersells the ability of children (especially non-preschoolers) to absorb complex stories, just like they must absorb life itself, which is very complex. This ought to be even more true for a story like Babylon 5, which goes to great lengths to weave its many storylines together, rather unlike life sometimes. ☺ Kids can't be expected to understand everything they read or watch, but unlike adults, they tend to have a much higher tolerance for and adaptability to things they don't fully understand, probably out of sheer necessity. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 06:55, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

No the course did not mention differentiation but I should also point out that I was in college studying to become an Electronic Technologist and maybe professional writers would have receviced more training in this area. On the flip side, you can see a limited number of threads in general TV programs which makes you wonder what the networks think about general public's IQ level. On a related point, a Lutheran minister recently told me that he enjoys preaching at a local university more than in his own pulpit; I asked him to elaborate on this and he told me that they are taught to speak to the common literacy level of the target audience which is usually grade 8 for the general public (this included things like: children in the audience, immigrants still mastering English, functional illiteracy in adults, etc.).

--Neilrieck 14:08, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

The Five Questions

The "Where are you going?" explanation makes no mention of Lorien, who asked the question. He also asked "Why are you here?", which would make Six Questions.

Why is "Who do you serve?" listed as the Minbari question? I thought that was Galen's question from Crusade. Both of the last two questions are from that show, which didn't last long enough to give us proper explanations. Elwood00 11:32, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

There are actually seven questions posed throughout the show's run -

Who are you? - The question of the Vorlons (Identity)
What do you want? - The question of the Shadows (Desire)
Do you have anything worth living for? - Lorien's challenge to Sheridan on Z'ha'dum, and one of the two early Lorien questions (Purpose)
Why are you here? - Lorien, again (Purpose, again)
Who do you serve? - Posed only by Galen in Crusade
Who can you trust? - Galen again
Where are you going? - Lorien's final question to Sheridan at the beginning of the end (Direction)

Looking at the questions, the only ones that are out of place, and really don't serve the greater philosophical purpose, are also the only non-First-One questions: Galen's. None of the questions are "human" or "Minbari" at all.

Ultimately there are five questions, but not all the ones in the article: Who are you? What do you want? Why are you here? Do you have anything worth living for? Where are you going?

Well, my interpretation, anyway. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 11:54, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, that was my thought also - IIRC, "Who do you serve" and "Who do you trust" are from Crusade, rather than B5 itself. Lokicarbis 10:44, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Agreed, "Who do you serve" and "Who do you trust" are from Crusade, and shouldn't be here. In fact, most of this section seems to be an original research essay, and needs to be cleaned up. --JW1805 02:47, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

I am thinking of removing this section entirely. It seems to be a combination of stuff repeated elsewhere and unverified stuff. I do not think that "Who do you serve" is relevant to Babylon 5 except in the sense of the idea of service which can be covered in other ways. If anyone has any objections, please speak up. Otherwise I will remove the section in two weeks time. --Eiler7 13:53, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

It oughtta be removed now. It's just doesn't fit, and isn't terribly accurate, and needs to go. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 01:23, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Axe it. I've never cared for it, either. It's not particularly encyclopedic or accurate. - EurekaLott 05:50, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

'Who do you serve' is probably listed as a Minbari question because it's part of the ritual for joining the grey council... I'm not as avid a fan as some but even I know this. Perhaps you guys should do more research before axing the works of others.

"Why do you come here, Delenn?"

"I come to serve."

"Who do you serve?"

"I serve the truth."

"What is the truth?"

"That we are one people, one voice."

"Will you follow me into fire? Will you follow me into darkness? Will you follow me into death?"

"I will."

"Then follow."

-Xander Jan 16th, 2006

I have just read this thread and think that the 5 questions as discussed by JMS in the dvd extras should be on the page as they are central to the show Who are you? What do you want? Why are you here? Do you have anything worth living for? Where are you going? Tmothyh 04:14, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Why there is no article in regard to "Raiders" ??

The race "Raiders" are surely mentioned in the Babylon 5 article, however, there is no separate article about this race;

Well, they are not a race. They're pirates, essentially.

in fact there is nothing at all about them anywhere. I am curious, why not ?? regards Wayfarer-Talk on November 6, 2005 at 2:17 GMT

So fix it. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 02:39, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Fanboy Apocalypse

There are some serious issues with how this article has been written. It's so obviously written by someone who adores the show that it strays perilously close to being NPOV. Now it's a fine show, but this article sounds more like an advertisement for the DVD set than an encyclopedia entry. It needs to be throughly cleaned up. RossTaben 3:55pm PST 12.20.2005

Sorry I may be misunderstanding what you wrote but you're saying the article is perilously close to NPOV. That's how it should be, or do you mean that the article isn't NPOV? Ben W Bell 08:06, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm a fan of "Babylon 5", so I haven't read the article in its entirety until now. Since the person who started this topic wasn't kind enough to point out where this article should be improved but instead gave a "thumbs down", I'm going to give specifics. If I don't comment on a paragraph, it is good (or I missed something ;-)).

Opening paragraph should summarize what is covered in more detail later. In this case, the overall summary of the series. The second paragraph should have the airing history. The awards should be mentioned in one of the two paragraphs, probably the second one.
"Concept" section: I don't think that there is enough information in this section to warrant the "spoiler" warning. The third paragraph seems to be a near-quotation from JMS. Find references to this, and put quotations around it if it is an actual quotation. The rest of the section also seems to need references to JMS's postings to Usenet and the internet.
"Cast and primary characters": Since there are some sections below this that belong ("Ethnicity and language of characters" and "Usage of English"), I think that this section should be named "Cast and characters" with "Cast and primary characters" the first subsection underneath that. The section "Civilizations" should also be moved under this section. "Babylon 5 stations" should be moved up in to "Concept" section. The "Babylon 5 stations" third paragraph needs a reference. "Ethnicity ..." section has a colon that should be a period. "Usage of English": The first "speak" should be "vocalize" or something like it.
"Civilizations" has been cut down too much. The five main civilizations should at least be listed.
"Themes" section needs to reexamined to see if it needs to be here, and rewritten if it is to stay. This is good for followers of the series, but confusing for people who haven't seen it.
"Authoritarianism ..." section is a bit chaotic. I understand what you're saying because I watched the show. But someone reading the article won't understand it.
"War and peace" section doesn't flow well. The final three paragraphs need to be reworded. The third from the last sounds like a quotation, so it should be properly referenced. And how do we know about these future wars if they were outside of the duration of the series. (I know about the made-for-television movies and the final episode, but readers of this article won't.)
"The Five Questions" section is very good. It stands out so much that I thought that I'd mention it. The only thing is that maybe the transitional question should be last, unless there is a reason to keep them in this order.
"Novels ..." section says "per Straczynski's own remarks", so this should be sourced.
"DVDs" section should have "Mastering problems" as a subsection.
Perhaps, "DVDs", "Video games" and "Other merchandise" should all appear as subsections under another section title.

I hope that these suggestions are taken as they are meant, as suggestions to improve this article. I am familiar with having to find the quotations from JMS himself. I remember some of the things that he said, but I couldn't find quite what I remembered. But I did find enough to be able to put in JMS's information about DS9 (Paramount executives not Berman and Pillar) "borrowing" from the B5 concepts that he'd shared with them. Also, I don't have the DVD's to look up some of the things that are in the series itself. Keep improving this good article. Val42 18:42, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Neutrality

This article is not neutral.

Yes it is. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 05:24, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

How so? How can an article that states numerous positive aspects of a show, without mentioning a single negative, aside from a trivial complaint about the remastering done on the dvd, be considered neutral. To be neutral the article must either completely shun any comments on the quality at all, or provide a balanced viewpoint. In fact I do not seem to be the first person to question the neutrality of this article. Perhaps my concerns do have more merit than you think. I suppose this really is a subjective issue, I should not have spoken in absolutes.

Like I said below, I aggree - there needs to be a criticism section, but the article does not violate our POV standards. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 06:17, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Ok, I'll take your word for it. Mostly that sentance was there to draw attention to my comments. It seems to have worked.

Particularly I have trouble with the following paragraph:

'Having long been a science fiction fan himself, Straczynski was determined to produce a science fiction series for adults where, for once, things would be done properly: consistent technology, "no kids or cute robots", no new "particle of the week" to tie up a plot. It was not a utopian future — there is greed and homelessness. It was not a place where everything was the same at the end of the day — main characters grow, develop, live, and die. An unabashedly political show, it was always ready to deal with politics, sex, religion, and philosophy.'

This comment is clearly a slight at the Star Trek franchise, and it should be removed as it could hardly be considered neutral. Also I would like to point out that none of the authors of the Wikipedia articles regarding Star Trek felt it necessary to poke fun at Babylon 5, or any other shows for that matter.

This is not a slight at Star Trek at all, unless you are obsessed with it yet have a very low opinion of it coupled with a severe victim complex. Nowhere does the passage say, or even hint at Trek or any other show. Just like Trek articles don't "poke fun" at B5, this article follows the same standard (though the same cannot be said for certain Trek fans...). --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 05:24, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Fair enough, however I am not certain that a comment comparing B5 favourably to any other sci fi show (the comment may not have been directed at any one show, but they are targeted at other sci fi shows in general.) is central to understanding what the show is about. Especially not comments that seem designed to portray other shows in a negative light. (I think it would be difficult to deny that this comment does attempt to point out negatives in other non-specified shows)

That is one interpretaion of the text, though I believe it simply highlights positive aspects of the show rather than targeting anyone. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 06:17, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

If this is a reprhasing of a quote from one of the creators, or of a legitimate television critic, it should be cited as such. If it is simply the opinion of the author, it has no business being in the article, and should be removed or reprhased.

It is a quote from the creator, executive producer, and writer of 91 episodes. Said creator, who is essentially the sole voice behind the show, has participated online since the mid-1980s and over 17,000 of his messages have been archived in thousands of places accross the internet. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 05:24, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

In which case it should be cited as such, as I said in my original comments.

I wanted to review what jms actually said in relation to this. I found a quote about cute robots but no quotes about scifi done properly. Can someone provide a web page with his remarks about this? I did find a page talking about the rejection of technobabble. --Eiler7 18:55, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Also I am surprised that there is no criticism section to the article. I'm sure it is an excellent show, but I somehow doubt that absolutely no one had anything negative to say about it at all. Any article about a television show, or anything similar, should have a section discussing the reception of the show, disscussing both the positive and negative aspects.

I aggree. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 05:24, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

I sincerely hope the author of the article will read this comment and rectify these problems. If the author does not do this, I hope someone else who does know about Babylon 5 will fix this for the author. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.93.195.196 (talk • contribs) .

There is no single author of this article. This is a wiki. There are hundreds of authors. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 05:24, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

I should have made my meaning clearer. I was referring to the author of the particular comment in question. (I realize it is possible for that one comment to have been authored by several people, but I find that unlikely)

Time travel and Babylon 5

The category of time travel television series is appropriate for "Babylon 5" since there was time travel within the series (time travel was also the explanation behind the accuarcy of the prophecies on Minbari prophet, Valen). Figaro 11:02, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes the series has a very small piece of time travel in it, but it is not a series about time travel. Ben W Bell 11:08, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm torn on this one - it wasn't a "series about time travel" as Ben says, but time travel did play a significant role in the overall mythology. Indeed, this is one of the few anythings to get time travel right. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 11:22, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, without the time travelling, the station itself would probably not have existed in the first place. So I think it's fair to say that time travel has an essential role in the plot, even if it is low in total screen-time. So I think the TT category should be kept. --DudeGalea 14:13, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Ben W Bell. While there was an incident of time travel, it wasn't a focus of the series. ("Time travel isn't that easy, and at this juncture it will never happen again in the B5 universe." [5]) If we added categories for every important plot point, they'd take up half a screen. - EurekaLott 16:18, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

It wasn't a focus of the series, but was an essential plot element. However, clearly B5 isn't a time travel series in the same sense as, say, The Time Tunnel, so I'm not bothered if the TT category stays removed. Arguable both ways I think. --DudeGalea 16:44, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

I think most appropriate place for the category would be the Babylon Squared and War Without End articles, but the way the category is named makes that impractical. Perhaps it should be renamed. - EurekaLott 18:45, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

The problem really is in the category - it is not specific. If it was "Series about time travel" then that would narrow it down to pretty much Quantum Leap and The Time Tunnel. If it was "Series with time travel" then most of the articles in the category, including B5, are acceptable (though, per Eureka, that is an invitation to 10,000 categories; "Category:Science fiction series with space ships" anyone?)- looking at it now, the category's creators need to better define what it is about, and we need to remove the cat from B5 until they know what they want with it. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 00:10, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

I think that you are making good points, points that should be made in Category talk:Time travel television series. Please join the discussion there, because it is too small by itself. I'm going to go check other series in this category to get them to join the discussion on this subject.

But series about time travel are much more widespread than you think: Crime Traveller, Doctor Who, The Flipside of Dominick Hide, The Girl from Tomorrow, Goodnight Sweetheart, It's About Time, Mirror, Mirror (TV series), Phil of the Future, Quantum Leap, Sapphire & Steel, Seven Days, Time Trax, The Time Tunnel and Tru Calling. Admittedly, only about half of these are US television series, so you may not have heard of the foreign ones. But it is large enough to justify this category. Val42 19:31, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Opposition to Fictional Universes here

See: Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)/Archive V#How_about:_Sectioning_off_of.2Fpossible_banning_of_Fictional_Universe_articles. I hope I am not in violation of WP:SPAM by informing talk pages of Fictional Universes about this thread. User:AlMac|^(talk) 14:41, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Informing us seems fine to me. Eiler7 15:57, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Some changes

I have not been able to find a source on the "particle of the week" bit. So I propose removing it. Also, I would like to attribute the "good example of a space opera" to John Iacovelli and add the DVD feature to the references. Any feedback? Eiler7 13:59, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Two new unrelated questions

As first, why is the Babylon 5 station sometimes shown as blue coloured (mostly), and sometimes a green-white coloured, similar to Babylon 4 (only few times; for instance in the 1 or 2 episode) ??

And as second, do you know that part, when Sheridan throws the teddy-bear (with "JF" initials) out of the station ... Why did it do that ?? I somehow speculated that because JF could also mean Jeffery Sinclair (beside John Sheridan), and that this has made Sheridan mad/jealous. Any thoughts ??

regards Wayfarer-Talk | , on Januar 22, 2006 at 2:24 GMT

No, the initials were JS, as in John Sheridan. The full behind-the-scenes story behind the Teddy Bear Incident is rather complicated - it involves a series of practical jokes played on J. Michael Straczynski by Peter David and vice versa, one of which was the JS (Joe Straczynski) bear. Do a few relevant JMSNews.com searches and check out the Lurker's Guide for more. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 15:51, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Hold up a mirror

Does anyone have a source for the "hold up a mirror" quote? I have found a quote on midwinter, "It should be a metaphor, and a goal, and a mirror", which I am considering linking to and altering the text in line with. Eiler7 16:07, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Insufficient context

I removed the following sentence from the article:

It was also the first sci-fi series to respect Newtonian physics in its space battle sequences, since utilised in other series such as Joss Whedon's Firefly and the Sci-Fi Channel version of Battlestar Galactica.

As a fan of primarily star trek, i'm certainly familiar with the idea that the science in science fiction is wischi waschi at times, but this doesn't offer sufficient context, as the page to which it refers does not make immediately obvious what the sentence is talking about. I believe it's referring to something about the fact that sound does not technically carry in a vacuum; I'm not familiar enough to elaborate myself. Perhaps adding clarification here or adding a section to one of the relevant science-related pages (Newtonian mechanics?) could help clear things up. --Vedek Dukat ^Talk 18:59, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

And to TheRealFennShysa, perhaps you could read and address my comments here before simply deeming the original wording "perfectly clear" (it was clear, but potentially confusing) and reverting changes. --Vedek Dukat ^Talk 20:29, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I was typing at the same time you did. Give me a break.... and the line you are erroneously deleting is referring to physics and motion in regards to how ships and fighters move in space, not sound. You admit yourself that you're not familiar with the concept or the show, so stop deleting it when those of us who *are* familiar with it tell you that the wording is accurate as written and perfectly clear. TheRealFennShysa 20:30, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with the science, but I have seen the show. I simply think it would be logical to link to a page with an explanation of these physics and science fiction, which is what wikilinking is meant to do. And you have it backwards; Wikipedia tries to inform people, not preach to the choir. --Vedek Dukat ^Talk 20:37, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

As the original editor to add the first comment regarding newtonian physics I am more than happy to add/modify links to the relevant articles. However, it might be better to simply add a sentence describing what newtonian physics means in laymans terms. But then on the negative side, we're falling outside of the terms of the B5 article. I think it's important as being a big milestone in sci-fi but am happy to produce something in line with wiki's requirements. Discuss ;) Angelstorm

Name

Should there be a mention of the reference to the city of Babylon made in the show's title?

If we can find a reliable source for such a connection, and not just our own (admittedly quite reasonable) assumption that this is the reason for the name. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 17:35, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Surely we can acknowledge the apparent connection without asserting that it was definitely the creator's intention to make such a link? Satchfan 10:01, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

It's already mentioned (briefly) in the Babylon 5 influences article. If there's anything else to add, it should probably go there. - EurekaLott 14:07, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Given the absurdly insignificant position that info was in, I moved the "Babylon" influence up to 1st position and did some other tweaks to the "influences" article. I also added an explicit source:

Straczynski, J. Michael. "Chrysalis" commentary, Babylon 5: Season 1, disc 6.

and cited the quote from the commentary, if anyone wants to put a line into this article about it. We really need to do more work on sourcing the information in these B5 articles. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 23:32, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

trivia on cancelation

CUT FROM "JUMP THE SHARK" ARTICLE: "* When a series is unexpectedly renewed at the last minute after production is concluded, forcing an awkward continuation of the premise (e.g., Babylon 5's creator J. Michael Straczynski feared he would not be able to complete his five-year story arc due to the impending dissolution of its parent, Prime Time Entertainment Network, and the uncertainties of the television syndication market, which led to many storylines being resolved prematurely at the end of season 4; when the series was picked up for a fifth season by cable network TNT, Straczynski relaunched production by withholding the series finale and extending the resolution of the remaining story arcs)."

Though that might be something to add to this page. However I know *nothing* about this show. Asa01 08:14, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Split page

I've created a Babylon 5 Novels, novelizations, short stories, and comic books page and cut down the section in the Babylon 5 page. Koweja 18:53, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Scripts books

Do we have anyone buying these? Good primary sources, but limited availablity. Morwen - Talk 00:16, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I am currently purchasing all 14 scriptbooks. These scriptbooks should be referenced in the novelization area also.--Nuke-Marine 00:50, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Small note

The episode Believers has been moved to Believers (Babylon 5). Just saying in case there are any links to it that need fixing. Also, would it be too terrible if I just made the Believers space for the manga instead of the silly two-link disamb? IMO, it seems that a manga series is more deserving than a single episode for a default name space. I'll be sure to have a "This article is for the manga, for the Babylon 5 episode see yaddayaddayadda" in there. Just wanted to check to see if that was ok first, didn't want to piss you guys off or anything. --SeizureDog 09:18, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

We all (speaking for myself) are encyclopedists before B5 fans here, so Being Bold in any form is not only appreciated, but policy. Help yourself, etc. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 10:34, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Ok then, I'll go ahead and move the manga to the main page. Thanks. :)--SeizureDog 08:54, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

You can tell what pages link to an article by clicking "What links here" in the toolbox on the left side of every page, below the search box. In this case it would be this page. There aren't too many link from articles, so I'll just go ahead and correct them. Koweja 20:27, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

American accent in Europe? - in "Ethnicity and language of characters"

In this section it's stated "it would not be surprising for her to speak English with an American accent as this is often the case with Europeans whose first language is not English." - At least in Germany the opposite is true, as British English is taught in schools. Citation is needed. MikeZ 16:34, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

From my experience, it tends to be about half and half (in terms of learning British or American English in school). Most Western Europeans I know speak British English, while most people from East Europe and elsewhere speak American English. Regardless of the actual wordwide statistic, the comment should be taken out. B5 takes place 250 years in the future, so modern day language demographics aren't applicable. The only reason why it's not surprising that she speaks with an American accent is because Claudia Christian was born in America. Koweja 20:21, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

First/one of the first to utilize the Internet

The paragraph on Direct fan interaction states that "Babylon 5 was also the first show to fully utilize the Internet as a tool for building fan support." However, the article Internet marketing and fan influence on Babylon 5 states that "Babylon 5 was one of the first shows to employ Internet marketing to create a buzz among online readers far in advance of the airing of the pilot episode." Pick one. 65.113.125.77 14:43, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Londo and addiction

Does anyone have a source for Londo actually being addicted? Eiler7 13:29, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Ethnicity

"Of the main characters, none are from South America, Africa, or Asia."

Stephen Franklin?

Laurel Takashima? (Japanese)

Susan Ivanova? (Russian/Jewish)

John Matheson? (Korean)

Futurix 10:32, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

True, Russia does technically extend into Asia... John Matheson isn't Babylon 5, and Takashima was not really a central character to the series. Ivanova, though, probably applies.RowennaG 07:44, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Raising the bar

Does anyone have any examples of people citing Babylon 5 as raising the bar for scifi television? I did a search but did not find anything relevant. Ideally I would like to see something from someone independent of the production. Eiler7 19:25, 11 July 2006 (UTC)