The Babylon 5 Technical ManualEdit

Please specify the source, and use Template:Reflist

See Talk:Sun-Hawk#The Babylon 5 Technical Manual
--BoneGnawer 12:31, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Could anyone tell me please why doesn't the whole ship rotate? Danmiki

In By Any Means Necessary, the Earthforce vessel Omega was cleared to enter the jumpgate. Would this be the Omega Class prototype? --Farragut79 06:52, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

EAS Heraclion? Edit

While capping 'Endgame' I think I've spotted a "new" Omega. (bottom right corner)


At first I thought it might be a re-use of the Heracles, as that seams to appear in the Apollo's fleet too, but on closer examination, it almost certainly ends with an "ON". Still, before I start creating articles and altering templates, I thought I'd better show the image here to make sure I'm not seeing things. So what does everyone make of this? Blind Wolf 10:39, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Good Eye. --Farragut79 13:42, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
The vessel is, also, in a shot at the Battle of Earth. --Farragut79 19:26, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Herculion at Earth

You can see it starts with an H and end with N. --Farragut79 21:55, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
*squints* Possibly. It's very hard to tell at that resolution, though it stands to reason that if it was in the fleet in hyperspace, it was still with it at Earth, since I don't think they lost any ships at Mars. Blind Wolf 23:09, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
I say we add the vessel to the wiki. --Farragut79 20:40, February 26, 2011 (UTC)

Individual vs ListEdit

If we're sure I read it right and not just seeing things, go ahead. However, I'm starting to question now if most of the Omegas and Hyperions really warrant their own individual articles. Of course ships that played a significant role like the Aggie, the Charon, Lexington etc. should each have their own article, but there's a number of ones like this where literally all we have is a name and a sighting, sometimes the name of a captain, but that's all. In those cases I think they should redirect back to the their respective class article and have a 'Known Ships' subsection. Opinions? Blind Wolf 21:59, February 26, 2011 (UTC)
Honestly, I see no harm in having the the ship's have each their articles. We might as well do that with minor characters as well. I mean we already have the article as a redirect, why not just have the article, with the Omega Class as a portal to the various ships. --Farragut79 22:06, February 26, 2011 (UTC)
To my mind it's more to do with accessibility. We want people to read the articles and for the information to be readily accessible for anyone who's looking for a good reference source. A good example is the List of Planets and Moons article. There we have (in theory) every planet, moon or whatever mentioned in the show, books or canon background material. The significant ones have links to their own articles because there's plenty of data on them. However, there's a lot where literally everything we know about them can be summed up in one or two sentences. Worth recording but not enough to justify an article of their own, which is why they're called stubs.
Similarly with several of the ship articles, what we have is a bunch of stubs that have been padded out with the inclusion of an image and an infobox that mostly just repeats what's on the class page already. If we do as I suggest the images can of course be integrated in the form of a gallery or slide show. But really, two sentences does not an article make. ;) Blind Wolf 22:31, February 26, 2011 (UTC)
If some of those planets and moons have been pictured, then I believe that they merit their own article to show that said picture is of what it pertains too rather than read a list of items and then find its corresponding picture further down in the galley section. That is a little tiresome if you are in for a quick look. If we look at Memory Alpha's example of Excelsior Class starships, they have the main class page with the class's technical aspects, interior aspects, and at the end is a listing of every Excelsior class vessel that was mentioned or seen. That list is essentially a portal for each of the ship's article. If each ship article was instead presented on the class page, it would get too tedious and if the ship's article is a redirect, then it gets tiresome to click on what you think is a article only to go to a general class page. --Farragut79 22:43, February 26, 2011 (UTC)

Well obviously any redirect can be set to a specific subsection of an article, so being sent to a subsection of, for example, the 'Omega Class' article should bring you to the information you're looking for...all two sentences of it. For example, if you click this link you should be instantly taken to all the info we currently have on the planet Halax, no? As for the images, yes having an decent image is a factor in whether or not an item should have it's own article, but not a determining factor. For example we don't have an article for Centauri Prime's moon(s?), though we do have an image of at least one. Other than then the fact it exists and we can see it there's no data on it and thus no need for an article, or in this case even an entry on the list. However I will agree *some* of those planet entries are pretty borderline and if there was an image or they can be legitimately expanded upon then *some* may very well be "upgraded". Still, let's be honest, when it comes to these ships most of the obscure ones are exactly that, obscure, fuzzy little screen caps. Only a handful are even worth looking at and even then the name plate is very rarely visible, never mind legible. Blind Wolf 23:07, February 26, 2011 (UTC)

Hi I am new here, but I have been long time fan of B5 an wikis, but as I was going through the ships, I noticed a mass amount of redirects. Im sorry but that looks tacky and unprofessionally especially compared to a well designed wiki such as Memory Alpha. Lord Apollo

I have to agree with Lord Apollo, I feel that the ships can get their own pages, just because they don't have extensive information on the ships, does not mean that they should be redirect. I can certainly understand not wanting to have tons of pages with two or three lines to make up the article (Memory Alpha is a good example of this, doing things like Daffy Duckism...), I feel that the Battlestar Wiki (using another example) is making a mistake by lumping together the Batltestars (Aside from Galactica and Pegasus) into one article (while giving comic book characters their own pages...*sigh*). I guess what I mean is, certain things are almost case by case bases, but ships should have their own pages. Firstly, it can help make the wiki look much more complete, secondly, I feel that numerous "List of..." pages tend to look cumbersome and messy, and honestly the lazy way to do things. Secondly, several of the ships, even without extensive information on them, served as critical plot points to the episode(s) of their appearances, and by lumping it all together into one page, the information may become harder (trust me, it will be, it always is) for some to separate and differentiate. I also feel that there can be a lost if you were to put it together into one page, the ships no longer seem like a separate, functioning warship that served a purpose but some sort of generic background shot material. This isn't the case with many, many ships that appeared (some of the more significant ships were in the Liberation of Proxmia III for instance). Anyway, not that I've gone on and on (longer then I meant to), ultimately, as a general reader and an occasional contributor, I oppose redirecting the ship articles to this page (or a list of page). --Terran Officer 23:00, March 4, 2011 (UTC)
I think I'm inclined to agree that we should have separate articles, I'm headed out of town for the weekend so I'll see what has been discussed once I return on Sunday/Monday. Perhaps a balance could be reached for vessels that have been redirected but do play an important part in an episode (major battle and so on) that have yet to be expanded (I don't have time to take a close look at the list), and redirect vessels that literally get one line of dialogue (in say a news report or whatnot) would not. A lot of wikis have very short (2-3 sentence) articles and are doing just fine. Some fork out way too much information, but at the point we're at in terms of numbers of articles - I'm not so sure we need to compress too much information. I mean, we got the stargate wikia capturing information on things like Schnitzel and Jello and Evian Water and Beer. Which reminds me, we don't have a Zima page yet.... Radagast83 00:13, March 5, 2011 (UTC)

It's a tricky thing and I appreciate that there's more than one valid way to approach this. I *did* take pains to retain what I thought were those ships that were significantly featured (Aggie, Apollo, Heracles etc.) Indeed, roughly half the Omegas still have articles of their own and so they should. As for the rest, the fact is in most cases literally all we know about them is their name and where they were at a particular point in time. Perhaps could devise a criteria on which to base these decisions and write it into the style guide so we can keep things consistent. Whatever other wikia may be doing, I'm not so concerned about the number of articles we have so much as the quality and I don't think there's a lot of sense in having a bunch of stubs that next to nobody is going to look up. So until we come to a consensus, let's leave things as they are, yes? Blind Wolf 14:17, March 6, 2011 (UTC)

I disagree, the majority of the articles are not stubs. Leave them as individual articles and you have a couple of dissenting opinions about you have done, yet you still change them to what you want. Why don't you let the community decide first. 19:15, March 6, 2011 (UTC)LordApollo12
You're the one mashing the undo button sunshine. What we're currently discussing is what the criteria for a redirect should be, as Radagast83 says, ships that are only mentioned in passing shouldn't have their own articles. Indeed, most of these redirects are exactly that, some aren't even mentioned at all and can only be identified by freeze framing the DVD. So if you happen to disagree, fine, but let's look at it on a case by case basis and come to a consensus first rather than reverting things just because you disagree. Blind Wolf 19:34, March 6, 2011 (UTC)
Thats not what he said. He actually agreed with me and Terran Officer. YOU are the only dissenting one who is going against the majority.LordApollo12 21:11, March 6, 2011 (UTC)
Try reading the whole statement mate. Blind Wolf 23:09, March 6, 2011 (UTC)
I have noticed the majority of the ships that are named on this wiki are actually redirects. Im sorry to say but thats terrible. If you go to the bigger wikis such as Memory Alpha, Wookieepedia, Stargate, and the Halo they all have individual articles for each of their mentioned, shown, or its in the background, they get an article. And as far as I can tell, their readers, contributors, visitors, and whoever wants to see that particular wiki have no troubles or complaints. Yes, some of them are small and carry a sentence or two, but there are ship class data, sister ship templates, even just a generic ship profile to spruce up the article. Yes, I do find the ship's name listed on each class article, but the class article is devoted to the interiors, exteriors, technical data, background data, and other data about the class. Some of them do have redundancy, but the majority of the good articles do not and they give a little summary about each ship. I, for one, would like to see the Babylon 5 Wiki to be listed with the ones that I have listed as the definitive resource for Babylon 5 fans and people who want to research. In fact, some of those wikis are acknowledged by their various namesakes by the writers and creators of each franchise. Its not hurting anyone to have the EAS Talos to have its own article nor for the EAS Foxfire.

Secondly, I have noticed that there are article links on various larger articles that redirect to the large article. It is a circle that gets frustrating. Again, this is not even with the ships, but with various other articles as well. It is starting to feel like there a couple of hundred large articles with the smaller articles mainly redirects into the larger ones. If this keeps up then this wiki will have a few articles with the bulk of the articles being redirects to the larger ones. LordApollo12 04:41, March 7, 2011 (UTC)

Good grief. Either Farragut has a twin or someone has signed up for a new account just to grief us. Blind Wolf 15:16, March 7, 2011 (UTC)
Apologies, I thought you wanted this wiki to be a good resource, but alas, your actions speak louder than your words. Especially, now since you don't get your way, you are now resorting to name-calling and being rude. LordApollo12 15:23, March 7, 2011 (UTC)
That accusation doesn't even merit a response. However, you should be aware that what you're doing is edit warring bordering on vandalism. If you cared one whit about the community you'd actually bother to wait until the rest of us have FINISHED discussing the matter before making unilateral alterations. So shush now, time for the grown ups to talk. Blind Wolf 15:31, March 7, 2011 (UTC)
Why don't you follow your own advice? Thats right you think you can do whatever you want. I think you vandalize other people's work when you go and make the article a redirect without talking to the community first especially when your vision of what a wiki is, is vastly different than everyone elses. Why don't you stop it and the talk with the community first. Then again i don't think you can. LordApollo12 15:36, March 7, 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, I'm not biting. All you've done since the second you signed up it smash the undo button and cause trouble. A blind man could see what you're up to. Blind Wolf 15:41, March 7, 2011 (UTC)
No, deaf wolf, all I am doing is trying to make this wiki in tune with the other more successful wikis, but you have been doing the opposite. I have been reading up on you, you are not a team player. My plan was to starting working on Crusade, but I decided to read up on you. I am not going to make an article or update one with info directly from the episode for you to jack it up. I am not going to play your game. LordApollo12 15:44, March 7, 2011 (UTC)
I haven't been around to comment in a few days, sorry about that, but anyway, I still say the ships should get their own articles. As someone else pointed out, many other wiki's do this, even if the ships do not have a lot of information on them to share. While I can agree that you might not want to make excessive pages (Memory Alphas pages on each person appearing on the dedication plaques come to mind), redirecting the ships into one larger article to me sounds like some sort of cost cutting, space saving measure. That's not what a wiki is supposed to be about, particularly a wiki like the type of this one. In wanting it to make it as complete of an archive as it could be on Babylon 5, certain types of content, such as individual ships, should get their own pages. This is further still, when each ship is their own thing, they have their own history, their own actions. background information, so forth and so forth. In short, I firmly believe the ships should keep their own pages. redirecting into a larger list I feel compresses things to much and if anything, would harm the wiki rather then improve it. --Terran Officer 18:27, March 8, 2011 (UTC)
If I may chime in. I don't see any harm in having separate articles for each ship, or any other subject for that matter. Creating lists of stuff may be easy and helpful in the early stages of a wiki's lifetime, but at some point we just have to branch out lest the wiki is risking to stagnate. QuiGonJinnTalk 18:50, March 8, 2011 (UTC)
In which this wiki is or let's say was stagnant. I have been coming to this wiki to look up items for the past year and a half, the wiki still hasn't reach the three thousand mark. I think one of our goals should be the redo the style manual and policy guide because on the forum page, Blind Wolf tells Farragut79 that the style guide and policy guide are hopelessly out of date. --LordApollo12 20:31, March 8, 2011 (UTC)
The wiki could certainly use a massive overhaul, update and expansion (all the more reason not to redirect ships onto a single page) throughout, notably the episode summaries, particularly one the ones in later seasons. I'd be all for changing the manual of style and policies and so forth, if everyone else is up for doing that (although that might not be so much as the problem), I seem to recall once considering the episode pages being poorly formatted. Unfortunately, I cannot recall what I thought was wrong with it and what could be done to improve it... blah. Anyway, have we finally agreed to make the ships their own pages now, or is this still up for discussion? --Terran Officer 20:12, March 9, 2011 (UTC)

I say let's take a vote. I say individual.LordApollo12 20:33, March 9, 2011 (UTC)

For the mater of voting, I say ships get their own, individual pages (planets and the like probably should too, but that's a diff discussion). --Terran Officer 23:01, March 9, 2011 (UTC)

Primary Laser BatteriesEdit

Isn't this supposed to be 6? 2 in the fore and 4 in the aft?