FANDOM


Feel free to add any thoughts here. Radagast83 01:26, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Is this according to JMS said and wrote?--Farragut79 13:35, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Revise listEdit

I think we should consider removing the RPGs from the canon list, as it's evidentially causing some confusion. Based on these twostatements by JMS, I'd say it's pretty clear what his stance is.

"You have also stated that these books are "100% canon." No, they are not. Because for something to be canon means not that they have been researched, but that the events described therein will be referenced elsewhere, that they will be viewed as "having happened" in the B5 universe...as the Del Rey novels, and my own short B5 stories, are canon. Things referenced in those stories can show up in any future B5 films or TV projects because they *happened* in our story, in this universe. The events in the Mongoose books do not fit this criteria. They are licensed B5 fan fiction, nothing more, nothing less. And lots of folks like that stuff, and that's all to the good. But do not say that they are "100% canon.""
– JMS
"I have, subsequently, washed my hands of the Mongoose books. I haven't seen anything, don't know what they're doing, so sure as hell it ain't canonical."
– JMS

It might be an idea to create a specific Non-Canon list of publications to avoid further confusion.Blind Wolf 07:19, 15 July 2009 (UTC)


It is well known that JMS HATES RPG's, so I think his view on the books as Canon is colored at best. My opinion is that the RPG books are to be added as a canonical source. The are very thorough and well written, in accordance to the Babylon-5 era and time. (Wikipedia sees the RPG books as canon, sinds I cited out off them and have not been removed) Entilzha66 (talk) 14:21, November 18, 2012 (UTC)

Entilzha you make a good point but i do not agree with all you stated above. as Blind wolf has pointed out JMS is fine with considering the Delray books as cannon. this is ok hes not saying the Delray books are 100% cannon either becasue mistakes do happen sometimes forinstance i once read a book based on star trek and it mentioned the first contact between Humans and Vulcans but this event is no longer considered cannon becasue in the book the Humans traveled to Planet Vulcan to have first contact not the other way around which is not cannon. but for the creators of star trek to look at that entire book and say its 100% not cannon is impossible many events in books are considered cannon its just you cant take a book about a Sci-fi universe and say its 100% one way or the other not or is cannon it does not work you have to Come to a conclussion if its either mostly canon or not very canon. Some things in the RPG books are fine being cannon except for things detailing events they could tend to contradict other materials. as a rule of thumb if things are taking place on film then there Canon if any of those events are contradicted in a book then the book is wrong. if  a book or a RPG is giving new information on new subjects and this information is not being contradicted then this information is also cannon. i understand what JMS is saying though i did borrow a few books on babylon 5 from the library in my city and i there was no contradictory things in it it really depends on the book. Promethius20 (talk) 05:09, January 22, 2013 (UTC)

"Into the Fire"Edit

I'm wondering, should the material from the unreleased Sierra game be considered canonical? From what I can tell, had it been released is was intended to be within the canon of the show and before it was canned they released some background info on Dilgar, Hyach and Androma ships to name a few, plus a lot of the same race info that was in the "Official Guide CDROM" (also from Sierra). Perhaps any info or article from that game should come with a warning banner/template? Blind Wolf 15:23, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

""Regarding ships, we are also adding new ships to our game for well-known alien races in the show whose ships we have never seen. These ships were designed by an artist who has designed other ships for B5 and these have been approved by JMS. Our own Lightwave artists are creating these models in-house."
– Writer/co-designer Randy Littlejohn in interview with NextGen

Related: Discussion at B5Tech forums

So, I think that material from ITF can be considered as canon, although i'm not 100% sure. Archived Sierra site [1] contains several inaccuracies (misspelled names of ship classes, variable ship sizes, etc.). We should proceed with caution while adding new content. Distinguish newly created articles (Hurr, Hyach & Dilgar ships) based on the data from this website with template should be sufficient. Octurion 13:26, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm not suggesting we start incorporating ITF info into existing articles without caveat (hence a template.) Actually, if you look at the Fallout Vault Wiki and how they deal with information from the similarly cancelled 'Van Buren/Fallout 3' game, that might be a good example to follow. Related info in an existing article is usually in a separate subsections with a template banner warning of it's source and dubious canonicity. It also happens to be the way I think we should be incorporating any other non canon info like the early novels, games and whatnot.
P.S. Hang on, is that our Radagast calling me a Nazi? Cheeky bugger. ;) Blind Wolf 15:12, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
P.P.S. Just in case it escaped anyone's notice, I've had a go at creating some "source" templates that are a bit more streamlined and flexible than the existing "noncanon" template. Blind Wolf 18:57, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

ITF Canon ConfirmedEdit

Took a while to track down, but I think I have a confirmation that the material from the old Sierra website is indeed canon. As canon as anything in the official guide CDROM anyway. The source is in The Official Babylon 5 Magazine: Volume 2, Issue #13 (June 1999), page 26. It's a reply by Fiona Avery to a letter querying the contradictions between the Sierra material and the Agents of Gaming material. It's quite a lengthy response, but in a nutshell she asserts that AoG, out of necessity, made a lot of their stuff up on their own while Sierra, who were located much closer to the Babylonian Productions offices collaborated much closely and far more frequently with J. Michael Straczynski and John Copeland. Blind Wolf 14:29, May 13, 2010 (UTC)

Dining on Babylon 5Edit

A bit of a strange one, but should the "Dining on Babylon 5" book be considered canon? I've just gotten a look at it and while at first glance it looks like a fluff piece, there's a surprising amount of background info that, so far appears to be consistent and within the bounds of existing canon. On top of that, if you look at "A View from the Gallery", Bo can be seen reading an early mock up of the book while waiting around in the shelter. Of course the recipes themselves should not be reprinted, but there's what looks like valid info on various animals, customs and even former Centauri Emperors that looks like fair game. Blind Wolf 14:01, November 27, 2009 (UTC)

Good question. This is actually the first I've heard of this book so I haven't heard either way if it's canon or not. Perhaps the material could be included, trying to make sure that it's correctly cited so if later it is decided that it's just a fluff piece it would not be a extremely difficult job to remove it from the wiki. Radagast83 00:56, November 29, 2009 (UTC)
It's a relatively obscure one, mostly because I think it was only ever published over here in the UK and even then it wasn't in print for very long. I managed to find a review of it here with some quotes from the author and JMS which adds some insight. As far as the content goes I ran a quick "fact check" on some of the info and, to my surprise actually turned up a few things from episodes I'd previously missed (including a whole planet mentioned in ("TKO").)
In addition it has some nice background info on the Centauri occupation, Garibaldi's childhood, early career & stint as a Gropo. Some of Ivanova's homelife, schooling abroad, assignment on Station Io and some Minbari cultural info that's in line with some elements mentioned in "city of sorrows". It even names G'Kar's brood mother. Blind Wolf 01:26, November 29, 2009 (UTC)

Laser Mirror Starweb canonicity?Edit

Is there a source that definitively cites "Duet for Human and Narn in C Sharp" and "Coda for Human and Narn in B Flat" as canon? The foreword to Across Time and Space: The Chronologies of Babylon 5 seems to discount them entierly and I have to say, after reading them I can see why; the whole thing is utterly farcical and a complete mess. I'd say that unless we can find somewhere where JMS says something to the effect of: "Yes, Garibaldi and G'Kar ran away from a spiky robot thing in the central core in nothing but their underwear" I'd say we should slide these into the non-canon column. Thoughts/objections anyone? Blind Wolf 23:28, May 19, 2010 (UTC)

I can see why you'd feel this way, but I believe the stance of the wiki should be that any licensed product should be considered canon unless contradicted by a higher form of canon (in this case on screen or JMS assertions). If canon were decided by what wiki editors found sensible, then it would be acceptable to remove mentions of midiclorians and Greedo shooting first from Wookieepedia or deciding on a Buffyverse wiki to say that Angel never really got transformed into a muppet. I assume we can agree that these would not be acceptable actions. I believe the same reasoning applies here. You or I could find something silly, but it was published by an officially licensed source, so my stance is that we're stuck with it. BoneGnawer 06:07, June 15, 2011 (UTC)

I don't think I meant to suggest that it be disregarded because it was crap (though you'll forgive me for not remembering what I was thinking 13 months ago ;-).) Just that I couldn't find any confirmation that it was considered canon. Obviously I'm not in any rush to declare it apocryphal or I'd have done so already, but I think - given the non-silliness related reasons mentioned above - we should treat any data from these books as dubious at best. Blind Wolf 20:25, June 15, 2011 (UTC)

Adding a hierarchy of canon Edit

I submit that this page should carry a section detailing the hierarchy of canon, i.e., what trumps what in cases of conflict. Below is my proposed hierarchy...

  1. Properly cited JMS assertions.
  2. Properly cited assertions from other episode/novel/comic/etc. writers
  3. On screen information
  4. Novels
  5. Comic Books
  6. Official reference guides
  7. Games
  8. All other licensed media (screensavers, trading cards, or anything else that doesn't fit into one of the above categories).

In cases where there is conflicting information from the same source and an absence of clarification from a higher source (such as conflicting on screen dialogue but no clarification from JMS or the episode's writer), the following tests should be applied to determine which of the conflicting data are correct...

  1. Item X, with a greater number of mentions or occurrences than item Y with which it is in conflict, should be considered the valid canon information.
  2. If considering item X to be canon based on the above would call into conflict another separate item with greater canon status, based either on canon hierarchy or greater mentions, then item X cannot be considered canon.

Thoughts? BoneGnawer 06:24, June 15, 2011 (UTC)

Totally unnecessary, IMO. This isn't like Star Wars, with its plethora of Expanded Universe content (novels, comics, video games) needing to be sorted against the movies and TV show, according to the SW canon scale. The B5-verse is (generally) quite clear on what is and what is not considered canon, and there really isn't any sliding scale. With the exception of The Shadow Within's half-and-half status, all of the B5 media falls into IS or IS NOT canon. DigiFluid 07:10, June 15, 2011 (UTC)
I wouldn't dismiss it, as far as there have been a few cases on here where a novel/novelization (considered canon) gets something wrong and/or contradicts something that occurred on-screen. Specifically in reference to the "other" licensed media, some of the games that are "considered canon." The policy already mentions "The following items are officially licensed products, or well-known accurate references and can be considered valid references unless contradicted by any of the above sources." Radagast83 13:41, June 15, 2011 (UTC)
I think I'm with DigiFluid on this one. B5 doesn't have a huge amount of canon material outside of the TV show(s) and there are relatively few direct contradictions. I think they way we've been distinguishing canon and non-canon material with a segregated 'Apocrypha' sub-sections works just fine. At the end of the day, only JMS gets to say what is and is and what is not canon. As far as I know he considers the RPGs as little more than fan fiction and only the later novels ('...City of Sorrows' onward plus the Icarus portion of 'Shadow Within'), the comics (even there I'm not 100% sure of the two Narn issues), whatever might be in the B5books.com publications and the old CDROM are accepted. Everything else ranges from dubious to flat-out wrong, licensed or otherwise.
Even leaving all that aside, I'd say introducing a sliding scale would be ultimately pointless since we've managed to keep a relatively firm grip on citing sources these last couple of years, which is really what it comes down to. Also, ranking canon sources just artificially imposes a kind of bureaucratic mentality where one source can trump another simply by virtue of being higher up an arbitrarily ordered list. No, I think this is still JMS's toybox and we should be sticking to his rules. Blind Wolf 19:47, June 15, 2011 (UTC)

Hierarchy revisted--spelling differences Edit

This is a minor point, but it does get to the possible relative importance of one canon source over another. At the moment, it isn't clear whether to write the name of the rogue Minbari warship as "Trigati" or "Tragati." The former appears far more frequently online than the latter, and it is the spelling used in closed captions for the official DVD release. However, the JMS-written script for the episode "Points of Departure" uses the latter spelling. Something that comes more directly from JMS himself would normally take precedence. However, scripts aren't generally meant for public consumption. They're preliminary working tools and not finished products. As any TV drama is made, it is not unusual for cast and crew to deviate from a script and for an actual episode to be different in some ways. Official captions on a home video release, though, are more closely representative of a finished episode, which strengthens their case. For the moment, I am unaware of any other canon sources that could break the tie.

So, which one--the production script or the captions? -- BlueResistance (talk) 23:21, June 4, 2016 (UTC)

Official captions. Can you confirm anywhere that the closed captions actually originate from a supplied script? The crux of your point seems to be whether an actual JMS script is less canon than closed captions B5historyman (talk) 10:30, July 6, 2016 (UTC)

Image.jpeg

It's now been 3 months since your posting User:BlueResistance and the only response has been from me questioning cc over actual script. In this time there's been no response to my enquiry about the source of closed captions (the onus isn't on me to prove the provenance of cc's) It's about time I think this matter is drawn to a conclusion and the changes made per the JMS script spellingB5historyman (talk) 07:46, September 5, 2016 (UTC)