As you wish. Edit
If you want to make me to give up, you are wrong. And I agree with some things, and I had a better idea, I will do The Babylon Project Game Wiki, it's better than receiving a kick in the ass when I try to do something here. This is a better solution than trying to "worst" things. When I finish it (that I believe just in July because the High School, no one knows what can happen) I will gave you the link, just try to don't worst my life. Arthur JR
- Our loss, I'm sure. Blind Wolf 21:23, February 22, 2011 (UTC)
Oh look another contributor driven away by you. No wonder this wiki is barely growing or the fact that it is had the same featured article for the last two years. --Farragut79 23:48, February 23, 2011 (UTC)
- Are you making a genuine complaint or just making a nuisance of yourself yet again? Blind Wolf 01:06, February 24, 2011 (UTC)
If you cannot figure it out, then I am not going to spell it out to you. If I was a nuisance? then delete all my contributions jerk. --Farragut79 01:33, February 24, 2011 (UTC)
- Stop it, Blind Wolf is right, cannot put fan fiction in a "oficially" wiki. Arthur JR, 22:55 (BR), February 23, 2011 (I don't know what is UTC yet =S)
- Now I know how to comment better =D. Arthur JR 22:59, February 23, 2011 (I don't know what is UTC yet people =S)
Oh hell -.- Edit
I'm not leaving, I am just going to do a Wiki for the game The Babylon Project -.- . Arthur JR
- Don't mind him, he just likes to cause hassle it seems. As Radagast explained to you earlier, this wiki is primarily for canon and licensed materials. If we allowed what is essentially fan fiction then the wiki would end up being an unmanageable mess. Any contributions you care to make within the policy guidelines would of course be quite welcome. Blind Wolf 01:17, February 24, 2011 (UTC)
- That is the because that I am going to do another wiki, for the fan-made game. It's better than doing a GAME OVER to the wiki... I will send the link after sometime, now I can't, I'm little busy in the High School. Arthur JR 22:45 (BR), February 23, 2011. (OBS: What is UTC?)
Running out of PatienceEdit
Ah forget it, this is not a contributor-friendly wiki, and I am not going to contribute any longer. I will be sending a message to the Wikia Adminstrators on what is going on here. --Farragut79 05:05, February 27, 2011 (UTC)
Babylon 5 In the Beginning Edit
Blind Wolf, in the Babylon 5 In the Beggining, the fleet used to "explore" and get information about the Minbari ware 2 Hyperions and 1 Nova. In the wiki, says that was 3 Hyperion. I don't know shure about the Nova's name, I will try to see if I can read it. Arthur JR, March 1st, 2011 (UTC)
- I just had a quick look for you and it was 2 Hyperions and 2 Novas, so if you find something that says otherwise you should of course correct it. Don't worry too much about the names. It's not possible to get a good look at the hull markings as only the Prometheus gets anywhere near the camera. Indeed I wouldn't be surprised if both Novas were labeled the Schwarzkopf, I don't think they ever changed the name on that model. Things like that really shouldn't be taken at face value. Blind Wolf 18:47, March 1, 2011 (UTC)
Season 4 dating Edit
I corrected the dates of the first few episodes of season 4 according to when the 3.22 "Z'ha'dum" article says that episode is vs. dialogue in the first three episodes of season 4. I wasn't pulling it out of my arse, I watched Hour of the Wolf to Summoning last night prior to my edits. Furthermore, the dates I wrote in are corroborated by the B5 chronology. Why did you reverse them? DigiFluid 15:28, June 10, 2011 (UTC)
- I have the chronology open in front of me and the dates in the articles were already in line with it. There's actually an author's note in regards to this episode's chronological inconsistencies so probably the best thing to do is keep the dates in line with the official source and put a 'notes' section in the episode article to detail the various inconsistencies. Blind Wolf 17:03, June 10, 2011 (UTC)
- I guess I'm looking at a different chronology--one that cites in-episode dialogue as reasoning. So what possible reason would we have to use an out-of-universe reference guide as inviolate over lines spoken IN THE EPISODE? The internal chronology of the episodes, as spoken in dialogue, is consistent. If it were one line I could ignore it as a writing goof, but it isn't. Quite simply, your reference guide is incorrect and the only thing we should be following as canon in this case is what happens on screen. DigiFluid 17:38, June 10, 2011 (UTC)
The one we use is Across Time and Space: The Chronologies of Babylon 5 which is authorised by JMS so it's about as canon as a B5 chronology can be and as I said, the author makes note of a number of internal inconsistencies within the episode itself, so I think in this case the episode is simply in error. Blind Wolf 18:01, June 10, 2011 (UTC)
- "Authorized by" doesn't make it canon, that just means it's published under authorized license rather than these "unauthorized guide to" books you see in every book store. Moreover, only ONE of the four authors of that has ever actually written for the B5-verse--and she only wrote the introduction. Four episodes of consistent dialogue is not an error. One book of dubious authority does not trump what happens on-screen. The book is clearly in error. DigiFluid 18:30, June 10, 2011 (UTC)
- This isn't some piece of licensed fluff put out by WB, it's a recent publication done by JMS's own company and unless I'm mistaken he's personally signed off on it. So as I said, it's about as canon as B5 chronologies get. Still, if you think you've detected an error then the thing to do is explain it in some detail, otherwise, even if you're correct in six months someone else will come along, decide the dates are right and change them back or substitute their own interpretation. This is a wikia and there needs to be proper citation. Blind Wolf 09:18, June 11, 2011 (UTC)
- Blind Wolf is right on that this isn't some licensed fluff. The stuff coming out of b5books.com is basically straight from the desk of JMS. This isn't dubious authority unless you call JMS himself into question. He ain't George Lucas and unlike Star Trek, Babylon 5 does use off-screen materials as part of the canon. Generally on-screen trumps off-screen but in the case of a researched timeline that pegs nearly all episodes with an exact date, I think we're sticking with that rather than estimates or guesses based on comments made on-screen. As for what is spoken in the episode and what appears in the book, I can't comment. I have the Chronology book in front of me but haven't read or heard the dialogue in question for some time. Perhaps if you could write verbatim the dialogue in question? Radagast83 19:13, June 11, 2011 (UTC)
- Season 4 opens with the dialogue "it's been seven days since Captain Sheridan disappeared." There was a line early in 'Whatever Happened to Mr. Garibaldi' that said "it's now been nine days since Captain Sheridan...." (I'd have to pop the disc back in to check if it was "disappeared" or "died" at Z'ha'dum in 4.02).
- If Season 3 closed on Christmas Day 2260 (as is asserted by the article for that episode), that places 4.01 and 4.02 on Jan 1 and Jan 3, respectively according to CONSISTENT dialogue in two different episodes. Further to that, it was in 4.02 that Delenn began rallying the fleet to go to Z'ha'dum in seven days' time. That day comes to pass in 'The Summoning', when Sheridan returns. That places 4.03 on Jan 10 +/- a day for reasonable wiggle room.
- That's consistent dialogue in three separate episodes (all of which were written by JMS, no less) that contradict a book written by people who have never written for the show, its movies, its spin-off, its comics, or its books. There are more, corroborating lines of dialogue in the subsequent episodes as well, but in my marathon re-watch I didn't make note of them. DigiFluid 01:37, June 12, 2011 (UTC)
I think the source of the problem might have something to do with this, at least in part. In a nutshell, there was a bit of an error between script revisions. I don't have all my resources at hand right now, but when I get a chance I'll try and compile everything and see what's going on. In the mean time, I suggest we move this discussion to one of the episode's talk pages so this isn't all lost the next time I do an archive. Blind Wolf 14:55, June 12, 2011 (UTC)
- That's interesting, I'm not totally sure if it answers anything though. In order for the closing scenes of 3.22 to make sense, the 'death' of Sheridan and the retreat of the Shadows have to be happening concurrently. Thus lining up with the 9-day statement which further shows the reference guide to be incorrect.
- At the very least I agree we ought to copy the discussion over to one of the Season 4 episode pages (4.01 is probably best so it's easy to find). It would be a shame to lose this debate and discussion over what appear to be completely contradictory sources--which have ramifications not just for Season 4, but also for when Sheridan goes beyond the Rim in Sleeping in Light. DigiFluid 19:24, June 14, 2011 (UTC)
Additional Dating Edit
Hey Blind Wolf, if you could check out Talk:Objects in Motion, we have a discussion we've started and have a few questions and a solution that could help out this problem in the future. There's been a lot of questions about the veracity of some dating figures on the site. Season 5 seems to be much trickier than earlier seasons, so there's been some confusion over what the correct dates are. Perhaps also adding a reference tag to note the source of each date would also be best going forward, it would stop others from changing those dates they perceive incorrect (at least without knowing it's been sourced and not from the ether). If you could try to chime in about season 5's dates (particularly towards the end of the season, as some of those dates seemed to be corrected, at least based on Across Time and Space but no longer seem to coincide with what you originally added. Thanks! Radagast83 04:37, June 28, 2011 (UTC)
- You're right, though I think citing *every* date would be a little cumbersome, at least in the episode sidebar. So perhaps as far as that goes if the date comes from the official chronology we leave it blank but cite anything other than that source. All other dating should of course be cited, with a detailed explanation if necessary being placed on the date's article (2262 in this instance.) As for the late season 5 stuff, I think that has to with the Centauri books, with a longer stretch of time between Londo becoming Emperor and Sheridan leaving B5 than it seemed on the show. If I didn't cite properly then I apologise as I really should have. I'll have a look later when I've some spare time and see if I can't straighten it out. Blind Wolf 09:55, June 28, 2011 (UTC)
- Hmmm, not sure that it would be as cumbersome as you state, but okay. Just want to make sure that users recognize the source that a date (and by date I mean just when the episode starts or ends). Radagast83 05:46, June 29, 2011 (UTC)
- Dude, I'm an idiot. You were probably right with those dates. I used Carson's Timeline dating, which as it turns out appears to be less exact while Terry Jones' dating (the one you used) includes research backed personally by Fiona Avery and JMS himself. That does bring up a point that we should probably note the "discrepancies" on the page. Radagast83 05:55, June 29, 2011 (UTC)
Question about Babylon 5 Logos Edit
Hello Blind Wolf,
i am currently making a Babylon 5 modification for a Game called Endless Space.
I am asking your permission to use your Logos for Videos for this Mod.
- I'm pretty sure I posted all my logos under a public domain licence, so you're free to use them any way you like. No permission required. Still, thanks for taking the time to ask. Blind Wolf (talk) 18:09, August 7, 2012 (UTC)
Potential Opportunity Edit
Hi Blind Wolf - could you please contact me when you see this at firstname.lastname@example.org
I wish to discuss a few things with you in regards to your logos and a potential idea I have.
184.108.40.206 13:53, March 27, 2014 (UTC) James Davis-Mann