Unnamed Characters

I was screencapping images from And Now for a Word and I started to wonder what to do with images of Johnny's Mother, or the Psi Cop in the Psi Corps Propaganda Advertisement. For now I've decided to just put the images on the actor's page until we decide what to do about unnamed characters like that. Given that there's an article for Minbari Assassin, Knight One, and Knight Two, what's your position on this? --JemHadar359 15:33, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I highly doubt anyone is going to be looking them up, since they're not technically characters. Best use for them, I think, would be to have a section on recruitment, propaganda and public relations in the Psi Corps article. Blind Wolf 22:59, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Okay, and for random unnamed characters, I'll just put the image on the actor page. --JemHadar359 23:46, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Righto. Oh, while you're capping, if you spot a good shot of Morden that gives you a good look at his necklace, let me know, there's an article for that, believe it or not. Blind Wolf 23:53, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Planet Template

Great job with the template, keep up the good work! Radagast83 04:15, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

It seamed like it needed doing.Blind Wolf 15:26, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Peaceful Debate

I just want to say that I do not mean any offense in our debates. --Farragut79 20:55, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

None taken mate. By having a rational argument in the talk section, it makes it easier to keep a bead on why certain decisions were made. Blind Wolf 01:15, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
You win, I am not contributing anymore. You made it difficult to enjoy contributing to this Wiki. I tired of bickering with you. --Farragut79 04:52, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Nice work!

Haven't complemented you especially for your hard work here!

Since you're one of the more active members I figured I'd drop a line here instead on some random talk page. I've been thinking for the last few days/weeks that a redesign of the "season" boxes needs to take place. This box is the box that appears on every episode page. The problem is the right hand side looks a little messy to me when both that and the episode details box are present. I think that the episodes box needs a static, standard spot (either at the top like on Lostpedia, or at the bottom like the Battlestar Wiki). If you'd like to chime in with any thoughts, or suggest a place where this could be discussed further, let me know. Otherwise I'm willing to redesign the templates myself and place all of them where they should be on every episode/movie/book/(and hopefully comic book) page (either at the top or bottom) to bring some consistency to this template. Let me know your thoughts and thanks again. Radagast83 03:54, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. One of the advantages of being unemployed insomniac is that I have plenty of time on my hands! ;)
I tend to agree the season/episode boxes are in need of a bit of a rethink. From the examples you suggested I rather think the BSG wiki is the best one to emulate/steal from. With the season/show template down the bottom and the sidebar template used for production info (writer/director/production number/airdate/next/previous...etc...etc.) and an image (perhaps a screencap of when the episode title comes on screen, or something more interesting?)
What I do like the idea of however, is the templates that collapse if there are 3 or more (including the infobox) on the same page, like the ones I've seen on the Fallout wiki], though I'm not 100% sure what would be the best way to use that here. Perhaps if there's a separate template for the season episode list and the show/season list then it might be arranged something like this: -
       |Babylon 5: Signs and Portents | The Coming of Shadows | Point of No Return | No Surrender, No Retreat | Wheel of Fire          |
       |Crusade: Season 1 | Scripted/Unfilmed Episodes                                                                                 |
       |The Legend of the Rangers: To Live and Die in Starlight | Babylon 5 - The Lost Tales: Voices in the Dark                       |
       |DVD Movies and Features: The Gathering | In the Beginning | Thirdspace | River of Souls | A Call to Arms                       |
       |                   Babylon 5 Season 1 "Signs and Portents" (January 26, 1994 - October 3, 1994) Episode List                   |
       |                                                                                                                               |
I think a layout like this would allow for a good balance of information and clarity, what do you think?Blind Wolf 05:24, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
Great idea. I like the two template approach (season and episode). I can take a look into the collapsible boxes route as well, though depending on the difficulty it may be implemented later. I'll start work tomorrow or this weekend. Thanks for the thoughtful input! Radagast83 06:09, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
No problem! I imagine the collapsing function would require one or two "invisible" templates to support it, though the beauty of a wiki is that you can quite easily steal the coding off someone else's template, so it shouldn't be too hard to back track. ;)Blind Wolf 06:14, 15 May 2009 (UTC)


In By Any Means Necessary, a labore strike for the Rush act was on Ganymede.

"He's bluffing. The Rush Act hasn't been invoked since Europa."
By Any Means Necessary - DVD subtitles
"You know what could happen if I have to order Garibaldi in."
"The same thing that happened on Europa and at Matewan. The same thing that always happens when laborers rise up."
By Any Means Necessary - DVD subtitles
Ganymede was never mentioned as far as I can tell. Blind Wolf 20:00, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Ganymede is mentioned once by Neeoma Conoly where her father was shot dead during the 37 mining strikes on Ganymede. Whether the Rush Act was actually invoked then isn't mentioned. Maephos 01:58, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
Just double check the episode and you're correct. For reference I used a bank of ripped dvd subtitle files and it's usually reliable, but occasionally, like here the odd detail is lost in the name of brevity. You're also right that it wasn't specifically mentioned as an instance of the Rush act and I'm pretty sure that it only came into existence during the Minbari War (10 years after '37), to stop unions and corporations from jeopardising the war effort. She also later mentions New California in the same breath as Matewan & Europa (something else the subtitles missed!) but again, it's not necessarily another instance of the Rush Act. Blind Wolf 02:19, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
I had to re-watch the episode myself and hunt for that one brief instance mentioned during a conversation with Sinclair and Garibaldi, so don't feel bad about it. :) Maephos 02:25, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
If I had the money, I'd get the scripts, but even then the lines sometimes change! ;) Anyway, I've amended the appropriate articles. Blind Wolf 02:42, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Footnote help needed

Hi there, I'm new here and wanted to know if you could correct something I just did. I tried to add reference tags on Fiona and Matthew Dexter on the Psi Scale page. Instead of adding them to an already existing footnote, I inadvertently added two more mentions of Dark Genesis - The Birth of the Psi Corps to the bottom of the page. Thanks for your help. DragonMage 21:02, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Not a problem. Have a look at the history to see how to do that in the future. Blind Wolf 22:10, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Noble House Edits

Why was my edits removed from the Centauri Noble Houses? They were properly referenced as sourced from the B5 RPG source books. According to this page...


... they are considered canon...

Ron McClung

That page is a bit out of date, there's a question as to which if any RPGs are canon at all and we've spent the last few months removing as much of it as we can root out, but it's like pulling up weeds. Until we have a good way of presenting RPG based information without it conflicting with the rest of the wiki, we're better off just leaving it out, for now at least.
The best solution in the long run would probably be for someone to create a B5 version of "Memory Beta", that can cover all the RPGs without omissions and without the worry of it contradicting canon (which allot of it seems to do.) That way the two wikis to link back and forth on common articles and we'd get the best of both worlds. But that's a job for someone with access to the books and the interest to pursue it. All I know for sure is mixing it all together has already proven to be very messy, incoherent and damn near impossible to keep tabs on.Blind Wolf 22:47, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
I think we'd need a much stronger main Wiki before branching out in the form of "Memory Beta" - however I wonder if some kind of compromise could be met where this "quasi-canon" information. Could instead provide it in a separate section at the bottom of the page, in the form of an "apocrypha" section to avoid it from being part of the main body of text? At some future point it can then be purged, integrated, or shifted to a separate wiki. I'll be on vacation until Sunday July 5th, so I can't really chime in any more on this until then. Radagast83 07:48, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
The way I see it, there's so much RPG data that appears to embellish and contradict other sources (including other RPGs) than any attempt to integrate it, even in an "apocrypha" sub heading is going to get messy. Add to that the fact that a good portion of the games seem to especially focus on ship stats (which we've already gone the lengths to remove) then we'd be in a situation where most of the ships might end up with several sets of stats.
On the other hand if you take the seemingly reasonable compromise of only including some RPG data, then you're going to get arguments as to what should take precedence over what and we're in messville again.
I'm not suggesting that we spin off a "Memory Beta" on our own, hopefully if enough RPG fans keep coming here and asking for RPG data, one of them will eventually take the hint and go start a sister wiki. ;) Seriously though, I think RPG articles are just going to cause headaches and we've just about managed to wrangle this article into something approaching a vague coherence, it'd be a shame to let it slide.
Having said all that, I'm not adverse to including "apocrypha" subsections, but only when it related to the early, "pre-City of Sorrows", which is why I created the {{NonCanon}} template. Actually, I think I brought this a few weeks ago on the Sheridan article's talk page. Blind Wolf 08:18, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Please Read

before you edit the Page Sofie Ivanova again, please Read this Article on Wikipedia to understand naming conventions of Russian names.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Names_in_the_Russian_Empire,_Soviet_Union_and_CIS_countries --WhellerNG 23:58, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I understand the argument, but Radagast83 gave you an answer on this. If you want to add a small, properly cited note on Russian naming conventions in that article that's fine, but the rest of the article will adhere to canon.Blind Wolf 00:01, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Image Needed Template

Thanks for starting this template. I had been meaning to add one here for quite some time. Radagast83 03:03, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

No worries, it was either that or keep editing a "to-do" list on my user page. This way seamed easier. ;) Blind Wolf 15:39, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Impressive EA ships' seals!

Greetings Blind Wolf!

I would like to compliment you on your work concerning your contributions on the Babylon 5 logos and insignia, especially the Earth Alliance ships' seals, and particularly those of the Omega-class destroyers.

Just wondering, but are the seals for the EAS Cerberus and EAS Medusa your creation? If so, well done! Are you planning to create and contribute more ships' seals in the near future? I'd be very interested in seeing more of your work, if you don't mind.

Thank you, and I look forward to hearing from you soon.


Thanks. Yes they're my work, or rather my reproductions of what was used on the show based on as much reference material as I can scrape together. There are a few ship seals and logos I haven't got to yet, though it's hard to get good reference and I don't want to put anything up unless I'm reasonably happy with it's accuracy.Blind Wolf 03:40, October 11, 2009 (UTC)
Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.