Well, it had to come from somewhere, (it was used far too consistently to be a fan invention; You'd expect someone, somewhere would've went with "Excalibur-class" and I never saw that once) and it wasn't an RPG. The first RPG didn't extend into the Crusade era, Agents of Gaming had a lengthy delay until it was decided their license included Crusade and they could release specs and a miniature of the Excalibur, and the Mongoose RPG didn't come out until after that. Long before those last two, Victory-class had already been well-established. By someone. It'll be a pain to track down the origin of a bit of B5 folklore from eleven years years ago. Does anyone have a comprehensive archive of the official magazine? That seems to me like the most likely point of origin for it. Some behind the scenes or preview article for Crusade.
^Actually I do have all the old mags and far as I can tell, it's not in there either. I have no idea where it may have come from originally, but if it's not a canon source then that's that. Is it possible it was initially a fan invention that one of the RPGs adopted either by choice or sheer coincidence? The latter would be more likely than you'd think as if one had to pick a name, 'Victory' would be the obvious choice so two non canon sources coming up with it independently is certainly within the bounds of possibility.
Not really. There are things that end up with a life of their own just by being repeated so often. The so-called 'original plan' for Sinclair to become Valen in the final episoded for instance; As far as I can tell, that one has no basis anywhere except oft-repeated supposition (possibly originating from a website detailing what a fan thought the 'original' story was supposed to be) and yet it's quoted regularly. Naturally I can't find it at the moment but as I recall, JMS once posted that canon was mainly what showed on-screen and secondarily what he might have posted since he might change his mind. BTW, I took a look at the Chronology book since one of the chronologies was approved by JMS and done in consultation with Fiona Avery, the reference editor and still no mention of a Victory Class in regard to the prototypes. Jan
Thanks, guys. I thought I read somewhere that it was a Victory-class as well, but I bow to the experts.
^This is exactly why the wika should be making sure it has valid sources. A surprising number of fans will simply take what they read as fact and repeat it as such. I forget what they are exactly, but I remember tracking a few such nuggets of supposed "fact" back to their source and in at least two instances the source appeared to be some speculation on the Lurker's Guide. Not their fault mind, since it was clearly marked as speculation, but there it is all the same. Even though it's approved and it's an enormously useful document, I tend to tread lightly around some part of the chronology. Some parts are quite clearly marked as conjecture while I've spotted a few other (admittedly minor) things that are...I don't want to say "wrong" but they could have done with a little more explanation. Of course it's the kind of thing only a person looking at it in great detail would probably notice. By and large it's still commendably accurate...though an index would have been nice!
A friend suggested that one other at least semi-canon place where the Victory class might have been mentioned would be in the Robert Sheckley novelization of "A Call to Arms". I took a look at the first few pages when Sheridan and Garibaldi first arrive and didn't see it but if somebody has time to look through the whole book, it's a possibility. Jan
^Not as far as I can see, just general descriptors. Same as the script basically...which come to that was probably what the author was working from. He does specifically refer to the Charon as an Omega-Class so he's clearly aware of such things, plus he invented a name for the Drazi trader character so it's not like he wasn't free to expand what was already there. Looks like this may well be just a fan invention.
I’m probably wrong in this but the “victory class” idea could have come from B5Tech. Over the years I’ve noticed many people have viewed it as a canon source for one reason or another. That may be partly down to the credits page. It could be read as if jms directly contributed to the site (which he didn’t of course). Though Tim Earls did briefly, but his ‘importance’ to the show was over stated slightly by incorrectly listing him as the CGI Director for B5 & Crusade. (Except for the ‘fury and omega) the 'information' on the wiki articles for the B5 ships are largely lifted from that site for example, and has subsequently been widely repeated by others, for years. http://www.b5tech.com/oldb5tech/isa/excalibur/excalibur.html Though I’ve noticed the content of many of the ship articles on B5Tech have changed recently. Much of the original fanon has been removed, ever since the owner decided to archive the current site in preparation of creating a new updated version, sometime.
Well, the way I see it, since there were only two ships, it must either be Excalibur class or Victory class, and let's face it..."Victory class" just sounds cool.
That might very well be it. This is what I was talking about earlier about how misconceptions propagate when people just assume what they read on certain sites is fact, even if said sites didn't intend to present them as such. Say what you will about wikis (and I can say quite a bit) but insisting on valid primary data sources is defiantly a positive thing!
I agree completely. Wiki is a great concept, and can be a great resource. Like many a newbie it’s one of the first places I found, via google, when looking for stuff on the net relating to B5. But unfortunately it can contain a lot of personal opinions presented as facts. There’s even some who use it to circumvent the discussion process on forums like this to promote personal opinions. . . . . . which others then innocently repeat. I noticed that happening on something like on the DS9 article and jms suing paramount. What’s on there is a complete fabrication where the author has taken portions of two replies from jms, edited the actual content (removed words/phrases) and then stuck them together as a single misleading and inaccurate response from him. That’s not cool and is why I can sympathise with some of the negative views some folks have about wiki – though personally I think it’s a great idea . . . . . ‘policing’ it must be a bugger. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Trek:_Deep_Space_Nine#Deep_Space_Nine_and_Babylon_5
I've done a search of the online archives but not of the rest of the files that went into the books. I'll take a look and let you know. Jan
I can verify that... There is no end to the amount of stuff that B5Tech put out that people assumed was 'canon'. People assumed that just because there was a lot of information, it was all real. No, the vast majority of it was just made up. I ran a similar site back then, Hyperspace, http://www.isnnews.net/hyperspace/ (wow, I didn't realize it was still up - I haven't touched it in 11 years!) - and I would frequently get requests from people to add information from B5Tech. My argument was always - "it ain't canon, so it ain't happening". Now to be clear, I'm sure my site contains a bunch of non-canon facts. (Victory class being one of them) , many of whom at the time appeared to be canon. Some of it was speculation as well. But I never pretended that my site was a fully canon information resource.
^Oh, my God! I'd wondered if you were you, or if it was just a coincidence (it's not the least common username).
Indeed it is myself. What can I say, I'm not terribly imaginative with user names. I use the same name (minus the number) in some other forums.
It’s a small internet. Looking over your old site (and a couple of others) was one of the reasons I took B5Scrolls in the direction I did. Whenever I asked on forums about model designs and the like I kept being directed to B5Tech!! From my point of view (looking for information, not conjecture or pet theories) although B5Tech was wide ranging, your site was more interesting (Though I can genuinley see how B5Tech, and BabTech, filled a gap in the market so to speak)
I've done a search on several of the files that comprised the Asked & Answered books and don't find any mention of 'Victory' except as a reference to Excalibur's sister ship. Jan