Talk:Time travel

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

replacement for wretched wording and markup[edit]

   A colleague (who didn't take the trouble to encourage constructive discussion by even saving -- for those who care who the colleague is or when they held forth -- the trouble of searching the edit history) did add to Time travel#Tourism in time the following comment markup (to which i've added meta-markup, on this talk page, trying to make the markup display in a more intuitively clear way here):

"This picture would explain why we haven't been over run [sic]
<!-- several people have tried to edit this, but note that it says "over run" rather than "overrun" in the original essay on Hawking's website, and direct quotes should match the original source so please don't change it -->
by tourists from the future."

   The colleague's concern for non-misrepresentation is praiseworthy, even tho the wording "have tried to edit" reeks too much of the Inquisition or the Klan, and the typographic travesty that is their solution may not even be appropriate for some critical edition of Hawking's works. Here -- leaving behind the pedants' concern about who (Hawking, an editor, a typesetter?) is responsible for the inappropriate internal space -- is an encyclopedia-appropriate version of the passage:

"This picture would explain why we haven't been [overrun] by tourists from the future."

It's literate, harmless, almost devoid of distraction, and not significantly better nor worse than

Stephen Hawking says that this picture would explain why our times haven't been overrun by "tourists from the future."{{cn|date=January 2015}}

--Jerzyt 04:21 & 07:05, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

May 2016[edit]

This was copied from User talk:BruceGrubb

Hello, I'm DVdm. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Time travel, but you didn't provide a source. I’ve removed it for now, but if you’d like to include a citation to a reliable source and re-add it, please do so! If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. DVdm (talk) 19:10, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Note: I have undone the following of your recent edits per wp:unsourced and wp:nor ([1], [2], [3], [4]). Please read these aspects of Wikipedia policies. - DVdm (talk) 19:18, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Please note some of the references are in the text and that we are talking about Time travel in fiction; the examples are the novel and works cited. The references on the other pages was also in the text. Also don't clutter people's talk page with material that should be here.--BruceGrubb (talk) 00:18, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
(Off-topic)As you can see in Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#User talk pages: "While the purpose of article talk pages is to discuss the content of articles, the purpose of user talk pages is to draw the attention or discuss the edits of a user." That is why I used the template {{uw-unsourced}}, which is meant to be left on user talk pages, not on article talk pages. Also, please do not copy talk page comments to article talk pages as you did here. Doing so can create the impression that someone abused the article talk page. I have collapsed the copied text to make clear that I did not made that comment here. If you want to refer to user talk page messages, you can refer to comments with wp:wikilinks and wp:diffs, as I did in the title of the collapse part.
As for the on-topic part, OK, I will leave the judgement of possible wp:original research and/or wp:SYNTH in your edits to other contributors here. - DVdm (talk) 08:43, 15 May 2016 (UTC)


The article says in the lead: "traveling to an arbitrary point in time has a very limited support in theoretical physics", while in the following text it says: "one-way time travel into the future via time dilation is a proven phenomenon in relativistic physics". So which one is it? Time travelling into future is fully supported by theoretical physics. The article claims something that is wrong and then it contradicts itself by claiming that the future time travel is a proven phenomena. (talk) 21:03, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Time travel to an arbitrary point in time has very limited support in theoretical physics. Time travel into the future via time dilation is a well-established phenomenon in relativity. There is no contradiction. BrightRoundCircle (talk) 21:27, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
Ok, thanks. (talk) 08:46, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Removed bibliography section[edit]

I've removed the bibliography section since the article uses inline citations now, and has been that way for a long time. Below are all the sources from that section. Bright☀ 22:09, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Sleep, but not cryonics, in history section[edit]

Modern medical advances in cryonics have little to nothing to do with the history of the concept of time travel. Bright☀ 17:04, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Based on your edit comments, I assumed you were removing my edit because it referenced forward time travel at ordinary rates via unconsciousness rather than via some extraordinary means (such as wormholes), which seemed like a legitimate point of contention, which is why I removed the other reference to unconscious time travel. Are you saying that only historical references to time travel should be in that section or are you saying that only fictional references should be there? If the former, how old does something have to be for it to be considered history? There is a reference later in the section dated 1951. The content I added was dated 1962 and 1967. Should the section be renamed? Sparkie82 (tc) 02:31, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
The references explain why the historical references are significant (they're early, they have many parallels in myths, they are regarded in fiction as time travel). Modern advances like suspended animation and cryonics are a little more removed from time travel proper, and while they serve the same purpose in modern fiction as prolonged sleep did in ancient myths, most of the references treat them like a medical procedure, not necessarily a means of time travel. There was a medical section in the article but it was left unreferenced for so long that I removed it. Bright☀ 12:55, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Time travel. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:47, 23 December 2017 (UTC)