Talk:Time travel in fiction

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

Time travel as a defining characteristic of science fiction[edit]

I feel that this section of the article is inconsistent with wiki's general vision and scope as it just refers to one piece of mumbo jumbo by some random sci-fi writer who happens to feel that science fiction IS A SUB GENRE of time travel(not the other way around) i don't think it contributes anything to the article, it is just one mans opinion that i have never heard repeated and most of all it is clearly BIASED! WIll remove section soon unless someone objects —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:11, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 23:44, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Use of Time Travel in Harry Potter[edit]

In the 'Harry Potter' series, time travel is used as an important tool in the plot of the book 'Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban'. But the article makes no mention of this.

Thanks. (talk) 05:36, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Early stories featuring time travel: Time Travel in Islamic literature[edit]

According to Islamic literature Muhammad told his followers that he was awaken by Arch Angle Gabriel who took him for a journey through heavens where he saw hell and heaven. But when he came back, no time has passed and the water that he used for ablution was still flowing and the door nob was still vibrating. He also said that the ride he used had a speed such that "it's first step lands at the distance that your eye can see"

which is speed of light, as we see with the speed of light. Thought we can add this up in the list. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:45, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

But traveling in one step "the distance that your eye can see" doesn't make sense as the speed of light--it only would if the distance D that "your eye can see" in light-seconds was exactly equal to the time T for "one step" in seconds (since light always travels at a rate of 1 light-second per second). Besides, technically the "distance that your eye can see" is many light-years if you look at the stars (though the author of the passage wouldn't have known that), if you could cross that distance in the same time as it takes to make a single step, you would be traveling much faster than the speed of light. Anyway, aside from the issue of whether this passage anticipates any modern scientific notions (answer: no), it doesn't really seem like time travel, more like time suspension or time compression (the opposite of how time dilation works in the theory of relativity, where if you travel in space at close to the speed of light and return to Earth, much more time will have passed on Earth than for you). Hypnosifl (talk) 18:33, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Temporal war merge proposal[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Merge. BrightRoundCircle (talk) 22:07, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

I propose that Temporal war should be merged into a new section on this page under the existing ==Time travel themes== section, and that Time war should also redirect there. A time war is merely the concept of time travel being used by multiple parties (obviously always in a fictional work) attempting to combat each other be attacking one another's history. bd2412 T 12:59, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

I agree. Especially considering that the article, as it now exists, is essentially nothing more than a overly large quotation from a single author (so large, indeed, that it likely raises copyright issues). Why not just merge whatever might be appropriate into the main article and then propose this one for deletion? NewYorkActuary (talk) 21:40, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Newspaper from the future merge proposal[edit]

Newspaper from the future is another short article focused on a specific time travel theme (in this case, it is an object that has traveled through time, specifically a future newspaper or comparable communication). I would merge it under "themes" here, with a slightly more generic header of "Communication from the future". bd2412 T 15:41, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Support. This article could eventually cover all the various prominent time-travel themes. Any themes that have more than a couple of parahraphs about them could then be spun out to their own article. It's important to remember that the theme should be notable in and of itself, and not merely a collection of notable works with the theme. BrightRoundCircle (talk) 16:42, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Lengthy quote from Nahin (Time Wars section)[edit]

User:BD2412 A brief comment as to why I removed the lengthy Nahin quote -- As I noted above, I do believe that the length of the quote raises copyright issues. I see from your edit summary that you don't agree, but a reading of WP:COPYQUOTE suggests that your position is not as strong as you think it is. Be that as it may, there is also the fact that much of this block quote consists of Nahin quoting the works of others. It's difficult to see how this quoting-of-quotes is necessary for the article. But perhaps you'll disagree with that, as well. Two minor comments -- First, the main thrust of Nahin's writing on time wars is that, even if one accepts the premise of time travel, the notion of a time war is illogical. That seems to me to be the thing that really should be quoted. Second, describing Nahin as being "noted for ... " is just asking for someone to amble by and drop a "by whom?" template on it. I won't be the one to do that, but someone else might. And considering that Nahin already has his own article, the description seems unnecessary. If you care to respond to these various comments, I'll be interested in hearing your views on them. NewYorkActuary (talk) 00:44, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Under Harper & Row v. Nation Enterprises, two paragraphs out of a 600+ page work, which are of no greater significance to the work than any other two paragraphs to be found there, being used for our educational purpose, would not come close to raising copyright concerns. I would agree that there are many more points that Nahin makes (in several of his books on time travel) that would benefit this article as a whole. He has an entire book, Time Travel: A Writer's Guide to the Real Science of Plausible Time Travel, giving writer's advice on how to use time travel without too badly misrepresenting what physics allows. As an aside, we have an article on Nahin at all because I wrote one, after observing the large number of his works that are used in Wikipedia as references in various fields. The qualifier about his being a writer on time travel I added in response to your edit summary, which seemed to suggest that it was just a "quote from mathematician", who was therefore implied not to have anything of interest to say on the subject of time travel in fiction. I have adjusted that description a bit. As for the block consisting of Nahin quoting the works of others, we could of course make our own compilation of such quotes to the same effect, by why bother when this one is available? bd2412 T 01:51, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Against current merges specifically Time loop and Time slip[edit]

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the debate may be found at the bottom of the discussion.

No consensus to merge. - jc37 06:31, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Both are extremely notable on its own right. I think both can be expanded, merging notable subject prevents possible expansion. Valoem talk contrib 17:29, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

The time loop and time slip articles existed for years with less content than they have now in their respective sections. Once you expand the sections, you can split them off into their own articles. BrightRoundCircle (talk) 08:37, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
The reason I request the split is specifically based on how google functions. A merged article does not auto fill in the infobox, I believe merge should be used when notability is uncertain, not for large genres. There is a rule called WP:NOPAGE, but I personally disagree with how that is implemented. Valoem talk contrib 16:25, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
@BrightRoundCircle:, why not re-propose them, but this time open up separate sections here for each proposal (something that didn't seem to be done the first time around)? I'll be happy to support each of the proposals. You might also want to re-propose Alternative Future, just to make that merger "official", as well. NewYorkActuary (talk) 17:19, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
Why not just expand the sections if you're certain they can hold an article on their own? That would save us a lot of time and trouble. The current 2.5 paragraphs and a wall of see-alsos can easily be a section in this article instead of an article of its own. BrightRoundCircle (talk) 04:07, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

This is now the merge discussion, I'll try to sum it up:

  • Against merge: the previous merge was BOLD and therefore can be reverted. The topic has potential for expansion.
  • For merge: "time loop" is a theme of time travel in fiction and naturally fits into this article. The time loop article is very short and takes up an appropriately-sized section in this article. The time loop article has not been expanded since it was re-split, and stood for years in a state similar to its current short version.

From a technical viewpoint, I don't see why a small sub-genre of time travel needs its own article when it can be covered in three or four paragraphs. I also suggest expanding first and un-merging later instead of keeping the current state of affairs of "someone will expand it eventually". I have personally added three of the five citations in that article, adding the comparison to puzzle-solving, so I feel like I have an adequate (but not comprehensive) grasp of what can be added to the article. This is why I merged it in the first place, because there is so little to cover on the topic. BrightRoundCircle (talk) 09:27, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

That Obama article is very long, so there's a good reason to split it off. What I'm saying is instead of saying "the time loop article will eventually get expanded", why not expand the section, and when it's large enough to support its own article, spin it out.
Time loop stood around for nearly a decade with no proper citations, tons of original research, and an example farm. If you or anyone can expand it, that's great. But right now, it's just two paragraphs and a list of "see also"s, not really much of an article, and it's perfectly fine as a section. BrightRoundCircle (talk) 18:24, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
I'm not at all against having it as a section. I am merely pointing out that it can paradoxically be a section and a separate article at the same time, under the right conditions. bd2412 T 14:58, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Support both merges. It makes sense to address all of these related themes in a single article, with split-offs occurring only as and when they are needed. And as BrightRoundCircle points out, we are nowhere near the point where it is needed. NewYorkActuary (talk) 22:59, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Support merge - reviewing articles, it doesn't seem that there would be enough material to justify having these as seperate now or in the future. If this changes, a fork can be created later- as they are now, they should be merged. PeterTheFourth (talk) 21:44, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
No merge, clearly both are notable on its own right. I will defer my opinion to erik (talk · contribs) though. Valoem talk contrib 23:15, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Support merge, I am persuaded by the discussion. Things that are notable in their own right can still appear as part of a larger article. bd2412 T 23:31, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Against merge due to the usefulness of the 'see also' section Andrewrutherford (talk) 02:12, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

This can easily be incorporated through the addition of déjà vu, butterfly effect, and eternal return into the article. They would be even more useful in context. BrightRoundCircle (talk) 10:49, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
After the additions of the sections "butterfly effect" and "precognition" to the article, and the addition of "eternal return" to the see-also list, there are no more missing wikilinks. This should solve any loss of usefulness from the other articles' see-also lists. BrightRoundCircle (talk) 13:22, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
Further edits: incorporated the plot-device parts from time slip, did not merge the article. What's left is time loop, which can very easily be a part of this article. BrightRoundCircle (talk) 13:39, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
BrightRoundCircle just so you are aware the two editors above have questionable motivations. They are not here because of the notability of this fictional concept, but to prevent fringe information regarding the allegations of its occurrence in real life (see this discussion here). Now that I have looked into this, are is more than enough to warrant a split. Also to prevent anti-fringe POV pushing it is best of allow this article as is. Valoem talk contrib 21:10, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
The fringe POV issues should not affect this discussion; the merge is only about the plot device. BrightRoundCircle (talk) 21:35, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
I agree with BrightRoundCircle on this point. bd2412 T 23:53, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
So are we in agreement that we can discounted the votes from LuckyLouie and HealthyGirl? Valoem talk contrib 01:23, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
It will be up to the closing administrator to weigh their arguments. bd2412 T 02:04, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
While it appears like we are voting, this is not a vote. This is a discussion meant to reach consensus by addressing legitimate concerns held by editors through a process of compromise. For example one contributor was concerned about losing the see-also sections, so I did my best to reasonably address it by expanding the article to include sections that link to the articles in the see-also sections. Now no information from the see-also section will be lost should a merge occur. BrightRoundCircle (talk) 14:20, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
My argument against is that the real world allegations hold some weight. This maybe more than just something covered in fictional works. Valoem talk contrib 14:22, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Against merge for the reasons given above by Valoem. That a "Time Slip" is an alleged paranormal phenomenon, not just a plot device in fiction, is reasonably well-established. In the same way that God, Ghosts, Flying Saucers, Ley Lines, etc, probably don't exist but do have their own "supporting" literature (and debunking literature), sufficient to give them Wikipedia notability, so does the so-called "Time Slip".Ghughesarch (talk) 22:21, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Proposal. To those of you who are arguing against the merger on the basis of the paranormal aspects, how about just creating a new article called Time slip (paranormal)? NewYorkActuary (talk) 23:03, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
    • That's exactly what the Time Slip article was until some time last year when it was the victim of a series of edits by pushers of what has been described above as an anti-fringe POV. [[1]]Ghughesarch (talk) 23:30, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
Ghughesarch, thank you for pointing that out -- I didn't realize that the article had such a contentious history. When looking through the history, particularly the AfD discussion that led to the deletion of the original article, I saw that my proposal had already been made by someone else. But one big difference between then and now is that the AfD turned Time slip into a redirect to Timeslip (disambiguation), whereas we are now discussing whether it should be a redirect to the instant article. And there is another big difference -- unlike the situation that existed when Valoem got the article restored (after re-writing it to focus on the plot device), we now have a Time Travel in Fiction article that has benefited greatly from the work of BrightRoundCircle and BD2412. So, how about a compromise? We merge the material in Time slip over to here, establish a new article for Time slip (paranormal), and agree to keep the Time slip article as "neutral territory" (i.e., turn it back into a redirect to Timeslip (disambiguation). Are there any concerns that this compromise does not address? NewYorkActuary (talk) 00:27, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
As far as this page is concerned, I think that would probably work. I will however make a prediction that the reappearance of some salvaged elements of the old article, under its new name of Time slip (paranormal) may well have us all back here in a year's time or less, but that is one of the regrettable charms of Wikipedia.Ghughesarch (talk) 00:46, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
For those of you not following this discussion is 'real time', the links to the article Time slip (paranormal) are no longer red-linked. A new article now exists and houses material related to the paranormal meaning of the term (including its treatment in fiction). As things stand now, virtually all of the relevant science-fiction material in Time slip already is present in the instant article. Shall we go ahead and formalize the merger, turning Time slip back into a redirect to Timeslip (disambiguation)? The disambiguation page already has an entry for the science-fiction plot device, so all that will be needed there is to change its target from Time slip to the appropriate section of the instant article. NewYorkActuary (talk) 01:29, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
@Ghughesarch: With the new article regarding the paranormal I have no issues with the merge until the plot device can be expanded, however that exact version did not survive AfD, the anti-fringe POV pushers do not allow any subject which "is not accepted by mainstream science" with misapplications of WP:REDFLAG and WP:MEDRS, they have been disruptive when it comes to this subject I would recommend AfD it see if the article stands. On the contrary, I also believe the paranormal myth was perpetuated by the fictional plot device. Also to note user @LuckyLouie: claimed I was personalizing disputes, he reverted against consensus here and has also been stalking any fringe article I created since this debate. He nominated Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Annabelle (doll). Can we really say an editor's judgment is sound when he believes a doll covered in multiple documentaries, over a period of three decades, and featured in two mainstream films cannot have an article on Wikipedia because the "claims are red flags"? This editor needs to reacquaint himself with our general GNG policies. Also Louie please reread WP:NPA I am questioning your motivations on fringe based on our past interactions, not your character. This not a personal attack. As it stand you and HealthyGirl are the only two editors here from the fringe noticeboards everyone else is talking about the plot device. Valoem talk contrib 02:06, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── @Valoem. I recently reminded you that personal attacks on Talk pages as a method to discount other editors opinions are against policy, and asked you to cease attacking me here. You apparently refuse (?) and now you claim I'm "stalking" you? I'm not sure why you are so worked up here, have I somehow offended you personally in the past? Also, please take a look at the edit history of Annabelle (doll) and you'll see it was myself who researched and located reliable sources and expanded that article. Thanks. - LuckyLouie (talk) 12:03, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Please reread above, I am questioning your motivations regarding anti-fringe POV. There should in fact be mention of this in the article your reasoning for merging due to fringe aspects is not based on policy. Valoem talk contrib 15:47, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
Look, my single contribution to this discussion was to recommended a merge. Please review that diff. There was no mention of "fringe" at all. If I wanted to argue for merging on the basis of WP:FRINGE, I would have done so. But I didn't. Regardless, questioning another editor's motivations or inferring that they are biased against a topic on a Talk page is incredibly inappropriate. The only time it might be appropriate to attempt to persuade others that an editor's opinion should be discounted in an article Talk page discussion is if that editor has a WP:COI, is an WP:SPA or is the WP:SOCK of a blocked user. Otherwise, personal or behavioral issues should be discussed on user Talk pages, or if policy violations are involved, brought to a notice board like WP:AN/I. If you sincerely feel that another editor's behavior has shown they are WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia or that they lack the necessary WP:COMPETENCE to be an effective editor, you can seek a community ban, or discretionary sanctions. Again, all of that should not be conducted in article Talk page discussions. If you wish to pursue personal or behavioral issues at the appropriate venue I will respond there, but not here. Thanks.- LuckyLouie (talk) 14:50, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
Assuming your fellow editors are incapable of reviewing evidence is equally inappropriate. Here your actions are clear. Had you come to this discussion and voted delete, of course I would take your vote seriously, however this is not what happened. You claim no fringe bias, yet why on a topic unrelated to a fringe concept (which may also be notable) would you make a post here (Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#Time_slip) essentially canvassing HealthyGirl to this discussion? This is a topic involving a plot device used in fiction and has nothing to do with fringe. Making a post on the fringe noticeboards in order to merge is highly unacceptable. Valoem talk contrib 00:41, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── You complained about stalking before and I tried to gloss over it for the sake of expediency, but now it blew up. You should really take your claims of stalking and harassment to an admin. This is a merge discussion, we can't arbitrate stalking and harassment here. BrightRoundCircle (talk) 02:37, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Re-degenaration into a list[edit]

Putting this out as a notice, after extensive cleanup the article is again degenerating into a list. When giving an example, describe (using reliable sources) why that particular example is important other than just being an example. Bright☀ 14:53, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Here's a great improvement. Before, the section named eight examples without explaining why any of them are important, except calling one a "classic". After, the section explains (though without citations and very briefly, but still...) why the examples matter. Bright☀ 15:59, 22 September 2017 (UTC)