Jump to content

Talk:Time travel

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


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}}

--Jerzy•t 04:21 & 07:05, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Proposal to fix Time machine links.

[edit]

As far as I can tell the current mess is:

  • "Time machine" redirects to "Time Travel"
  • "Time Machine" is a funky disambiguation page
  • "Time machine (device)" is an article
  • "Time Machine (disambiguation)" is an article that has a bunch of content that belongs on "Time machine (device)"

Proposal:

  • "Time machine" redirects to "Time Machine (disambiguation)"
  • "Time Machine redirects to "Time machine"
  • "Time machine (device)" is an article
  • "Time Machine (disambiguation)" is only disambiguation

I'm going to move forward as the current situation is clearly bonkers. Johnjbarton (talk) 16:01, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ok the current set up is
  • "Time Machine" is a funky disambiguation page
  • "Time Machine (disambiguation)" redirects to "Time Machine"
  • "Time machine (disambiguation))" redirects to "Time Machine (disambiguation)"
  • "Time machine" redirects to "Time Machine"
  • "Time machine (device)" is an article with some content that may belong on the disambiguation page.
The final step requires technical move help:
  • Swap Time Machine with Time Machine (disambiguation).
Johnjbarton (talk) 16:21, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oh dear, I was unaware that it was this complicated (didn't know about the time machine (device) article, for instance). I started typing up a response before realizing that you had already started editing the pages so my reply was outdated before it was even finished. At any rate, I appreciate you trying to fix this, Johnjbarton, but I'm not sure if it turned out the way it should. The current content of the Time machine (device) article is a mess. There's both a list of fictional time machines and a list of works titled "[The] Time Machine[s]", but there is no actual article on the concept of time machines there. The list should of works bearing that title should be moved to the disambiguation page, the list of fictional time machines should simply be removed, and the article should probably be redirected to the disambiguation page for now. I'm inclined to think that the best options are either (1) cover the fictional concept at the time travel in fiction article and have the disambiguation page at time machine, or (2) cover the fictional concept at a stand-alone time machine article and have the disambiguation page at time machine (disambiguation). To my eye, the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for the title "time machine" is the fictional concept as a whole, for "Time Machine" there is WP:NOPRIMARYTOPIC, and for "The Time Machine" it is the H. G. Wells work The Time Machine. @Piotrus: what are your thoughts on this? TompaDompa (talk) 16:38, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) I'll try to explain what I mean more clearly. There is an episode of Aqua Teen Hunger Force titled "Time Machine". On the Time Machine disambiguation page, there is an entry that says:

"Time Machine", Aqua Teen Hunger Force season 6, episode 6 (2009)

On the Time Machine disambiguation page, that entry is a disambiguation entry. What it does is disambiguate the title "Time Machine", which is ambiguous and could refer to the Aqua Teen Hunger Force episode titled "Time Machine" or other things that are likewise titled "Time Machine". TompaDompa (talk) 22:07, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thanks I got that. I think it is nuts. The article "Time machine" should include all notable examples of the use of time machines across all genres and topics. If Aqua Teen Hunger Force season 6 has a time machine episode, then Time machine can link Aqua Teen Hunger Force season 6.The DAB page system, and worse Wikipedia's redirect system, should not be abused this way. Johnjbarton (talk) 22:22, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The article "Time machine" should certainly not include all notable examples of the use of time machines across all genres and topics. It should provide a summary of the overarching topic, with each aspect receiving coverage in WP:PROPORTION to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject. TompaDompa (talk) 22:26, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, so in particular, Aqua Teen Hunger Force season 6 deserves at most a link in a list. Which is exactly what is in Time Machine-the-DAB-page now. That is why I moved the content from the DAB page to the article. If you argue that the use of time machine in Aqua Teen Hunger Force season 6 is not notable, I would agree, but by that same reasoning it should not be in the DAB page either. Johnjbarton (talk) 22:32, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's not what I'm saying. Items don't need to be WP:NOTABLE, in the Wikipedia-specific sense, to belong on a WP:Disambiguation page. It is sufficient that they are (1) referred to by the ambiguous title being disambiguated—in this case, "Time Machine"—and (2) covered somewhere on Wikipedia that we can link to so people who are looking for the topic to find information about it—see WP:DABMENTION. Nor is WP:NOTABILITY, again in the Wikipedia-specific sense, relevant to whether this instance of a time machine in a work of fiction should be mentioned on the article about time machines in general—WP:PROPORTION is what matters there. TompaDompa (talk) 22:45, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Fine, we disagree. Listing every possible topic that every possible person will want to search for in a disambiguation page is just not sensible. We tried that way back in the early days of the Internet, back when we spelled it with a capital I. As soon as search engines happened all those listy pages were ignored. Picking some topics to put in some DAB page is just of form of non-neutral point of view.
But I do not propose to take any action or ask for anyone else to take action. I only want to fix the redirect from Time machine to Time travel. Johnjbarton (talk) 23:03, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am glad to see TompaDompa is working on the time machine entry (I planned to do it in the near future, but I trust them to do a great job!). As for the redirects etc. I think the current rewritten (or still in-the-works?) version of the time machine (device) (which I concur is superior to the old mess that it held) should be moved to time machine, which is the primary meaning (and where I was going to create my article, that would look similar to what TD is doing). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:58, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I basically just created a stub as a proof of concept or minimum viable article for a time machine article as distinct from the broader time travel concept since somebody else had already created an article at the time machine (device) title that I did not find satisfactory (it should definitely be moved to the title time machine, being the clear WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for the non-capitalized title). I intend to work a little bit more on it, but we could probably get a few thousand words' worth of content if we do a real deep dive into the sources, and I don't plan to devote that much time and effort to it. I am also—still—open to merging the contents into time travel and/or time travel in fiction, as appropriate. TompaDompa (talk) 19:22, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Time machine" listed at Redirects for discussion

[edit]

The redirect Time machine has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 March 13 § Time machine until a consensus is reached. Johnjbarton (talk) 18:28, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress

[edit]

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Time machine (device) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 19:16, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Illogical merging of “Abrahamic religions” into “Mythical time travel”

[edit]

Hello @William M. Connolley. I disagree with you massive edit. First, religious narratives ≠ myth in WP:Wikivoice. While Hindu mythology and Japanese legends are routinely referred to as mythological in academic literature, Abrahamic religious narratives especially ones drawn from scripture, we often describe these using neutral terms such as "religious tradition" etc. I am strongly opposed to collapsing them all into the "mythical" heading.

Second, The stories of Honi HaMe'agel, the Seven Sleepers (Aṣḥāb al-Kahf), and Uzair involve explicit temporal displacement spanning centuries from the figure's perspective. It is "forward-only time travel" via time suspension or dilation and hence, is highly relevant to the article's subject matter.

The previous structure had contextual and theological distinctions which is now blurred by the recent change. Abrahamic religions approach the article's subject matter with different theological framing(e.g., divine will, prophecy, metaphysical lessons), which I think, differs from Hindu or Buddhist mythologies.

I would urge you to self-rv for now. I'm ready to help revise or tighten any sections as needed. StarkReport (talk) 12:21, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I renamed "Mythical time travel" to "In ancient fiction". Myth, legend, narratives can all be accommodated this away.
The change by William M. Connolley generally improved the article by removing redundant and marginally relevant content. The differences between religious traditions is not relevant to the topic of time travel. The general character of time suspension is not really in line with time travel. Johnjbarton (talk) 17:08, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but no. We don’t label Abrahamic religions such as Christianity and Islam as "ancient fiction" unless WP:RS sources explicitly do so. That is just your personal POV. Plus, collapsing all religions into a generic label erases important contextual and theological distinctions. Abrahamic religions engage with the concept of time through distinct theological lenses, which warrant their own framing within the broader topic of time travel.
I will therefore be renaming the section to "In religion." It's appropriate, neutral and concise.
P.S. If you want to remove the bit about the Japanese legend or perhaps the Raivata Kakudmi myth, I’m not necessarily opposed to that. StarkReport (talk) 22:30, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I did not label any religions. This discussion concerns stories about long time sleeping.
On the other hand I don't see any difference between "In ancient fiction" and "In religion" so I'm fine with your edit. Johnjbarton (talk) 22:40, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Time_travel&oldid=1303009158"