# Talk:Interstellar (film)

how come Interstellar of all movies do not have a legacy section, or any references to its audience reception, fan-following, 
or "one of the best sci-fi movies of 2010s," for that matter?
Do grumpy and snobby Wikipedia editors hate it that much? 117.212.130.24 (talk) 13:54, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

These were not discussed in the film, so there should be a source for this information? Charlesmartin82 (talk) 01:40, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Hmm, good point. I see that the name Joseph comes from the 2008 version of the movie's script, but even in the final cut's credits, it's just "Cooper". As for mid-21st century, I'd reverted it back to this wording since unverifiable, specific years had been put in recently. I'm happy to change it to 'near future' or something. Sgubaldo (talk) 01:55, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
@Sgubaldo Thanks! I think the source for the year is "The Science of Interstellar", but it's left open in the film. Charlesmartin82 (talk) 09:41, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
Do you happen to have the page number? Sgubaldo (talk) 17:37, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
@Sgubaldo my library doesn't have a copy. From what I can tell, it's in Chapter 16, about the LIGO observing the wormhole in 2019 (with the rest of the years derived by math via numbers given in the film). Charlesmartin82 (talk) 18:28, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
Thank you. I had a look and, from page 160:
"I imagine that decades before the movie begins, when Professor Brand was in his twenties, he was deputy director of a project called LIGO" [...] "One day in 2019, LIGO was hit by a burst of gravitational waves far stronger than any ever before seen....."
Then, from page 162, "Professor Brand could find only one explanation: The waves must emerge from a wormhole that orbits Saturn."
In the movie, the wormhole is found '48 years earlier'. I suppose that would put the movie circa 2067. I'm not particularly keen on putting a specific date, so I'd prefer leaving something vaguer like mid-21st century. Sgubaldo (talk) 19:33, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
I think that's a good way of doing it. Kip Thorne is an executive producer on the film but his book doesn't mean it's technically "canon", I guess? I don't know the WP policies on this, but intuitively that's a good balance. Charlesmartin82 (talk) 22:54, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

Hello! I am a new user here, but I have some suggestions. I think the article should have its tab with motion pictures or videos of space. I think that is one of the coolest parts of the movie how great the picture quality of the spaceships what it is like to be in outer space. Flavibot (talk) 20:34, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

Hello! Also new user. I'm reading over the plot section, and as someone who hasn't watched interstellar yet, I'm a bit confused. Can someone please added the first name of Brand so that it can be clear with the distinction with Professor Brand and Astronaut Brand? Thank you! SpinoAce (talk) 04:44, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

It’s already there. Third paragraph. Sgubaldo (talk) 06:44, 3 April 2025 (UTC)
So is every "Brand" referring to Amelia Brand, while every "Professor Brand" referring to Professor Brand? I'm sorry, I haven't watched the film... SpinoAce (talk) 07:37, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
Yes. Sgubaldo (talk) 07:52, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

Interstellar (film) → Interstellar
Interstellar → Interstellar (disambiguation)Interstellar (disambiguation)
– When someone is searching up the term Interstellar, it is more than likely than not that they're looking for the film. For one, it is obviously the WP:PTOPIC, with 12,500 average daily views over the past year, about 20 times that of the next most common article linked on the disambiguation page. One could argue that it is WP:RECENTISM, but the film is over 10 years old now, and isn't in the news much anymore. The re-release a year ago did cause a surge in pageviews, but even now, the views still hover around 10,000 per day. 
Additionally, almost all of the other articles on the disambiguation page have some sort of qualifier or modifier attached - interstellar space, interstellar object, interstellar probe, etc. It's unlikely that someone would just search "interstellar" when searching for these, since Wikipedia is not a dictionary. The only exceptions to this trend are a couple of songs/albums that don't even have their own page, a band with 2 daily pageviews, and the soundtrack for the film itself. Shocksingularity (talk) 07:12, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

Note: the second proposal had to be included because Interstellar is not a redirect, it is a page with content and so must also be dispositioned. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. – welcome! – 10:03, 15 November 2025 (UTC)
Support "Interstellar" is an adjective as noted so its use in the film title is de facto common name. (I assume you meant to move the content of Interstellar to Interstellar (disambiguation) first). Johnjbarton (talk) 07:50, 15 November 2025 (UTC)
Oppose as while I understand the nominator's arguments, the word "interstellar" has much more long-term significance. I recognize that by itself as an adjective it does not point to a specific article, but it is strongly tied to the topmost "Space" concepts on the disambiguation page. I feel like it is too much to expect the reader to always type "interstellar space" or "interstellar travel" if that's what they're looking for, and to serve up the film article (which is derived from these very concepts) first and foremost is too much.
I'd rather keep the disambiguation page as-is, with WP:PT1 and WP:PT2 canceling each other out. Or even redirect interstellar to interstellar space, if that's the agreeable most common long-term and significant concept, with that section having a link to the film article (since it's the most popular) and then the disambiguation page. That way, readers at least get introduced to a basic concept (and educational value) of what "interstellar" may mean. Erik (talk | contrib) 12:19, 15 November 2025 (UTC)
In a BCA about the concept of interstellar, would the following topics be included?
Interstellar space
Interstellar medium
Interstellar travel
Interstellar communication
Interstellar probe
Thanks, 1isall (he/him) (talk | contribs) 12:57, 16 November 2025 (UTC)
I'm not sure! I've never done a broad-concept article before. I would ask WikiProject Astronomy or Astrophysics if it's even feasible. Erik (talk | contrib) 17:30, 16 November 2025 (UTC)
I guess I could contact those two WikiProjects at some point. Thanks, 1isall (he/him) (talk | contribs) 21:41, 16 November 2025 (UTC)
EDIT: Looking into this some more, I think what would help in a big way is to have a broad-concept article at interstellar about interstellar-related topics. I totally get the WP:DICTIONARY argument, as for example I support the film topic being at Inception with the common word "inception" not meaning anything particularly encyclopedic. I just find here that "interstellar" is encyclopedically loaded with the broad concept being broken down into specific concepts. I feel like that a broad-concept article is possibly what's missing here. Erik (talk | contrib) 13:49, 15 November 2025 (UTC)
No, Oppose, interstellar means between the stars. A film does not take primary over that aspect of the cosmos. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:53, 15 November 2025 (UTC)
Oppose Pop culture works should never displace well-established terms (that otherwise dont need disambiguation) with decades/centuries of history. It's why Avatar is about the philosophical concept, not the popular film/film series. Masem (t) 14:26, 15 November 2025 (UTC)
Oppose - The longstanding term itself should stand alone, and the film artifact is properly titled with the (film) indicator. --ZimZalaBimtalk 14:46, 15 November 2025 (UTC)
Oppose The broader, well-established concept should not be displaced by the film. As a general wikipedia user, "Interstellar (film)" is actually where I would expect this article to be, so the proposed move doesn't even make it easier for readers to find this article, aside from making it harder for readers looking for the general concept to find what they are looking for. CAVincent (talk) 15:12, 15 November 2025 (UTC)
Support. Someone looking for interstellar space, interstellar travel, etc., will look up those terms, not the generic interstellar. Jessintime (talk) 18:42, 15 November 2025 (UTC)
Oppose I love the movie to pieces. Nevertheless, see Talk:Apple's talk header, and the many previous move attempts on that subject. It's a similar distinction, notwithstanding the small difference between an apple and the vastness of space.  cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 19:27, 15 November 2025 (UTC)
An apple is a thing in and of itself, though. An "interstellar" isn't a thing, it's an adjective. Shocksingularity (talk) 19:11, 17 November 2025 (UTC)
Sure it's a thing. It's all of space outside of the direct effects of a star. That space is connected. Randy Kryn (talk) 02:20, 18 November 2025 (UTC)
Oppose. The film, while popular, is not the primary subject here. The current layout is the correct one. - The Bushranger One ping only 21:41, 15 November 2025 (UTC)
Oppose. per Erik and Anastrophe BlookyNapsta (talk) 08:46, 16 November 2025 (UTC)
Support DAB pages are not search indexes, and things must be referred to as the exact same word. "Interstellar space" or "Interstellar probe" are not solely referred to as "Interstellar". An astronaut would not just say "I'm going to the interstellar". Therefore, I do think the film is primary for this word. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 09:53, 17 November 2025 (UTC)
An astronaut has never gone to interstellar space, only several probes. If they had they'd likely say "I'm going interstellar" without "to the". Randy Kryn (talk) 13:25, 17 November 2025 (UTC)
What a mind you have, Randy! You almost sound as if you'd like to go out there. I would love to go to Mars and explore its caverns, which is something the Mars probes are not designed to do. But to "go interstellar"? With our present technology it would take many generations just to get to the nearest star group. And later technology would probably pass us by. I agree that the space section on the dab page contains valid entries, not PTMs. And just to be a little more specific, the two Voyager probes are the only ones that have gone interstellar, and they'll hold that record into the 2040s. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. – welcome! – 15:06, 17 November 2025 (UTC)
Thanks Paine Ellsworth, I've had my Pan-Am reservation to go to the Moon since it was first issued (and when Pan-Am bit the Moon dust). Yes, the two Voyagers will be joined by Pioneer 10, Pioneer 11, and New Horizons, but for now are alone in exploring interstellar space. Where no probe has gone before. Randy Kryn (talk) 16:48, 17 November 2025 (UTC)
I neglected to leave out the "hypothetical" part, but obviously there have been no interstellar astronauts yet. However, "going interstellar" sounds like the space version of "going postal". The normal thing to say would obviously be "I'm going to enter/travel through interstellar space", because interstellar is the adjective modifying "space". "Interstellar" alone would not make sense. Where I'm going with this is that if someone solely thinks of the word "Interstellar" with nothing appended to it, they're probably thinking about the movie, and otherwise Wikipedia is not a dictionary and is not obliged to link to the definition of interstellar.  ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 11:59, 18 November 2025 (UTC)
WP:PTM says, "Add a link only if the article's subject (or the relevant subtopic thereof) could plausibly be referred to by essentially the same name as the disambiguated term in a sufficiently generic context—regardless of the article's title." In this case, "interstellar" in "a sufficiently generic context". That's why we see the whole "Space" section on the disambiguation page. Unless it's being argued to remove them with the presumption that readers should know to type the right second word after "intestellar". If the film is treated as a primary topic, these topics that are related to the core meaning of the term (as opposed to the film that derives from a mix of these concepts) would have to be an additional click away. That's why I was saying access to the various interstellar-related topics, significant over the long term, offset the topic with the highest usage. It's like saying Lincoln (film) should be Lincoln because readers are at fault for not typing fully enough what they're looking for. Erik (talk | contrib) 13:43, 17 November 2025 (UTC)
The film is contested as a primary topic by various things solely referred to as "Lincoln", such as a novel, play, numerous locations around the world, and more. There is nothing similarly major referred to solely as "Interstellar". For things such as "Interstellar space", it is a WP:PTM. To use a comparison, if the only other potential primary topic was Lincoln Logs, then the film should of course be primary.  ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 12:04, 18 November 2025 (UTC)
Perhaps the "Lincoln" example is too messy of a comparison. I meant in this sense that if a reader was looking for the major topics "Abraham Lincoln" or "Lincoln Motor Company" but just types "Lincoln" and winds up at the film article, they'd be taken aback. How I was trying to relate that to "interstellar" was the insistence that the reader must type in "interstellar space" precisely to get to that one, "interstellar" by itself not being allowed to achieve that, and needing two clicks to get to it. To come up with another example, we can make up a film called Bitter that was a box office hit. There's no actual article for bitter, just bitterness and resentment. So it's like declaring that film the primary topic because the reader didn't actually add "-ness" or just write the proper noun for it instead of the adjective. "Interstellar" is an adjective here with encyclopedic weight, as opposed to something like "inception", for which I support that film being the primary topic. With "interstellar", we have the "Space" section on the disambiguation page. "Interstellar" does more heavy-lifting for the terms. Like we don't type outer for outer space, but we could just type interstellar for interstellar space (EDIT: It looks like that was the case from 2003 to 2013 until an editor decided to make it a disambiguation page, and maybe we should go back to that). I was suggesting a broad-concept article earlier. If none of this is not convincing enough, we can agree to disagree. Erik (talk | contrib) 12:28, 18 November 2025 (UTC)
@Erik: Thing is, even if they type "Interstellar" and are looking for "Interstellar space", they can click the hatnote in the film article to be directed to the proper target. It will still be navigating through a single page, because likely the hatnote will directly link to "Interstellar space" as the most common potential alternate target. This possibility doesn't phase me much.  ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 06:52, 19 November 2025 (UTC)
Oppose it's a (film). In ictu oculi (talk) 23:37, 18 November 2025 (UTC)
Support: per recognizability criteria. Praemonitus (talk) 23:20, 20 November 2025 (UTC)
Oppose: per Erik's argument. A broad concept article, as 1isall suggested, is a good idea. Lapadite (talk) 00:44, 21 November 2025 (UTC)
Just want to clarify that Erik came up with the idea first, not me. See this comment. Thanks, 1isall (he/him) (talk | contribs) 00:48, 21 November 2025 (UTC)
Support, primarily because of WP:NOTDICT. This is basically the same situation as Inception, Friends, and Nineteen Eighty-Four. These could all possibly refer to the general term, but (1) those concepts are located at distinctly titled articles, and (2) Wikipedia is not a dictionary. If someone were looking for another article (say, interstellar space) and types "interstellar" into the search bar, if they land on a disambiguation page, they will have to click another link to get to their destination; if they land on the film article instead, they will still have to click another link (in the hatnote) to get to their destination. So, this would not inconvenience anyone looking for the other article (which is a partial title match) but will help the hundreds of thousands more looking for the film. See also WikiNav, which is quite staggering. InfiniteNexus (talk) 22:07, 22 November 2025 (UTC)
You think most readers know what a hatnote is? I don't think so. As for this nomination, it's a movie, a movie named after a real thing which is the primary for this title (the film is certainly not primary per long term significance). Randy Kryn (talk) 23:46, 22 November 2025 (UTC)
I don't know if most readers "know" what a hatnote is, but most readers will certainly see it. "Interstellar" also isn't a real thing because it's not a noun, it's an adjective. Its only purpose is to describe other things.  ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 04:46, 23 November 2025 (UTC)
As mentioned above, it is a thing, probably the largest "thing" there is next to the universe itself (would you primary the film named Universe or leave it at the disamb?, serious question). Interstellar is the name for all of space between the direct physical effects of stars. Continuous in all directions and connected throughout. Randy Kryn (talk) 08:42, 23 November 2025 (UTC)
The "thing" you're referring to is "interstellar space", not "interstellar". And the comparison with Universe isn't valid because that isn't an adjective. The film would have to be called "Universal". Barry Wom (talk) 11:19, 23 November 2025 (UTC)
No, I asked about Universe not Universal. And see Astronomy Magazine, Popular Mechanics, Wired, The Independent and the rest. Interstellar defines the space being discussed, it doesn't need 'space' to complete that definition. Even the wikidictionary states that interstellar means "Between the stars" and "Among the stars". and per long-term significance that would be the primary over a film title if the disamb page had to choose a primary. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:16, 23 November 2025 (UTC)
Yes, it's an adjective which means "between the stars". In the phrase "interstellar space", it defines the type of space. There is no such thing as "the interstellar". Barry Wom (talk) 14:09, 23 November 2025 (UTC)
I didn't say "the" was needed. Did you look at the magazines I list above on the link to a search engine page? These major magazines use the word as a "thing", it's not always used to modify something else but is used as a stand-alone understandable descriptor. The point is, even though the film has more views the word itself is primary per historical long-term significance and should stay at the disamb page. Okay, I'll stop here and not bludgeon in favor of the obvious. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:13, 23 November 2025 (UTC)