Talk:Hyperspace

message: === History of the concept ===
The current organization of the article is kind of useless, as it gives no sense of the history or development of the concept, just giving a bunch of different uses of it in apparently random order.  Wouldn't it make sense to (at least) put all these usages in chronological order, if not to actually try to determine what the original usage of the term is?  john k 23:17, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think Asimov first popularized the idea.  I agree that this article is sadly lacking when it comes to a history of the concept.  Onionhound 20:54, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Problems with how the topic is explained 

message: The current organization of the article is kind of useless, as it gives no sense of the history or development of the concept, just giving a bunch of different uses of it in apparently random order.  Wouldn't it make sense to (at least) put all these usages in chronological order, if not to actually try to determine what the original usage of the term is?  john k 23:17, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think Asimov first popularized the idea.  I agree that this article is sadly lacking when it comes to a history of the concept.  Onionhound 20:54, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  History of the concept 

message: I just undid a revision that removed real world references within this fictional topic.  The reason I did so was because the article has problems with being written largely in an "in-universe" (fictional) style.  Reducing those complaints (tags), I feel, means providing as many out-of-universe (real world) references as we can.  The editor's argument was "redundant".  While I can agree the text is "a bit excessive" (not quite redundant), it's there for a good reason, I believe.  —Aladdin Sane (talk) 15:25, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please don't remove real world references. 

message: Why are all these diferent fictional universes listed here ? This topic should be better organized and the specifi information moved to the correct location in the series/universe tree. — Written by anonymous (200.198.94.130) 2006-05-30 01:55:34
*I agree, the fictional universe info doesn't belong here.  Some of the information could be used to briefly summarize the development of the concept better.  Reorganization is needed. — Written by Onionhound 2006-06-10 05:35:45
*The Warhammer paragraph especially needs rewriting. It's a huge single paragraph. Very difficult and uninviting to read. —Bisqwit 16:53, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  This is a Mess 

message: I've been looking though the examples with an eye for quality. Generally they run the gambit of ways to need improvement. That's not preternaturally great, given that the page as it exists also needs some changes to help length and writing style (removing the personal essay feel). Since both the examples and the page are in need of work, it seems like having them both together makes the page much more disorganized than could otherwise be achieved by having the pages separate. I really like the dedication that when into the example section, nor do I think it's off topic in spirit, only it makes the Hyperspace page too long. I'd really like to see the example section get the fine tuning that it needs. I think separating the two pages, Hyperspace and List of Hyperspace Depictions in Science Fiction, would help achieve a more concise reading experience. 
* List of Hyperspace Depictions in Science Fiction being it's own page would allow  and  to come off of Hyperspace.
* Then the  parts of List of Hyperspace Depictions in Science Fiction could be more easily worked out on its own page.
:: Examples section was split off into it's own page. Seamus M. Slack (talk) 22:33, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Giving the examples their own page 

message: Well the splitting off of a list didn't last long, but it was just a massive list of in-universe fancruft which didn't deserve to survive. However, I rather feel that the article was lacking any useful examples, which is the opposite extreme. I have inserted some significant cinematic examples to the Later depictions section, written from a MOS:REALWORLD perspective, along with citations, which give the article a little more depth. The rest of that section is still unsourced WP:OR and could safely be deleted - whoever wrote that stuff clearly has no intention of adding sources. Cnbrb (talk) 14:51, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I see the split content did not survive the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of hyperspace depictions in science fiction (I agree it was 99.99% irredimable fancruft). I am now rewriting this article removing surviving unreferenced content, and adding content referenced to reliable sources like SF reference works. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 11:03, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Update

message: === Merge Notice ===
Just added a merge notice at the top. People are more likely to look under Hyperspace than Hyperdrive, ya? Davidpk212 20:31, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm inclined to think the merge is  good idea. With redirects, of course, so that looking up "hyperdrive" would link you to the "hyperspace" article. KarlBunker 22:34, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I vote against the merge/move for now. There are currently three articles on traditional science fiction FTL drives: jump drive, warp drive, and hyperdrive. Hyperdrive is as relevant a search term as hyperspace. I agree that hyperdrive and hyperspace are related concepts but even if merged that does not mean that the term "Hyperdrive" should only go to the BBC TV series. If anything, we may need a disambiguation page. Rillian 22:58, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I undid the merge to continue the discussion. Two votes after just three days of discussion does not constitute a consensus. Rillian 22:58, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I think Rillian has some good points, so I'll change my vote to no merge. KarlBunker 23:34, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Image:Hyperspace.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 17:48, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Problems with how this page should be used 

message: Just added a merge notice at the top. People are more likely to look under Hyperspace than Hyperdrive, ya? Davidpk212 20:31, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm inclined to think the merge is  good idea. With redirects, of course, so that looking up "hyperdrive" would link you to the "hyperspace" article. KarlBunker 22:34, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I vote against the merge/move for now. There are currently three articles on traditional science fiction FTL drives: jump drive, warp drive, and hyperdrive. Hyperdrive is as relevant a search term as hyperspace. I agree that hyperdrive and hyperspace are related concepts but even if merged that does not mean that the term "Hyperdrive" should only go to the BBC TV series. If anything, we may need a disambiguation page. Rillian 22:58, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I undid the merge to continue the discussion. Two votes after just three days of discussion does not constitute a consensus. Rillian 22:58, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I think Rillian has some good points, so I'll change my vote to no merge. KarlBunker 23:34, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge Notice 

message: :Image:Hyperspace.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 17:48, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fair use rationale for Image:Hyperspace.jpg 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Hyperspace (science fiction). 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070613033919/http://www.midwinter.com/b5/GEnie/jms93-09 to http://www.midwinter.com/b5/GEnie/jms93-09
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:44, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Hyperspace (science fiction). 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:
*Added archive https://archive.is/20130112010656/http://www.astronomycafe.net/anthol/scifi2.html to http://www.astronomycafe.net/anthol/scifi2.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:16, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (January 2018) 

message: There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Hyperspace which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you.  —RMCD bot 09:45, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move discussion in progress 

message: I am done expanding/verifying content here with the sources I have access to, and I am not sure there is much left. There is still some ORish content here, which, while correct, needs referencing or removal. Ping User:TompaDompa, User:Daranios, User:Jclemens... if no-one can find refs for the content that I tagged as citation needed, it probably needs to go? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 23:55, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, many of the CN tags are quotes from primary sources.  The Lensman series has been on my to-read list for decades; I doubt I'll ever actually get to it. Some of the latter ones can absolutely be cited. I'm sure I've got plenty for Babylon 5. We might want to note wormhole travel more explicitly, as that's a feature of DS9 and Farscape.  I'm not seeing anything tagged that's controversial or ridiculous enough that it needs to go, unless you're taking this to GAN sometime soon? Jclemens (talk) 00:34, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: @Jclemens While we can of course confirm some plot content with primary sources, this risks turning this back into the usual laundry list of "all works that mention the word hyperdrive", a bad style that is the course of so many 'in fiction' article that wer are slowly rewriting (per AfDs past and present, and also this is how this article looked ~10 years ago). As such, I tend to think that only examples mentioned in sources with analysis are relevant, although  of course per IAR and consensus on talk we can ignore this if some super relevant cases arise. And you are right, nothing here is controversial or wrong, it is mostly correct and on topic - the problem is OR. See for example Earth in science fiction and Space travel in science fiction and their talk pages. For both of these topics, I and others have identified relevant themes/aspects that could be discussed further, but are simply not covered in RS (see ex. talk of Earth, my comments in the talk post at 9:31 am, 21 August 2021). It is unfortunate when we have to face the fact that our articles are obviously incomplete, and the only way to fix it on Wikipedia is OR. No good chouce, but policy wise dictates such content needs to be removed (at best, I think it can be copied to talk and kept here until sources are found...). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:24, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Done? 

message: I've redirectes Underspace from Star Trek here, because its a form of hyperspace. It's mentioned in the Star Trek Fact Files and the Star Trek Encylopedia. Maybe other source, that i don't have. It is therefore worth mentioning. --Mark McWire (talk) 22:19, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Compilation books are not considered seconary, as they are just more official fancruft. If you can find an independent source mentioning this, we can add this term to the list of synonyms, but I don't see why we need a dedicated paragraph. This is exactly the type of content that was split into Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of hyperspace depictions in science fiction and deleted subsequently (you can still see this in the history of our article here if you look at how it was ~10 years ago or so). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 22:23, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  Can we at least leave it like that? --Mark McWire (talk) 22:32, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: @Mark McWire I think this type of content is not encyclopedic and lowers the quality of articles. We should avoid extesive detail that just summarizes fiction (WP:ALLPLOT, etc.). This is why over the last few years a number of articles have been either deleted or rewritten, see for example Earth in science fiction, Near future in science fiction, Far future in science fiction, Comets in fiction, and others. The relevant rewrite is about removing content like the one  you just added, and instead adding the analysis of significance/influence/reception/etc. I strongly recommend you look at the history of these articles, past and presence, and that you look at how hyperspace itself looked 10 years ago (see discussion above about how it was rewritten since). I'll also ping some editors who have been active in related discussions so they can offer us more guidance: User:TompaDompa, User:Daranios, User:Jclemens. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:09, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

text:  I've removed the new section and changed the redirects to Later depictions, because the terms already mentioned there. But like said in Talk:Warp drive, the warp drive itself has no connection to hyperspace. --87.176.102.228 (talk) 10:05, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  I was just about to argue that at least stating the term underspace + where it comes from is a positive thing for this Wikipedia article, but thanks to the latest edits there is now an independant source for it. So that should settle that, I guess. Daranios (talk) 11:54, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

text: I disagree. Any transformation of a work into another format is necessarily secondary, just like a film review would be. This prejudice against derivative works describing fictional elements from a popular, rather than scholarly, perspective really has no basis in policy, and I'm inclined to characterize it as just that: an unfounded prejudice. , feel free to disabuse me of my impression, but the sad fact is that I've never had a complaint when writing Game of Thrones articles using summary-of-the-week posts from pop culture sites, but multiple dead-tree independent books on Stargate, Babylon 5, Farscape, etc. are derided as insufficiently scholarly to count as RS. Jclemens (talk) 17:34, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: @Jclemens Pop culture sites are sometimes ok, sometimes not, but they are not what we are discussing here. What we are is the Star Trek Fact Files magazine : "designed to provide information about the Star Trek universe from an "in-universe" point of view." I am sorry, but it doesn't seem reliable or in-dependent to me, plus when you look at the diff in question, this was a trivial technobabble term that appeared in a single episode (see https://memory-alpha.fandom.com/wiki/Underspace ). Plus the paragraph also contains editorializing OR "There is also a counterpart to hyperspace in Star Trek [called underspace]". I stand by my original assessment that a paragraph on this is UNDUE here, and frankly, probably UNDUE anywhere on Wikipedia outside the article on that particular episode (leaving whether it's notable for another discussion). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 20:57, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Underspace from Star Trek 

message: I have removed the following paragraph, which appears more or less sound but is not properly referenced and I couldn't find good refs for it. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 11:05, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  OR removed 

message: It would be nice to have such a picture, if anyone feels like drawing it? I looked for free images but didn't see anything particularly useful that and properly licenced :(  Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 11:24, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I attempted to request 2 images of hyperspcae on flickr. 2001:4455:364:A800:758F:6113:6F67:3E87 (talk) 23:43, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you. Which ones, for the record? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:03, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Picture request for folding space explanation 

message: An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect :Empyrean (Warhammer) and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 March 11#Empyrean (Warhammer) until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.   Sandstein  19:55, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Empyrean (Warhammer)" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] 

message: The redirect Instantaneous travel between any two points in the universe 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  until a consensus is reached.  Steel1943 (talk) 21:13, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  "[[:Instantaneous travel between any two points in the universe]]" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]]