Talk:Hyperspace

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

Problems with how the topic is explained[edit]

History of the concept[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Please don't remove real world references.[edit]

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)[reply]


Problems with Examples in Fiction[edit]

Problems with exapmle section layout[edit]

This is a Mess[edit]

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)[reply]
  • I tried to rework the Warhammer paragraph as best I could but it's unwieldly and needs an expert. I agree with Anon and Onionhound. Most of the info here belongs elsewhere. I don;t object to the format but perhaps it would be better to have a sentence or two, compares interesting/notable similarities/differences and link to elsewhere? Palendrom 01:30, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I tend to think of hyperspace as a sci-fi concept. Is there anything in the Warcraft universe that specifically states it is related to hyperspace, and not merely to some magical plane? If not, I say let it go! On a related issue, would now be a good time to create a hyperspace in computer and video games article to place some of these in fiction bits? Muad 05:42, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tagged for cleanup due to spelling errors, use of first person, original "research", in-universe presentation, etc. 71.232.57.59 04:43, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Where have those tags gone? The spelling errors might have been cleaned up, but the rest of the (dare I say it...) crap remains. It's like sitting through an especially bad episode of Star Trek. CatBoris 17:22, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Erma Felna section is just plain wrong. Chrisweuve (talk) 11:44, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Confusion between hyperspace and subspace[edit]

Many parts of this article confuse the concepts of hyperspace (a high-dimensional space) with subspace (a lower dimensional space). Subspace, as used in science fiction such as Cordwainer Smith or presumably Star Trek, is based on a sending artifacts or messages through a spatial dimension below or under normal 3D space. Hyperspace is used to send artifacts or message through a spatial dimension above normal 3D space. These are two distinct concepts that have been conflated in this article. Either subspace concepts should be moved to a separate article or the title should be changed to indicate the article deals with a variety of fictional concepts about space time including both hyperspace and subspace. Steevithak (talk) 16:19, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Subspace (fictional) redirects to this article, but I think it is better to have these together. Keep in mind this is fictional science. See wiktionary:subspace and wiktionary:hyperspace for the actual definitions of these words. In this article these words mean what the author of a particular work intends them to mean. The parts of the article that use "subspace" are the "FreeSpace universe" section, the "Star Trek" section, the paragraph about "overdive" and the introduction to the "Other forms" section. The "FreeSpace universe" section and the "Star Trek" section only use the word "subspace" and do not mix it with hyperspace, so those are fine. The introduction to the "Other forms" section simply mentions the some authors use "subspace" for the same thing that other authors use "hyperspace". The paragraph about "overdive" is the only questionable use of the word subspace, unless Murray Leinster (the writer) used the word "subspace" to describe overdrive. The only other thing I can add is perhaps the article should be moved to "Faster-than-light travel (science fiction)" or "Faster-than-light travel in fiction". There is already an article "Interstellar travel in fiction", but it is just a list of lists. This could be merged into that. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 08:10, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Admirably, I would agree with Steevithak, however in the light of http://www.ex-astris-scientia.org/treknology/warp3.htm I have since revised my opinion. This interpretation, while lexicon symmetry is poor in my opinion: if hyperspace in = to subspace, than why call anything subspace at all; everything is just hyperspace; It does appear to be the prevalence convention. This is further evidenced by:
Due to the nature of the prevailing interpretation, I believe that it may be best for this page to be filled under Alternate Spacial Dimensions in science fiction. Refiling the page would better representing the broadness of the topic the page encompass. With the refile, topics such as FTL Drive, Subspace, and Hyperspace would all be better represented within the page. Seamus M. Slack (talk) 01:56, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Giving the examples their own page[edit]

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)[reply]

Problems with specific examples[edit]

This section of Talk has been moved to Talk:List of Hyperspace Depictions in Science Fiction.

Update[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Problems with how this page should be used[edit]

Merge Notice[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

If the proposal has one more vote, I'll do the business and merge it. Davidpk212 18:34, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merging, even though it didn't get another vote. Davidpk212 16:44, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Fair use rationale for Image:Hyperspace.jpg[edit]

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)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

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:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • 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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:44, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)[edit]

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:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • 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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:16, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress[edit]

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)[reply]

Done?[edit]

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)[reply]

Piotrus 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)[reply]
@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)[reply]

Underspace from Star Trek[edit]

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) In addition, both compilations / books clearly count as secondary sources, no primary sources.--Mark McWire (talk) 22:20, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
Can we at least leave it like that? --Mark McWire (talk) 22:32, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@Piotrus and Mark McWire: 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)[reply]
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. Piotrus, 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)[reply]
@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 [1]: "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)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Hyperspace/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: TompaDompa (talk · contribs) 21:10, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm planning to do a full review fairly soon, but here are some initial observations:

  • Significant alternative titles should be presented in bold per MOS:BOLDALTNAMES. I would suggest either bolding the ones that redirect to the article (nulspace and overspace) and removing the rest from the WP:LEAD or removing all of them from the WP:LEAD since a whole bunch of them are mentioned in the "Later depictions" section.
  • I would link to Amazing Stories Quarterly in the WP:LEAD.
  • I wouldn't personally use the image of the magazine cover in the "Early depictions" section at all since it is fairly tangential to the subject of Hyperspace, but regardless of that it seems to be an issue of Amazing Stories Quarterly and not Amazing Stories as the caption says.
  • The first paragraph of the "Early depictions" section does not seem to be fully supported by the cited source, and it is also not really about hyperspace.

TompaDompa (talk) 21:10, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

C/e done. What do you think is not supported in that paragraph? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:29, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
A specific detail would be the use of demons in Somnium, but more generally (and importantly), the notion that these types of space travel using a fictional existence outside what humans normally observe are precursors to hyperspace is the kind of analysis that really needs to come from the sources. TompaDompa (talk) 00:36, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ahm, you are right. Perhaps I referenced the Somnium part then got distracted and forgot to verify the rest. You are right, this is ORish and cannot be kept for now. I've removed it from the body. The full paragraph is below, for reference by others. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 11:04, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Some additional comments:

  • The article should consistently use "hyperspace" rather than "hyper-space" outside of direct quotes.
  • Spaced hyphens should be replaced with spaced en dashes or unspaced em dashes.
  • Curly apostrophes should be replaced with straight ones.
  • FTL should be replaced with "faster-than-light" or "superluminal", while keeping the link (and the other instance should also be replaced). The reader shouldn't have to click the link to understand the text.
  • "With regards to" should be "with regard to".
  • The only source that says anything about Kirk Meadowcroft's "The Invisible Bubble" (1928) is the Historical Dictionary of Science Fiction, which only notes that the term "hyper-space" appears in the text. That is not sufficient sourcing. The other sources credit Campbell with introducing the term in this sense.
  • Space opera should be linked.
  • The sentence The term hyperspace itself is only used as hyperspace physics test in episode Coming of Age of Star Trek: The Next Generation. is incorrectly formatted and missing a definite article, but should probably just be removed outright.
  • "eponymous Dark Star spaceship" is redundant; "eponymous spaceship" is sufficient.
  • According to The Encyclopedia of Science Fiction, Robert A. Heinlein gave a particularly clear description of it in Starman Jones (1953). is not particularly informative. The description used is discussed in The Science in Science Fiction and The Greenwood Encyclopedia of Science Fiction and Fantasy.
  • The first image's caption now has an accidental WP:REDLINK.
  • "by mid-70s" – missing definite article.
  • In Arthur C. Clarke's Technical Error (1950) should link to Technical Error and the title should be in quotes rather than italics since it seems to be a short story.
  • The reasons given for such restrictions are usually technobabble, but their existence is just a plot device allowing for interstellar policies to actually form and exist. is not as far as I can see supported by either of the cited sources.
  • The issue of causality that The Science in Science Fiction and The Encyclopedia of Science Fiction bring up should be covered in the article.

I'll keep adding comments as I go. TompaDompa (talk) 00:44, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am working on this, slowly due to some issues (that I think you are aware off, at least, the on wiki ones). Anyway, my brain usually refuses to engage with stuff like "Spaced hyphens should be replaced with spaced en dashes or unspaced em dashes. Curly apostrophes should be replaced with straight ones.", so if you could tackle these, I'd appreciate it. And as for "The issue of causality that The Science in Science Fiction and The Encyclopedia of Science Fiction bring up should be covered in the article.", I can't find the relevant discussions, so since I assume you are fresher on this, can I ask you to add something relevant on this as well? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 11:31, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comments:

  • From early 20th century onward, hyperspace became a common element of space travel stories in science fiction. is a stronger assertion than the cited source supports. What the source (written in 1963) says is that it "can take its place as a fixture in the genre." and "Hyper-space goes back a very long way in the annals of sf, back into the '20s at least".
  • Vector (magazine) should probably be linked in the citation where it appears.
  • Murray Leinster is credited with using the word "hyper-drive" for the first time in a preview for his upcoming story in Thrilling Wonder Stories 1944: "Once again Kim takes off in the Starshine with its hyper-drive to do battle in defense of the Second Galaxy." is a stronger assertion than the cited source supports. The source does not mention Leinster in connection to this quote and while this is the earliest example listed, the source does not assert that it is the first use. The Historical Dictionary of Science Fiction is explicitly a work-in-progress.
  • As related vocabulary evolved, entering the hyperspace often became known as "jumping", as in "the ship will now jump to hyperspace". is as far as I can tell a misreading of the cited source, which says "if the method of entry into hyper-space has changed but little, then the method of its navigation has changed even less. The classic method is that of 'jumps' [...]" My reading of this is that jumps relate to the latter (navigation) rather than the former (entry).
  • From the 1930s through to the 1950s, many stories in the science fiction magazines, Amazing Stories and Astounding Science Fiction introduced readers to hyperspace as a fourth spatial dimension is not supported by either of the cited sources. The timeframe isn't supported and the specific magazines aren't mentioned. As for hyperspace being a fourth spatial dimension, it would better reflect the sources to say that (this model of) hyperspace has rather than is additional dimensions and to avoid specifying the number (though the sources are a bit inconsistent about this).
  • an idea that the three-dimensional space can be "folded", so that two apparently distant points may come into contact is WP:Close paraphrasing and should be rephrased.
  • a special device, often called a "hyperdrive" is not supported by the cited sources.
  • Another common explanation involves the concept of a parallel universe, much smaller than ours, which partially or fully can be "mapped" into ours, through which the objects travel through to return to our universe. needs copyediting for clarity.
    • Update: Another common explanation involves the concept of a parallel universe, much smaller than ours, which partially or fully can be "mapped" into ours, through which the objects travel through much faster than they could in our universe. still needs copyediting for clarity. TompaDompa (talk) 14:19, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Other notable early works employing this concept include Nelson Bond's The Scientific Pioneer Returns (1940), where his vision of the hyperspace concept is described in detail. Isaac Asimov's Foundation series, first published between 1942 and 1944 in Astounding, featured a Galactic Empire traversed through hyperspace. is not really supported by the cited source, which says that [hyperspace] was still sufficiently unfamiliar to be foregrounded as a novel idea in Nelson S. Bond's "The Scientific Pioneer Returns" (1940) and doesn't mention Asimov at all.
    • Update: The part about Asimov now has proper sourcing about the "hyperatomic drive". The part about a Galactic Empire is unsourced but should be trivial to find a source for. The publication history is a bit misleading—the parts that became the first novel were first published between 1942 and 1944, but the parts that became the second and third novels (i.e. the rest of what's often known as the Foundation trilogy) were published later. The part about Bond's vision of hyperspace being described in detail remains unsourced. TompaDompa (talk) 14:19, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Asimov's short story Little Lost Robot (1947) features a "Hyperatomic Drive" shortened to "Hyperdrive" and observes that "fooling around with hyper-space isn't fun". That it is shortened to "hyperdrive" is not mentioned by the source, and the quote isn't either (though the latter could trivially be sourced to the work itself). I would suggest removing this altogether—the relevance of this particular example is questionable and paragraph is too Asimov-heavy as it is.
  • In Isaac Asimov's Foundation (1951), hyperspace is described as an "...unimaginable region that was neither space nor time, matter nor energy, something nor nothing, one could traverse the length of the Galaxy in the interval between two neighboring instants of time." I'm not sure about the placement of this. What is it meant to illustrate?
  • E. C. Tubb has been credited with "furthering much of the hyper-space lore" The actual quote from the cited source is A British author who has done much to further hyper-space lore is E. C. Tubb., so the quotation marks are inappropriate since it isn't a direct quote. I would probably rephrase it along the lines of E. C. Tubb has been credited with playing an important role in the development of hyperspace lore (I also note that the other source says things like British author E.C. Tubb has probably written more about hyper-space than any other author., In two years, Tubb proceeded to make hyper-space his own, and Tubb came up with several new slants). Otherwise, the stuff on Tubb is great and could even be expanded somewhat (the part about rockets not being usable while in hyperspace seems like it should be mentioned somewhere in the article considering both cited sources mention it).
  • Duplicate references: Science Fact and Science Fiction: An Encyclopedia is cited twice.

More to come later. TompaDompa (talk) 03:53, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

re "From early 20th century onward, hyperspace became a common element of space travel stories in science fiction." I guess this is really subjective. I think the current wording is fine. How would you propose to reword it? I'll ping User:Nihil novi, a friendly copyeditor who might have a nice solution? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 11:35, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Rewritten the part, feel free to tweak. Re "Vector (magazine) should probably be linked in the citation where it appears.", in my experience this is not common in citation templates. Also rewrote the Murray Leinster per your comments. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:44, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Just a note that I've done most of what you asked. Please see if rephrasing/reference updates look good for you. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 11:03, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I might say that it emerged during the second quarter of the 20th century and that it eventually became a common feature (and I'd probably add some more sources to back that up). Note that Stableford says that it was still sufficiently unfamiliar to be foregrounded as a novel idea in Nelson S. Bond's "The Scientific Pioneer Returns" (1940). The current phrasing makes it sound like both the introduction and the widespread adoption of the concept happened earlier than it did. TompaDompa (talk) 16:59, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comments:

  • By the 1950s, hyperspace travel had become established as a typical means for traveling in science fiction. is not supported by the cited source.
  • Out of various fictitious drives, by the mid-70s the concept of travelling through hyperspace by using a hyperdrive has been described as having achieved the most popularity, and would subsequently be further popularized through its use in the Star Wars franchise. is not supported by the cited sources.
  • A number of related terms (such as nulspace, overspace, interspace, jumpspace, imaginary space, tau-space, N-Space, Q-space, intersplit, megaflow and slipstream, to name just a few) were used by various writers, although none gained recognition to rival that of hyperspace. should mention subspace. I couldn't find "jumpspace" in the cited sources. It seems that "intersplit" is actually called "Jarnell intersplit". "Slipstream" is not equated with hyperspace in the source it appears. The phrase "to name just a few" should be removed.
  • However, in the Star Trek franchise, the term hyperspace itself is only used briefly in a single episode (Coming of Age) of Star Trek: The Next Generation, while a related set of terms - subspace (corridors, vortex), space warp, underspace and transwarp (conduits) - are used much more often. unduly emphasizes Star Trek and isn't entirely supported by the cited sources. I would just remove this.
  • The paragraph about depictions in film goes too much off-topic. What's relevant here is Dark Star being the first film depiction and that its way of portraying hyperspace has become popular since. Inspirations and specific examples of later uses of this effect warrant at most brief mentions. This will probably necessitate finding new sources as I think Kitbashed, for instance, probably doesn't count as a reliable source.

TompaDompa (talk) 16:59, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@TompaDompa "Out of various fictitious drives..." - I think it does, SW popularizing is from here. For jumpspace, see [2], also see footnote here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_travel_in_science_fiction#cite_note-35 - should we copy it here or to the sentence we mention "jumping"? Re, slipstrea, it is mentioned as a "related term", which is fine, given the problem with next to no reliable sources discussing it, particularly outside Star Trek. Re the Star Trek reference, I think it's ok-ish, Star Trek is an important franchise and pointing out it doesn't use hyperspace concept much is, I think, interesting. I think the film paragraphs is fine, although I'd like to see your rewrite attempt? IIRC it's not my work but something that was added by others and just slightly rewritten/referenced by me during my rewrite here. As usual, it's hard to try to rescuse mostly unreferenced fancruft... double sigh. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 11:15, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, there's a reason I have elected to rewrite these articles from scratch rather than trying to find sources for the existing content. TompaDompa (talk) 23:04, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I now realize that you were probably referring to the sentence One of the earliest FTL (faster than light) drives that writers developed is also the one that has achieved the most widespread popularity in the genre – the use of hyper-space. from The Visual Encyclopedia of Science Fiction (1977). I don't know that I would call 1977 the mid-70s, but more importantly, the current phrasing makes it sound like the hyperdrive is the most popular way of travelling through hyperspace rather than hyperspace being the most popular method of travelling faster than light (which is what I'm assuming is meant). The sentence should probably be rephrased to clarify this.
"Slipstream" is mentioned here as one of five faster-than-light methods of travel, the other four being hyperdrive, jump drive, wormholes, and warp drive. That's only related to hyperspace inasmuch as both are methods of travelling faster than light, which isn't really sufficient for inclusion as a related term. I don't think the "jump" footnote has any place here. TompaDompa (talk) 18:34, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry this is taking so long. Additional comments:

  • feature earliest known references – missing definite article.
  • Bulking that trend – I believe the phrase is "bucking the trend", but it is at any rate too informal and idiomatic a phrasing.
  • the earliest use of the word "hyper-drive" – the earliest known use, to be more accurate.
  • (in particular, theory of relativity) – should explain how (it's the issue of causality I mentioned above). It should also either be "relativity theory" or "the theory of relativity".
  • aptly originated in 19th century mathematical texts – "aptly" is out of place here, and "19th-century" should have a hyphen when used attributively.
  • theoretical physicist Michio Kaku's popular science book (Hyperspace, 1994) – I might say "[...] 1994 popular science book Hyperspace", but "[...] popular science book Hyperspace (1994)" is also acceptable and more consistent with the rest of the article. The title shouldn't be inside the parentheses, however.
  • Some science fiction writers attempted pseudo-scientific rubber science explanations of this concept, or mixed it with real scientific concepts such as higher dimensions, relativity or string theory. – I would say "quasi-scientific" rather than "pseudo-scientific", and remove everything after the comma (it doesn't seem to be entirely supported by the sources and is at any rate a bit redundant to the rubber science description).
  • Exceptions do exist, for example, in John Russel Fearn's Waters of Eternity (1953) has hyperspace that resembles the known universe, and contains observable objects like entire planets. – this is an anacoluthon. Either remove "has" or "in" and "that". It should also be mentioned that regular space is visible from a different (higher-dimensional) perspective from within hyperspace (the source says [...] a picture of his fourth dimension wherein the worlds of normal space are also visible. Not for him the convenient grey mist, wherein our own universe vanishes.) in addition to hyperspace containing things not found in regular space.
  • Neither The Mystery of Element 117 nor Technical Error seem to be mentioned in the cited source. Was a different source intended?
  • I would say "regular space" or "ordinary space", not "[the] normal space".
  • I don't think the twist in Redshift Rendezvous is that travel takes longer than in regular space, but that relativistic effects appear at low velocities (see the SFE entry on Hyperspace and page 405 of The Greenwood Encyclopedia of Science Fiction and Fantasy).
  • In some works, hyperspace is a source of energy, in some cases, extremely dangerous – repetitive phrasing.
  • Many stories feature hyperspace as a dangerous place, and others require a ship to follow set hyperspatial "highways". Hyperspace is often described as being an unnavigable dimension where straying from a preset course can be disastrous. – this seems to go beyond what is supported by the cited sources.
  • James P. Hogan observed that (as of 1999) hyperspace still remains underutilized in science-fiction writing, treated too often as a plot-enabling gadget rather than as a fascinating, world-changing item – this goes beyond what Hogan actually says and inappropriately frames his opinions as facts.
  • The caption for the first image should start "The earliest [...]"
  • The captions for the first two images should end with periods.

TompaDompa (talk) 23:04, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Missed your recent comments, will work on this tomorrow! Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 21:31, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@TompaDompa All done up to here except the Hogan part - I think this reflects what he says, but I am totally fine to reconsider this if you'd like to suggest how to rewrite this sentence. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:56, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hogan says of hyperdrives and the like It seemed to me that they had become something of a cliche, tacitly accepted by writers and readers alike as merely a device to shortcut Einstein by moving characters from here to there fast to get on with the story... But wait a minute. We're talking about a capability that transcends not only any technology imaginable today, but also our most fundamental theoretical beliefs. Never mind getting across the galaxy to save the blonde or deliver the villain his comeuppances—how did they discover "hyperspace" to begin with? Surely, there's a much more interesting story right here, which we were about to gloss over. [...] Nobody I talked to had seen a story about how hyperspace came to be discovered. The current phrasing makes a stronger statement and frames it as fact rather than opinion ("observed" is a MOS:Word to watch for this reason). TompaDompa (talk) 14:19, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@TompaDompa I changed observed to wrote. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:04, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comments:

  • The order of the short description and whatnot should follow MOS:LEADORDER.
  • a concept from science fiction and cutting-edge science – the latter doesn't really reflect either the article or the sources. The term appears in science, but the concept is a different story. We mustn't equivocate.
  • relating to higher dimensions and a superluminal method of interstellar travel – "superluminal" is too opaque to use in the WP:LEAD (even when linked), which is supposed to be accessible to a degree not required for the rest of the article. "Faster-than-light" would be an acceptable replacement (which should still be linked).
  • I might rephrase the first sentence altogether, along the lines of "Hyperspace is a science fiction method of travelling faster than light." and put all additional information/elaboration in one or more separate sentences after that.
  • It is related to the concept of four-dimensional space, first described in the 19th century. – this is a bit redundant to mentioning higher dimensions and getting a bit off-topic. The history of the mathematical literature on four-dimensional space is not WP:LEAD material in an article about a science fiction method of travelling through space.
  • Its use in science fiction originated in the magazine Amazing Stories Quarterly around the 1930s – the specific magazine would seem to imply that Campbell's Islands of Space is counted as the definite origin (Meadowcroft's "The Invisible Bubble" was in a different magazine) whereas the vague time frame seems to indicate that it isn't.
  • It is typically described as an alternative "sub-region" of space co-existing with our own universe. – it is not clear what this means. This sentence could probably be removed, since the next sentence begins In much of science fiction, hyperspace is described as a physical place that can be entered and exited [...].
  • using a rubber science energy field or similar phenomena generated by a shipboard device often known as a "hyperdrive". – the body of the article doesn't mention energy fields and "shipboard" is kind of an WP:EASTEREGG.
  • Detailed descriptions of the mechanisms of hyperspace travel are often provided in stories using the plot device – "often" is highly questionable.
  • sometimes incorporating some actual physics such as relativity or string theory. – should be removed (see my comments about the corresponding sentence in the body, above).
  • Philip Harbottle called the concepts "one of the fixtures" of the science fiction genre as early as in 1963. – this is at the very least out of place. Could perhaps be incorporated in the first paragraph as an indication of why the topic is noteworthy.
  • Many stories [...] called a "hyperdrive". – this sentence has six commas.
  • In general, I think the WP:LEAD might have to be rewritten to reflect the changes made to the article since the lead was written, but I'll reserve final judgment until I've seen what the rest of the article looks like when it has been edited to fix the issues I have raised.
  • Similarly, I think the article's structure might need reworking. It's a bit difficult to tell until the content itself has been fixed, however.

TompaDompa (talk) 01:02, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mostly done, except since I like commas (likely an artifact of me being a Polish native speaker, and Polish language liking them more than English) I don't see a problem with the six comma sentence, so I left it as it is. Feel free to suggest a rewrite. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 11:14, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
PS. Regarding this source I just found (available through Z-library) there is not that much literary analysis, but the appendix b lists 50+ works, with plot summaries of various length, that are related to 4th dimension, hyperspace and wormholes. Not sure if we should try to list all of the examples the writer found notable here, but some can be used to further illustrate some examples mentioned in text with secondary sources. Ex. one of the first positions would give us a second example of of the "hyperspace as a dangerous energy source". Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 11:37, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have struck through resolved issues to keep track of what has yet to be done. Some of the ones I haven't struck through may also have been resolved; I'll take a closer look later. I'll also take a closer look at the new material. Some more comments:

  • The explanatory footnote for the relativity/causality issue was a great way to address that point (The Science in Science Fiction can be added as an additional source). It does however use the "FTL" abbreviation which is not explained anywhere. The WP:LEAD also uses the abbreviation.
  • "regular space" should not be preceded by a definite article.
  • "hyperspace" should not be preceded by a definite article (except where it is used attributively, as in "the hyperspace concept").
  • A notable exception is the popular Star Trek franchise, where the term hyperspace itself is only used briefly in a single episode (Coming of Age) of Star Trek: The Next Generation – "popular" should be removed per WP:WTW. The title of the episode should be in quotes and the title of the series in italics. I think mentioning Star Trek as an exception to the terminology is barely in keeping with our WP:Core content policies (considering Science Fact and Science Fiction: An Encyclopedia says many writers preferred "subspace", the term ultimately adopted in the Star Trek TV series for the realm into which the "warp field" projected around starships extends), but I can't see that calling it a notable exception is justified based on the sources.
  • a related set of terms - subspace, space warp, and transwarp - are used much more often – the cited sources don't mention "space warp" or "transwarp" being used by Star Trek.
  • The Redshift Rendezvous example needs either The Encyclopedia of Science Fiction or The Greenwood Encyclopedia of Science Fiction and Fantasy as an additional source.

TompaDompa (talk) 18:34, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Being a non-native speaker, when my experience and grammarly fails, an occasional article problem may occur. Please remove any wrong the from the article - thanks in advance! About the Star Trek part, it's hard to "fit", being a bit of the forceful Star Trek reference by a certain fanboy(?) who tried editing this a while ago, although now that is is properly formatted and referenced, I think it's ok. I tried rewording it; if you still dislike it, please suggest alternatives. Star Trek IS, common sense wise, one of the most notable examples of a space opera, one of the largest in the world, where hyperspace almost doesn't exist. I do think it is a valuable fact to mention, although yes, we are approaching OR a bit here. I also added the ref for transwarp and some more ST terminology mentioned in the new source. Do let me know which issues remain unresolved and thank you for your detailed review. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:05, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The new way the Star Trek bit is phrased works fine. I've done some copyediting of my own to address some issues and added some maintenance tags. The most pressing issues that remain are that there are things that are not (entirely) supported by the cited sources, that Hogan's opinions are presented as fact, and that the film paragraph does not stay focused on the topic. TompaDompa (talk) 14:19, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@TompaDompa I have addressed the latter issues, but I feel you are way too strict re the failed verification. Please explain here why you feel the content is not supported. I believe that tagging issues such as "entering or navigating" is splitting hair, you obviously enter it to navigate, it's a case of WP:COMMONSENSE, and I think some of your other tags are similarly overzealous. Still, in the spirit of cooperation I've tried to rewrite or fix most of the stuff you pointed out, please see my edit summaries and let me know if anything still seems like a problem. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:19, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've done some more editing of my own. Some clarifications:

  • The issue with slipstream that I see is that the other "related terms" are described by the sources as basically the same thing as hyperspace (Harbottle says "though it be known variously as nulspace, overspace, or subspace, it is still the same old hyper-space", Stableford calls them "variants", Ash says "Occasionally, the idea has bred half-hearted variants, among them nulspace, overspace or subspace, but they are all essentially part of the same concept", Langford calls them "rough synonyms" in The Greenwood Encyclopedia of Science Fiction and Fantasy, and the Historical Dictionary of Science Fiction defines jumpspace as "hyperspace n.; the (notional) space in which ships travel during a jump"), whereas the source for slipstream presents it in contrast to the hyperdrive and describes it as something clearly different. It seems pretty clear to me that subspace and whatnot are all different versions of the same concept as hyperspace, whereas slipstream is a different concept altogether.
  • About the restrictions writers place on hyperspace, neither cited source seems to either dismiss them as technobabble or acknowledge them as plot devices.
  • About the hyperdrive, the sentence currently says that it is the hyperdrive that does the folding of space, which isn't what the sources say. The sentence talks about three different things: (1) hyperspace appearing in sci-fi magazines, (2) the space-folding explanation of hyperspace, and (3) the hyperdrive concept. The sentence that follows then talks about the parallel-universe explanation of hyperspace.

TompaDompa (talk) 01:20, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@TompaDompa Regarding slipstream and hyperspace (context reminder: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Slipstream (science fiction) (4th nomination)). Since those are fictional concepts, the degree to which something is similar or not is debatable. After all, we discuss some weirder works in which hyperspace is not used to speed up travel, but as a source of energy or some form of afterlife. While this is PRIMARY, this work of fiction cobbles them together: " Some ships create a hyperspace slipstream corridor", because for that author, clearly, doubling technobubble is the way forward :) here's another piece of fiction that does the same (bottom paragraph): [3]. But yes, that's OR. Anyway, I looked for some reliable sources that discuss slipstream and hyperspace together. (But before we go to reliable sources, also note that the "hyperspace wikia" calls slipstream similar to hyperspace to :D [4]). Anyway, consider:
  • [5] "hyperspace can be both bent and folded and through the oscillations of an a/c current at the right wavelength and frequency through the displacement of the hyperspace in front of the craft creating a slipstream which the vessel can navigate" - but this is lulu.com so probably not RS
  • [6] "...space travel draw on the idea of warping space or via some sort of hyperspace. Babylon 5's hellish swirls of hyperspace are a less friendly version of the 'slipstream' through which the 'Andromeda Ascendant' travels." Later, "Babylon 5 depicts the entrance to hyperspace as similarly 'gated', but larger ships can create their own jump-points". Aside of being a ref for B5 and gates to hyperspace, this source does seem to call slipstream and hyperspace a variant (version) of one another, right? And the publisher is Bloomsbury Publishing, so this one is a RS.
  • [7] "But as with Star Trek Voyager's similarly named “Slipstream drive,” they involve travel through either subspace or hyperspace, which do not exist in the real world. " Here we have another source that seems to treat those concepts as clearly related or synonymous. Although the publisher is iUniverse, so not very reliable either. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:59, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the hyperdrive, hmmm, how about this splitting of sentences like this? Fair point taken, namely that hyperdrive is related to both explanations (and possibly others too). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 11:04, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Calling hyperspace a version of slipstream is sufficient, yes. I added it. Splitting the sentences is an improvement. I also tinkered a bit with the phrasing. The main issues that remain in the body and need fixing are that both sentences about the two explanations for hyperspace need copyediting (the space-folding one because of close paraphrasing, the parallel-universe one for clarity) and that the sentence about hyperspace restrictions being technobabble/plot devices is not supported by the cited sources. TompaDompa (talk) 02:58, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@TompaDompa I feel that close paraphrasing when dealing with a single sentence or so, full of jargon, is acceptable in this case. I also find the parallel-universe clear, but since I wrote it, it's subjective - can you tinker with it? As for technobabble/plot device. I've removed the incorrect ref to Stableford, but Ashes' Visual Encyclopedia writes:
  • [about FTL travel in general] "Because story plots normally demand continuity in the actions of characters, sf authors have continually looked for ways and means of overcoming the relativistic light-speed barrier"... "[Smith]'s famous characters, Seaton and Duquesne, roamed the universe at whatever supra-light speed his epic plots demanded." (p.74)
  • [about hyperspace] "Certain writers have attempted at least a 'pseudo-scientific' approach to the possible outcomes of travelling in hyper-space.... If many authors have chosen to ignore such problems, it can be said in their favour that they have frequently created others to avoid making life too easy for their characters. Some have argued that a hyperspace field cannot be created close to a strong gravity source, such as our Sun's, and spaceships could need to reach the rim of the solar system before attempting the 'Big Jump*... In general, it can be said that the concept of hyper-space has been accepted amongst authors as a mere convention, a device to achieve continuity in a story's action, and not one to be taken very seriously." (p. 75-76).
Here, I posit that the technobabble is supported by the the pseudo-scientific part (aka rubber science), and the rest supports the contention that is a plot device. Although arguably this point is made about hyperspace in general, with only a smaller nod to the 'restrictions on its use' (on that topic Niven talks a bit more). We already cover the "more genera" earlier (sentence "Some science fiction writers attempted quasi-scientific rubber science explanations of this concept. For others, however, it is just a convenient MacGuffin enabling faster-than-light travel necessary for their story."). I've tweaked the text/citations a bit, hope this helps? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 11:10, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I think that satisfactorily takes care of that sourcing issue, which I believe was the last remaining one.
I took a stab at rewriting the part about the different explanatory models, but it can definitely be improved further and probably should be. For the sake of clarity, analogies like the ones the sources use should probably be added for both explanations (ideally with pictures as visual aids, since that would help a lot). Doing so would make the explanation disproportionately long for a paragraph that is at least nominally about the early history of the concept in fiction, however. Even now, a fairly lengthy explanation of what hyperspace is is rather out of place in an "Early depictions" section. I mentioned earlier that the structure might need to be reworked and I am now convinced that this is the case. The article's clarity and conciseness suffer as a result of the structure not being optimized for the content. I'm not sure what the ideal structure would be, but as a first step I would suggest introducing the concept before going into its history. The division between "Early depictions" and "Later depictions" also seems a bit arbitrary and it's not clear to me that it's the best way to present the information (I might use a single "History" section and only present the information that is strictly about the concept's history there, moving stuff like In some works, travelling or navigating hyperspace requires not only specialized equipment, but physical or psychological modifications of passengers or at least navigators, as seen in Frank Herbert's Dune (1965), Michael Moorcock's The Sundered Worlds (1966), Vonda McIntyre's Aztecs (1977), or David Brin's The Warm Space (1985). to a different section). TompaDompa (talk) 00:28, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@TompaDompa Fair point, please take a look at the revised structure, and feel free to move anything that is out of place. The current layout I think is solid: we introduce the concept, we discuss its evolution through history and famous examples, and then look at purposes, both more and less common, again with notable examples. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 11:30, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The revised structure is definitely an improvement, though it does reveal some need for copyediting due to redundancy (the sentences For others, however, it is just a convenient MacGuffin enabling faster-than-light travel necessary for their story. and One of the main reasons for the adoption of the concept are the limitations of faster-than-light travel in ordinary space, which the hyperspace trope allowed writers to bypass. should probably be combined, for instance). I have experimented quite a bit more with the layout, done some copyediting, and added a picture of a crumpled piece of paper (which obviously isn't the best illustration of the folding model, but it's something). If you think I went too far with any of this, you may undo it. TompaDompa (talk) 01:33, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@TompaDompa Ha, nice idea with that paper - although I do wonder about OR in captions :P Thank you for the copyediting. Are we ready to promote this? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:24, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Btw, nobody did say which source originated or popularized the "mapping" model, did they? :( Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:26, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's getting close to meeting the WP:Good article criteria. Still need to resolve the issue of the two sentences more-or-less repeating the same thing that I noted in my previous comment. I would also suggest either removing the stuff about The Scientific Pioneer Returns and Foundation or expanding it; at present they are basically just examples devoid of details motivating their inclusion as examples (what do these examples add to the readers' understanding of hyperspace?). I haven't been able to come up with a layout for the images that I'm really happy with without removing Template:Spatial anomalies in fiction; I'll let you decide whether to use this layout or this layout (it doesn't make any difference from a WP:Good article perspective).
Finally, the WP:LEAD needs a bit of copyediting and expansion. It's currently rather bare-bones. I would suggest that it should at least be expanded to mention the core concept of taking a "shortcut" of sorts, E. C. Tubb's role in developing the lore (or at least something more of the history than when it was introduced), the dangers portrayed, the restrictions imposed by some writers, and some of the alternative uses. Hyperspace shouldn't be described as a "dimension" in order to avoid using the word in two different senses.
I haven't been able to find any sources stating explicitly where the mapping model comes from or where it was popularized, but both The Science in Science Fiction and The Encyclopedia of Science Fiction use Frederik Pohl's "The Mapmakers" as their main example. TompaDompa (talk) 18:20, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@TompaDompa Please take a look at the rewritten lead which also should deal with the redundant sentence issue. I am not sure I see a problem with the SPR or the Foundation, the latter is sufficiently expanded, the former, I concur could use more expansion but I don't think it's a pressing issue - it's pretty much used as an example of the early use of hyperspace and an excuse to link to yet another notable author (FYI the relevant quotation and context is "The possi�bility that shortcuts through interstellar space might be taken with the aid of some kind of topographical trickery was so useful in extending the scope of futuristic fiction to a galactic stage that it was taken up on a massive scale by other writers, although it was still sufficiently unfamiliar to be foregrounded as a novel idea in Nelson S. Bond’s ‘‘The Scientific Pioneer Returns’’ (1940)."). Btw, I'd like to remove the quote: "Once again Kim takes off in the Starshine with its hyper-drive to do battle in defense of the Second Galaxy." as I don't think it adds anything. Images-wise, I also don't see a problem, and the layouts are all good - maybe we could ask someone for WP:30 here if you don' thave any preference either? Lastly, regarding the mapping model, hmmm, could you think of how to work in the Mapmakers into the part introducing this concept without being ORish? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:55, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ps. With the expanded, longer lead, how about we move the stars steaking image spread to the lead? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 11:08, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The WP:LEAD looks good. I moved that image there. I think it works, but you can move it back if you disagree. I removed the quote as you suggested. I agree that linking to notable authors and works is a good thing, but there needs to be a balance between doing that and providing informative content. At any rate, it is indeed not a pressing issue that needs to be fixed before this can be listed as a WP:Good article. I added the analogy for the mapping model from The Science in Science Fiction along with a mention of Night Walk (also used by both sources as an example). I have done some final copyediting, and I'm now content that this passes the WP:Good article criteria. TompaDompa (talk) 14:44, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Summary[edit]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it well written?
    A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
    B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
  2. Is it verifiable with no original research?
    A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
    B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:
    C. It contains no original research:
    D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
    There do not seem to be any major aspects of the topic missing, going by the sources. I have given some suggestions about ways to further improve the article by addressing additional aspects or going into more depth about the ones that are already covered.
    B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
  4. Is it neutral?
    It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
  5. Is it stable?
    It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
  6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
    A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
    All images are public domain, CC BY 2.0, or CC BY-SA 4.0 (the last one being fine for media but not for text per WP:CFAQ).
    B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:

I will update this as the article is edited further. TompaDompa (talk) 01:02, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The article now meets all the WP:Good article criteria. Well done! TompaDompa (talk) 14:44, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

OR removed[edit]

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)[reply]

Though the concept of hyperspace did not emerge until the 20th century, along with space travel as a whole, stories of an unseen realm outside our normal world are part of earliest oral tradition. Some stories, before the development of the science fiction genre, feature space travel using a fictional existence outside what humans normally observe. For example, in Somnium (published 1634), Johannes Kepler tells of magic travel to the moon with the help of demons.Note: Somniumis mentioned in http://www.sf-encyclopedia.com/entry/space_flight

Picture request for folding space explanation[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
Thank you. Which ones, for the record? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:03, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know nomination[edit]

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Theleekycauldron (talk) 09:19, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(
)
  • ... that the concept of hyperspace, primarily known through its use in science fiction, originated in and is still occasionally used by scholarly works? Source: see first two sentences and related refs in the 'Terminology' section

Improved to Good Article status by Piotrus (talk) and TomapDoma (talk). Nominated by Piotrus (talk) at 11:08, 14 February 2022 (UTC).[reply]

  • Article has achieved Good Article status. No issues of copyvio or plagiarism. All sources appear reliable. QPQ is done. I really like both hooks. I guess ALT1 is a bit more "hooky", but I do like the primary. Looks ready to go, unless you want to add or edit the hooks. Thriley (talk) 04:30, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
ALT0 to T:DYK/P2

"Empyrean (Warhammer)" listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

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)[reply]

"Instantaneous travel between any two points in the universe" listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

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 Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 April 10 § Instantaneous travel between any two points in the universe until a consensus is reached. Steel1943 (talk) 21:13, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Hyperspace&oldid=1200828927"