Talk:The Time Ships/Archive 1

Archive 1

Untitled

Authorised - authorised by whom ? Who owns the rights to Wells work (and is it still in copyright ?) -- Beardo 18:22, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

The entry on The Time Machine says The Time Ships was "officially authorized by the Wells estate to mark the centenary of the original's publication". But yes, the original's out of copyright, and there are enough unauthorised sequels that I'd guess this was a nice gesture rather than a legal requirement. Daibhid C 15:16, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

The original is out of copyright in the USA. It is still in copyright in other parts of the world, including the UK. Marwood 16:24, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

References Section

There's a big reference to the the version of London described in When the Sleeper Awakes in the epilogue of The Time Ships. I'll add this to the references section. Captain Sumo (talk) 11:28, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I added a reference to Under the Knife which I believe is a relevant source for The Time Ships. But the Wikipedia entry for this subject is an EP by an American band, instead of the Wells short story. Please, how do I fix this - Do I need some disambiguation ? IckenhamMan (talk) 20:41, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Wells' or Wells's?

Nice to see 86.153.133.193 opening another Front. Is this Wikihounding, or an attempt to induce a 3RR? Or is it trolling? Most things seem to be. The MOS actually says there are three practices, and recommends consistency, so anyone changing one should really change them all. Speak soon. Hengistmate (talk) 13:34, 23 February 2016 (UTC) (Or am I?)

@Hengistmate: I can edit in Wikipedia where I like and there is nothing you can do about it.

It is normal practice to check the edit history of sockpuppets when raising a case. However: having said that, it seems that the manual of style has changed since I last looked at it (which wasn't that long ago). It used to only support the American English grammar rules for possessives, but now supports both. Since I did agree with you that grammatically you were correct, I have restored your version. The possessive was not consistent through the article, but I have taken care of that. 86.153.133.193 (talk) 16:37, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

This book as a hard science fiction work

@Chaheel Riens: I don't see why Dyson spheres and time travel indicates it's not a hard science fiction work. The book goes into detail on how it's making its time travel work (in particular invoking non-linearity in Quantum Mechanics). It's not like Dyson spheres are unrealistic either. Plus, Stephen Baxter is a hard science fiction author. Please clarify. Banedon (talk) 07:31, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Can you find a source to back up your claim? That would do. Chaheel Riens (talk) 08:24, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

You mean like this? [1] "A bit over a decade ago, Stephen Baxter wowed fans of hard sci-fi with The Time Ships, a large-scale sequel to H.G. Wells classic The Time Machine that followed the time traveler all the way to the end of eternity." Banedon (talk) 01:08, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

I hadn't even noticed this one slip through my watch list. I suppose it's a start, but a better source would be nice. Chaheel Riens (talk) 16:13, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

@Chaheel Riens: Multiple sites show up on a Google search: https://www.google.com/search?q=%22the-time-ships%22+(%22hard-science-fiction%22+%7C+%22hard-sci-fi%22) -- e.g., would a WaPo book review satisfy you? ("The Time Ships is not only a fresh, innovative work; it shows that hard sf is not a dying field.") -- pick one that meets your own standards. – _•Raven  ^.talk 17:46, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

@.Raven: I would have thought that as this comment is 13 months old and Hard Science fiction has been in the article since then, it should be apparent that I don't care about this. If you care about it, pick one yourself, add it in and update the article. Chaheel Riens (talk) 18:46, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

@Chaheel Riens: Done, with the site and quote I mentioned, since you had no objection. Thank you. – _•Raven  ^.talk 06:12, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Traveler?

Why does the article spell Traveller the American way?