Talk:List of films featuring time loops/Archive 1

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

Inclusion Criteria

I highly recommend that inclusion criteria be established for this list as soon as possible. In the absence of any other criteria I would recommend that the list be limited to entries that have third-party sourcing establishing that they are considered notable examples of films with time loops...applying this criterion right now would gut this list, and possibly make it a likely candidate for deletion.

I'll hold off on any action for now given that this is a new list, but consider this a heads-up. The subject may be more appropriate as a category in any case, in which case all that would be needed is that the individual articles themselves evidence that the film involves time loops. Cheers. DonIago (talk) 13:19, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

I understand and am working on some additional citations. The distinction between a "regular" time travel film vs a time loop film can be blurry at times and film such as Paycheck and Minority Report are difficult as well. Right now I am maintaining only the strictest of definitions for inclusion. Valoem talk 13:52, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
No problem. Like I said, it was just intended as a heads-up; I'm willing to give it at least a couple of months before I take any action. The lead should probably include a discussion of the criteria for inclusion as mentioned at Wikipedia:LIST#Lead section or paragraph. Among other things this will reduce the risk of possible list-bloat in the future. Cheers. DonIago (talk) 14:20, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
I just added an abundant amount of sources that reference the phrase "time loop". Let me know what you think. Valoem talk 15:21, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
Thumbs up icon Looking a lot better now! At some point the unsourced items should be sourced or removed, and the lead should be tweaked to make it clear that the sourcing is a requirement (unless we're going to approach this differently), but I have a lot more confidence in this now than I did originally. In fact I'd say if there isn't already a time-loop category it might be worth considering creating one. Anyhow, well-done! DonIago (talk) 15:41, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

I just reverted an IP edit that added an entry without providing a source. As the above discussion occurred over ten days ago, barring further discussion here I'll assume the "grace period" is over and remove entries lacking citations going forward. DonIago (talk) 13:28, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Hey, thanks I haven't had a chance to look at the article in awhile and notice that La Jetee was removed. I agree with all your removals except this one. An immediate citation for La Jetee is not necessary as, in my opinion, it falls into the inclusion criteria. I was thinking about removing Back in Crime myself wasn't sure about that movie as I have not seen it. Here is a citation for La Jatee [1] just in case. This may be the first time loop film which has inspired many. Valoem talk contrib 02:34, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
I think the cite should be added to the article itself, especially as now the entry for LJ is making a claim that isn't immediately sourced. I'll leave it alone for the time-being. DonIago (talk) 14:37, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

(And more) Inclusion Criteria

DonIago, as you've just removed almost all of my additions (what happened to waiting "a couple of months"?), I feel the need to protest that I thought other Wikipedia pages were considered to be acceptable sources. I also do not think that this rarefied topic is in danger of list bloat. However, since I agree with you in principle, I'll find citations and re-add what I can. Time travel and time looping are hot topics in the science fiction field, so a longer list is helpful to writers, readers and viewers, and critics. OcelotHod (talk) 16:34, 6 May 2014 (UTC) OcelotHod

At the time you added what you did the lead of the list clarly indicated that sourcing should be included with all entries. WP:CIRCULAR establishes that other Wikipedia articles are not reliable sources, though I'd encourage you to use sources utilized at other articles to bolster the list.
When I said I'd wait a couple of months, I was referring to the initial entries added to the list by Valorem (i.e. when the list was "under construction"), not to any entry added after the initial batch, much as I'll revert the new addition of unsourced material when appropriate, but will tag if I can't readily determine when it was added and by whom.
We've already had a couple of editors add films without providing sources; I don't really care to tempt fate. Thanks for understanding. DonIago (talk) 18:21, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
Hello there, and I apologize, because my message to you sounded rude, when in fact I was merely embarrassed. (Please view me as waving and smiling.) I also apologize for not checking this earlier -- I'm a relative newbie, and did not notice I had messages awaiting me (I need to fix my screen display) -- so am hoping you did not think I'm a total jerk. Yes, I do understand all of your explanations, and agree with them. In fact, I will apply your advice to all of my future edits.
And thanks very much for the beer! I will happily hoist one with you at any time. You're doing a really good job, and the science fiction community (of which I'm one) as well as movie lovers all appreciate it! OcelotHod (talk) 13:21, 13 May 2014 (UTC) OcelotHod
Thanks! Glad we got this sorted out!
I noticed recently another list article where there's a separate column for references, List of films featuring space stations. Do you think it might benefit us to add such a column to this list? I like that it implies a reference must be available for each entry, though I'm not sure it looks very pretty either. I don't feel strongly enough about it to make the changes unless anyone else feels they would be an improvement. DonIago (talk) 13:29, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Predestination

If you are enforcing citations as "inclusion criteria" then you should spell that out in the article. There is nothing there at all now. And no definition of what a "time loop" is. Anyway, I just added Predestination, the ultimate time loop film (its source story is an example in Time loop). It is also in Category:Time loop films. I have linked to the WP article which discusses the film at length, I see no need to duplicate citations here. Most other "List of" articles do not require every entry to be cited, only those whose status is disputed. Few of the "citations" here actually support the criteria in any case, most are simply links to random reviews. If anyone wants to delete it on those grounds, I despair. 202.81.249.151 (talk) 10:04, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Please see WP:Source list. All items added to a list must satisfy Wikipedia's verifiability requirements. A blue link doesn't in and of itself establish anything per WP:CIRCULAR. Neither does categorization, as anyone can add any article to a category whether or not it is appropriate to have done so. DonIago (talk) 14:59, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
Ridiculous. The linked article about the film has citations. It's not circular, just one step removed. Look at Category:Lists of films by common content. How many of these require every list element to be separately cited? Hardly any. You are enforcing your own idiosyncratic rule, one that is not spelled out on the article page. Anyway, your loss. A List of Time Loop films that deliberately omits Predestination is absurd. I have put it back. If you delete it again, you take the blame. I won't return to this article in any case. 202.81.249.151 (talk) 16:58, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
Let's please assume good faith. Technically, all lists should have their items verifiable through proper sourcing. The other lists basically need cleanup, but individual editors can only do so much. This list we are trying to maintain to meet Wikipedia's policy of verifiability. That being said, I am oddly having trouble finding any secondary sources that talk about time loops in Predestination. There are sources that talk about time travel, yes, but not looping specifically. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 17:05, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
This articles uses criteria that are not used in most other list articles. Criteria that are never spelled out in the article, and applied by a couple of editors who delete entries that by any reasonable assessment fulfil the definition and should be included. I looked at the citations you're so proud for other films in this list. Some were just reviews, some are just links to Rotten Tomatoes, some are just dead, hardly any "talk about time loops" explicitly. Many just confirm the film might be about time travel. Apply the same hard line to all equally and you must delete half the films in this list. But you pretend the article is "verifiable" because it has references, never mind how worthless they are if you actually read them. Go ahead and omit the film that is about nothing but a time traveller who loops back into his own life again and again. He's his own father and mother, all of which was fully explained in the article I linked. But because the word "loop" isn't cited, you ignore it. 202.81.249.151 (talk) 02:52, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
"having trouble finding any secondary sources that talk about time loops in Predestination." About 7,060 results e.g. [2] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.81.249.151 (talk • contribs) 23:32, January 26, 2015‎
If there's a plethora of sources then why not just add one along with the entry for the film? Would make this whole conversation moot. DonIago (talk) 14:28, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
I was trying to find a reliable source among these. A lot of these are self-published websites. That's why this article references reviews; it is a solid inclusion when a professional film critic notes the specific feature. It's a little odd not to see any of them mention it, though. You'll have to forgive us for pursuing a high standard here. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 14:33, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
I found Washington City Paper, which I think suffices here. Let me know if that works, Doniago. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 14:40, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
Sure, though personally as long as there's a source that isn't obviously unreliable I'm pretty easily satisfied. DonIago (talk) 15:13, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi Donlage,

I saw you revisited this article yesterday and I hope you'll read this too. I wondered if your discussion about predestination is really all about the resources. To me predestination is clearly a causality loop because the main character never relives the same period in space and time. We'll actually the person meets (and mates) him-/herself, but that's the point, isn't it? It's not like the time is reset as it is in for example Groundhog Day.

Kind regards, Cor Cor Koomen (talk) 23:35, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

How could it be a time loop if the character "never relives the same period in space and time"? Or was that your point? In any case, my understanding is that list entries now are supported by sources that specifically mention the films containing time loops, or wording to that effect. So whether we think predestination is or is not a time loop, besides being interpretive on our parts, is a moot point. DonIago (talk) 02:10, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Considering a separate Column for References

Hi again! I don't know how I missed the page on space stations, but I think the entire chart looks quite handsome and user-friendly. It would be a good addition, I'd think, to most pages which are involved with science or SF; I can testify that many of us science fiction critics will find such a column useful. And there's another group who would find such a tidy column very useful: librarians.

It's the sort of task which I'd enjoy doing, and I'll cheerfully volunteer.

I am also friends with Gary Westfahl, whose book is listed in the Bibliography on the Space Stations page; it would be fun to ask him if he's come up with any new examples.

Parenthetically, I'll be re-watching "Dark City" tonight, and I'll see if there's a reference to the name of that station.

Thank you again for educating me re the protocols; I really do want to be a good editor, and though I did read almost every single lesson that the Administrators provided, I clearly missed some important steps. I am glad to become your friend. OcelotHod (talk) 01:26, 17 May 2014 (UTC) OcelotHod

Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban

Based on the definition of time loop, Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban should be removed, because the events are not constantly repeating. Hermione and Harry go back in time, but that happens only once. If Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban is included, then the Back to the Future series should be as well, since Marty McFly goes back in time and sees himself right before Doc gets shot in the parking lot. 2klodu67 (talk) 18:47, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Problem - only a few of the movies listed here deal with time loops. The rest are just time travel.

Both Ground Hog Day and The Edge Of Tomorrow revisit the same day thousands if not millions of times. Isn't that the whole point of this list?96.247.7.59 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 01:22, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

The "featuring lime loops" in the article title does not mean that a film has to feature multiple time loops. I think it is just an all-encompassing plural form, such as at list of films featuring home invasions. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 02:05, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
Right. It's less wordy than "List of films in which one or more time loops occur". :p DonIago (talk) 12:49, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
I, for one, don't count the likes of "12 Monkeys" as a time-loop film. Causality loop, yes, (and a well done one, at that, IMO) but no thing and no-one 'loops' in and of themselves. It is only that one segment of a person's life 'nudges' their earlier life in a self-fulfilling manner. This can be said about several of the 'mere' time-travel films listed. Or, if the definition is that loose, add Bill And Ted's Excellent Adventure for the "how they escape" element, and possibly at least two of the Back To The Future films (arguable) for their future interactions in obviously mutable timelines. (But then it starts to become "every film that features time-travel", virtually, which would probably be silly.) 31.76.206.210 (talk) 18:12, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
It's not for us to say whether a film is or is not a time-loop film; that's why every entry has a source which should, theoretically at least, discuss the film in the context of a time-loop film. DonIago (talk) 18:24, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

The source calling 12 Monkeys a time-loop film is Brogan Morris who seems to exclusively write clickbait. The film 12 Monkeys has a causality loop but no time loops, all events take place exactly once. I think that since the facts are clear and since the source is of low-quality, at the very least there should be a note about the quality of the source. IsaacAA (talk) 11:59, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

The Time Traveler's Wife

An editor tried to add The Time Traveler's Wife here, but I reverted because it blanked other content. Other editors may be interested in seeing if this fits the criteria or not. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 13:21, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Ordering

Since films - especially science fiction ones - frequently reference earlier films, implicitly or explicitly, would it perhaps be better to sort the list by date of release? IMHO, this would allow the reader to more easily discern relationships / trends between films. Is there any style guidance to say that such lists should be alphabetical? Alternatively, is there a way in HTML to configure the list so that it can be sorted by the reader? Finally, *surely* any list of films involving time travel must be sorted chronologically?!?  ;-) Cheers, --PLUMBAGO 09:48, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Plumbago, both "Film" and "Year" have up-and-down arrows which can be clicked to sort by either field. The films are listed by title because it is the first column; if the year was the first column, we would by default sort it that way. I sort of prefer listing by title because it is the more common approach in film list articles and since readers can sort by year themselves if they want to see trends. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 12:27, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
Duh. How embarrassing not to have noticed!  :-( Thanks for correcting me. On your point, I think that if sorting is possible, it really doesn't matter which is the default. I'll try to look before I leap in the future! Cheers, --PLUMBAGO 12:30, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
No problem! :) I've liked sorting by year myself occasionally to see the trends. For example, you can see powered exoskeletons really come into play in the 21st century at list of films featuring powered exoskeletons. Any other questions, especially pertaining to film, let me know. I'm happy to help! Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 12:33, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Run Lola Run

Has Run Lola Run been suggested and rejected? Because it's one of the classic time loop films. -- Resuna (talk) 01:29, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Looks like it should work. Possible source: http://entertainthis.usatoday.com/2014/06/06/edge-of-tomorrow-groundhog-day-best-time-loop-movies/ DonIago (talk) 13:48, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
tanks -- Resuna (talk) 17:24, 13 March 2015 (UTC)


Frequently Asked Questions About Time Travel

Should this movie be included? It's about 3 friends that repeatedly loop through time. Thanks 175.141.45.60 (talk) 10:10, 21 April 2015 (UTC)Bankrobber70

Has a reliable source discussed the time looping within the film? DonIago (talk) 13:22, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
Link for context: Frequently Asked Questions About Time Travel. It does seem relevant but apparently a bit too obscure to get big name reviews. -- Resuna (talk) 17:12, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Time loop or causality loop

The topic has been discussed above on this page over and over again (...) over the inclusion criteria on this list and whether a film exhibits a time loop or not. After reading the Wikipedia entry for time loop the disagreement became clear: the article gave two different definitions for time loop, one of which was causality loop and the other - the science-fiction plot device of characters experiencing the same period of time repeatedly. I edited the time loop article to reflect the repetition aspect of the plot device, hopefully differentiating it from "time loops" that are only causality loops, and hopefully creating a clearer standard for the inclusion of films in this list. IsaacAA (talk) 12:42, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Some of them aren't even causality loops. Normally, I'd unilaterally remove every entry that fails verification, but it looks like there's been a bit of discussion here. Maybe a bit more couldn't hurt. Somewhere in Time, for example, is sourced to a Variety review that never even mentions the phrase "time loop". NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:51, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Quality and relevance of citations

Here's a table noting the quality and relevance of the citations. When the AfD process is over, should this page not be deleted, I plan to remove all the uncited/poorly-cited/irrelevantly-cited entries.

These fifteen or so films about time loops that have reliable sources as references could have their own list... if only editors would use the talk page and avoid low-quality references like "our best 4/10/50 time loop films" lists that don't actually discuss time loops. BrightRoundCircle (talk) 10:39, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes, we need the citation to explicitly specify that the film has a time loop. I'd probably even settle for having the word "loop" in there somewhere. If someone misuses the term to mean "causality loop", then I'm not sure we should correct them. In popular discourse, "time loop" often encompasses causality loops. We can certainly discuss this in the article if we find a source. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:37, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
Masem recommended adding a column. We could have a "Category" column under which we have "Multiple Loops" and "Causal Loop" to differentiate. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 21:48, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
It's not exactly the same, but an example of something like this can be seen at List of artificial intelligence films. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:53, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
I like this solution a lot, but it kind of leans towards original research. Is "Back to the Future" a time loop film? Is there a causal loop? Is there a grandfather paradox (yes there's a grandfather paradox because time can be changed)? I have one source (here, Lobo 2002, peer-reviewed) that says that if time can be changed then the grandfather paradox is inevitable, so any movie with a changing timeline easily falls into that category. I have another source (here, Yarbro 2014, not peer-reviewed) that differentiates between a causal loop and a time loop. A causal loop is as described in the causal loop article, and a time loop occurs when "periods of time are repeated and re-experienced by a character's consciousness". IF (that's a big if) these definitions can be followed, then categorizing each movie should be fairly simple, but it would still be original research (synthesis). BrightRoundCircle (talk) 10:37, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
Yes, if it's unsourced, then it could be original research. I'm more concerned with finding reliable sources for each film's inclusion, though. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:04, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

As the customary seven days of discussion are about to pass, I'd like to repeat that every time travel movie either features a causal loop or a grandfather paradox (or alternatively the time travel has no effect at all), so listing these movies in this article will be a complete duplication of the film list at list of time travel works of fiction. To avoid duplication, only citations about a time loop that's not in the sense of causal loop or grandfather paradox should be kept. BrightRoundCircle (talk) 17:49, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

  • Comment, This current version is overkill and I disagree with many of the removals many of which were sourced. For example, to claim Looper (film) does not contain a time loop must be an error. I'd like to @Erik: to have a look between the highlighted version and the original. Discussion should be required before removing sourced entries. Valoem talk contrib 16:58, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
    I sort of understand the issue here with differentiating between films with multiple time loops and those with causal loops. Since "time loop" is a catch-all, I would prefer to include causal-loop films here but differentiate them, either by adding a column or even by maintaining separate sections for each set of films. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 17:11, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Quality of list articles

In general, articles that list "top 10 films/stories/etc featuring time loops" are of low quality, don't give thorough analysis on each movie, and even contradict themselves in some cases. This Wired article says a movie with a grandfather paradox features a time loop, which can't be the case. BrightRoundCircle (talk) 14:43, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Here's an example of what I would consider a good referene: Ashley Fetters (October 3, 2012). "Time Travel in 'Looper': Dubious, but Not for the Reason You Might Think". The Atlantic. Retrieved November 24, 2015.
  • Focuses on a single work
  • Cites its sources
  • Uses well-cited sources (Hawking)
So this article is much more reliable than a list of 10 movies, each covered with a short blurb and no analysis. By the way the article concludes that there's no causal loop, and certainly there's no time loop (a character re-experiencing the same span of time repeatedly).
And a bit off-topic but Looper's version of time-travel is the worst. Say Old Joe climbs over a fence, and then Young Joe cuts off his own legs. Suddenly Old Joe's legs disappear. But he climbed over a fence a second ago... ("He still had his legs then", you'd say. Well why doesn't he have them now? And if he doesn't have them now, why did he still have them a second ago?) You can't have it both ways, either you have causal loops or multiple timelines, but you can't have both. BrightRoundCircle (talk) 15:27, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Started a discussion on the reliable sources noticeboard.
I'd like to give an even simpler example of why grandfather paradoxes aren't loops: a billiard ball travels towards a time machine. Before it enters, an identical (though slightly older by a few seconds) billiard ball comes out of the time machine and knocks the younger ball away, so it never enters the machine. Where did the older ball come from? Will it disappear now that the younger ball never entered the machine? Regardless, no loop has occurred here, but a grandfather paradox or, at best, this isn't time travel but multiverse travel. I will expand on this example with citations if necessary. BrightRoundCircle (talk) 18:12, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Third Opinion

A third opinion has been requested. I don't see any specific discussion here between two editors, but I do see discussion by multiple editors. I will be removing the third opinion request as already involving more than two editors. I see that the list of films has been cut down only to those involving time loops and not other time travel, and that the Articles for Deletion was closed as Keep. If there are any more content disputes, try moderated dispute resolution at the dispute resolution noticeboard or a Request for Comments. Robert McClenon (talk) 12:42, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

There was a link to the talk page where the discussion is occurring. Discussion on this page and the AfD page brought editors NinjaRobotPirate, Eric, Maesm, and Fixuture. They comment that at the very least there is a discrepancy in the use of "time loop" in these citations. The point I am making is that by expanding time loop to include causal loop (for example 12 Monkeys), grandfather paradox (for example Looper), and alternate timelines or universes (for example Run Lola Run), you are including all time travel films and even some films that aren't really about time travel. For this reason I cut down the list to films that actually feature time loops, as the lead section states. BrightRoundCircle (talk) 14:08, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
Robert McClenon there is a request for third party input. I feel BrightRoundCircle version is currently overkill and this version is more comprehensive. BRC has removed cited sources. Other editors do not agree with the current version. Also three defining film which are time loops is 12 Monkeys, Looper, and Primer, all were sourced and have been removed. I believe the editor BRC is in favor of removal over sourcing in other words he would choose to remove an entry over sourcing it. This is not conducive to building an encyclopedia. Valoem talk contrib 22:45, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
I removed the third opinion request because it is a dispute between more than two editors, even though two are particularly outspoken. If there are any more content disputes, try moderated dispute resolution at the dispute resolution noticeboard or a Request for Comments. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:21, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Inclusion criteria attempt 6

Either

or

or

  • "time loop" means something else or any combination of the above and other meanings.

A consensus has to be reached, because the current merge-revert-cleanup-revert-etc cycle can't continue. I am in favor of the differentiated meaning. If the consensus is for the inclusive meaning, I suggest merging into §Time travel in films. BrightRoundCircle (talk) 14:29, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Inclusion should be based on verifiability. I don't really care what definition a source uses. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:09, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
In that case the article should be merged with §Time travel in films, because the loose meaning of "time loop" makes it indistinguishable from "time travel [to the past]". BrightRoundCircle (talk) 23:27, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Feature films only?

As an example, shouldn't Endless Eight make it into the list? Looks like a perfect time loop, eight episodes-wise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2620:0:1047:0:91F2:DC50:5F05:937F (talk) 12:14, 19 December 2016 (UTC)


What is a time loop and how to decide if a film is a time loop film

There have been six (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6) previous discussions about the way films should be added to this list. While there is no consensus on the criteria or meaning of "time loop", there is at least consensus that entries have to be sourced, and the source has to discuss the film as a time-loop film (no self-sourcing examples). So far so good. Further opinion on inclusion criteria diverges, because sources use several meanings for "time loop":

  1. Time loop is a plot device where a character re-experiences the same period of time in the fashion of the experiences of Phil from Groundhog Day
  2. Time loop is the phenomenon of a causal loop in the fashion of the unchangeable past of 12 Monkeys
  3. Time loop is used colloquially to describe any time-travel-to-the-past resulting in a causal loop, grandfather paradox, both, neither, alternate timelines, alternate universes, and other meanings, in the fashion of Back to the Future, Looper, and pretty much any movie that involves time travel to the past.
  • Criteria based on 3 is the easiest to support because if the source says "time loop" the film belongs on the list. However, that would make the list as inclusive as list of tme travel films and eventually duplicate it almost entirely.
  • Criteria based on 2 would make an interesting list but it would be more aptly called "list of films featuring causal loops".
  • Criteria based on 1 is, to my mind, the most sensible to have, considering the title of the article, and that this article shouldn't simply be a duplicate of list of tme travel films.

Please discuss so a consensus can be formed. BrightRoundCircle (talk) 07:34, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Reliable sources determine it, not original research. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:24, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
That's already been agreed! The question is which reliable sources. There are hundreds of articles out there that call every time-travel-to-the-past movie a time-loop movie. For example, Tom Shoneis, professor of film history, wrote for The Economist that the film 12 Monkeys has a time loop, but his use of time loop is not "a character re-experiencing the same period of time", it's a character doomed to witness events unfold without being able to change them—a causal loop. This means he's using meaning (2) outlined above.
If (1) and (2) were the only two meanings, no problem! We'd split the list in two, one for "Groundhog Day loops" and one for "12 Monkeys loops"!
But it gets worse! Some sources use "time loop" to mean any form of time travel to the past! Den of Geek uses "time loop" to describe 12 Monkeys, the 12 Monkeys TV series, and 11.22.63. Each of these presents a different version of time travel to the past. In 12 Monkeys (film) time travel operates through causal loops. In 12 Monkeys (TV series) time travel operates through grandfather paradoxes. In 11.22.63 "time travel" is actually travelling to the past of an alternate universe. These are three different versions of time travel to the past, all called "time loop" in the publication Den of Geek.
Which means, if we accept any usage of time loop (time loop, causal loop, grandfather paradox, alternate universe, others), then this "list of films featuring time loops" will just be list of time travel films.
I hope this explains the issue better. Using (3) is a lot simpler, but contradictory. There are hundreds of sources out there which contradict each other. BrightRoundCircle (talk) 07:40, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
Well, verifiability doesn't guarantee inclusion, but I don't like the idea of using original research to hash out some kind of approved definition for the term. That's a job for the editorial board of the reliable source. If there's some issue of undue weight on fringe definitions, then, yeah, maybe I'd object. But the definition would be based on the preponderance of high quality sources, not my own feelings on the issue. If Variety, Entertainment Weekly, and Total Film all say that Somewhere in Time is a time loop film, then it's a time loop film. Doesn't matter what I think. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:24, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
I completely get what you're saying, but... look at all these reliable sources that say Looper is a time-loop film! Looper describes neither a time loop nor a causal loop but a grandfather paradox. The prose article of this list allows us to set a high bar through WP:BESTSOURCES, relying on scholarly sources and rejecting newspapers and magazines that contradict them. The list article however... there's no way there will ever be academic and scholarly sources that deal with every single time travel film. There's got to be a way to filter out these "reliable sources". BrightRoundCircle (talk) 20:35, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
Perhaps one way to work around this would be to require that entries on this list have multiple sources? DonIago (talk) 20:53, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
That won't fly because WP:ONUS requires consensus which means a discussion about every single entry in the list, and the discussion will pretty much hinge on WP:SYNTH and WP:OR anyway. BrightRoundCircle (talk) 21:18, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

This discussion raised an interesting question about WP:SYNTH that I raised on WT:RS if anyone's interested. I didn't realize how problematic limiting this list's inclusion criteria is going to be. BrightRoundCircle (talk) 21:22, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

  • From a nerd standpoint, we can recognize the difference between straight-up time travel that is neither causal/time/grandfather, and the subtle differences between these. But the "layperson" (your more average movie-goer) is simply going to recognize that "hey, this film involves looping through time", and group those all together. (That is, if a movie review from a site like Entertainment Weekly uses "time loop" and gives no other context, Because of that confusion, I don't think we should be limiting films that are called by RSes as time loops from being on this list, but instead add a final column or add to the description of the film the type of loop, and maybe be specific that what "time loop" is being used for now on this page should be called "temporal loop" to distinguish from the diluted "time loop" term. (I just had to relook at the causal loop/grandfather paradox pages, and that difference is really subtle - they are different, but requires a lot of hard thinking to see the difference, and then to understand how that is all different from the time loop one, which is why in "layperson" speak, they are often interchangable)
  • If that extra column is added, I then don't think its original research to properly identify the loop type, though if that can be backed up by a source, obviously yes that should be added. That gives the distinction that is clearly desired in the convo above, but avoids being critical of sources that use the terminology wrong. And of course, if a work completely mis-classifies something (eg like calling The Time Machine as a time loop) we can safely ignore it. --MASEM (t) 21:40, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
This seems to be the most widely-accepted middle-ground from the previous discussions, but it really just makes this list a list of all time travel films, because for any given time travel film you could find a reliable source that calls it a time loop film. Speaking of The Time Machine being classified as a time loop story...
The book is filled with word-salad (how it got published by a respectable publisher I don't know), but it's a reliable source... a scholarly source no less, written by extremely respected experts on the topic of science fiction, and still you get nonsense like the above. If anyone uses this source to call The Time Machine a time loop story, you're going to have a really hard time rebutting them. BrightRoundCircle (talk) 22:49, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
Re: temporal loop, that is definitely not WP:COMMONNAME. Nearly all of the sources call it a time loop. This discussion is somewhat related. The only reason "temporal loop" is even mentioned is because of its prominence in Star Trek sources. BrightRoundCircle (talk) 09:16, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Regarding the second question (how to tell if it's a time-loop film), the way to 'thread the needle' between original research and indiscriminate inclusion is to insist on sourcing from a reliable specialist source. For example, if a film has an entry in the SF-Encyclopedia, it's classification can be taken as an informed one. Ditto for the academic-oriented Science Fiction Studies. I'd also be inclined to accept classification via film reviews in specialist publications like Locus or Science Fiction Age. The SF Project doesn't seem to have done a good job of listing reliable SF sources, but one could be started here as a sub-page to this Talk page. There would still be questions to address (such as which sources are acceptable for this purpose and what to do if those sources disagree about a particular film), but these questions can be resolved via the normal consensus procedure. As for the first question (what exactly is a "time loop" film), I see no original research in striving for a consensus definition. Instead, I simply see a bunch of editors looking to define the scope of the article. I suppose we'll need to have a good ol' debate on the question of definition, but I'll leave that one for later. NewYorkActuary (talk) 01:59, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
Strongly support requiring specialist sources. Could you link to the appropriate Wikipedia policy? BrightRoundCircle (talk) 08:47, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
I suspect that if such a policy existed, you would already know about it. But what I am proposing here is conceptually no different than what is routinely done in plenty of other Project areas. Many WikiProjects set forth their standards for notability, some of them invoking admittedly arbitrary numerical tests. These Projects are telling prospective article creators that they are free to propose articles on any subject they choose, but it will be difficult to establish notability if that subject doesn't meet the Project's notability standards. Some Projects take this same approach to defining reliable sources (off-hand, I think one of the Music sub-projects does this, as might the one on Academic Journals). And that's all I'm really proposing here -- that we begin the process of establishing some notion of what specialist sources are reliable for the purpose of classifying films, and then agree to start applying those standards to articles within the scope of the SF Project. I don't see the need to go looking for a policy that provides specific sanction for what is routinely done by other Projects. NewYorkActuary (talk) 16:54, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
I guess technically we can make exceptions to policies if there's consensus. So I guess I support either making an exception for WP:SYNTH for this article or requiring scholarly sources. BrightRoundCircle (talk) 20:30, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
Well, one thing to remember is that you can't override site-wide policy with local consensus. WikiProject World's Oldest People insisted on using only sources authorized by them and overriding several policies in articles under their scope, and that resulted in an Arbcom case that got several members topic banned. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:55, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
I think the difference here is that editors here want to engage WP:IAR as to ween out bad sourcing that is otherwise coming from reliable sources that would otherwise normally be used in other areas of WP to source articles on sci fi and/or films, rather that force the introduction on bad sources as the Longevity situation. IAR to determine what are the right sources here is reasonably in line --MASEM (t) 23:11, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

It seems that we're all pretty much in agreement on how to proceed, but uncertain as to how to justify it. In my view, we're overthinking it. The guideline on reliable sources permits -- indeed, requires -- us to exercise common sense and good judgment when evaluating the appropriateness of a source. And context is an important element of that evaluation. Let's be specific -- is TV Guide a reliable source? For matters related to the television business, maybe. But for making subtle judgments as to classifying a work of science fiction, absolutely not! There are plenty of authoritative sources that have compiled lists of prominent SF publications and I daresay that not a single one has ever placed TV Guide on their lists. Similarly, I would be astounded if any scholarly work on SF ever cited TV Guide for its opinions on works of science fiction. It simply is not an authoritative source for the purpose at hand. There is no "ignoring" of rules here -- quite the contrary, we are upholding the spirit of WP:RS when we exercise good editorial judgment regarding sources. NewYorkActuary (talk) 00:42, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

I would actually prefer an exception to synth because that would not require producing a scholarly source for every single entry.
  • Synth exception will fill the talk page with discussions about every single entry, but it could be justified with the three top sources on time loop.
  • RS exception will fill the talk page with discussion of "is this a reliable source for categorizing sci-fi films"
I don't think I (or anyone) will be able to justify picking one reliable source over the other, in case they're both scholarly or they're both magazines/newspapers. For example I can't think of a reason to rule out Worlds Enough and Time, even though it's filled with nonsense. It's written by two highly-respected authorities on sci-fi. BrightRoundCircle (talk) 06:18, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
I'm responding to the request for peer review.
  • In my opinion, a time loop could either causal or non-causal (Predestination and Groundhog Day being examples of each, respectively). There are sources supporting both definitions of the term time loop (though I cannot find too many reliable sources at this time). Either this article needs to have two separate sections for these categories, or there needs to be a List of films featuring causal loops article. There are examples that seem to be a logically inconsistent blend of the two (like Back to the Future), but I'm not sure if they should be included in the list.
  • As for how to correctly cite the inclusions, I don't think it is possible to simply rely on a source using the term time loop, seeing as there are multiple definitions of the term. I think the definition used for inclusion in a particular section or article must be cited, and the inclusions must be cited based on that definition, not on the used of the term time loop. I believe that this could fall outside of the pervue of WP:SYNTH, since we are simply discussing definitions, not more advanced logical deduction. I'm sure other articles on Wikipedia must cite references which do not specifically mention the relevant keyword(s).
Hpesoj00 (talk) 13:23, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
I believe there is consensus to split the list into "causal loop" and "Groundhog Day" ("time loop") sections, and maybe even consensus that ruling out inconsistent films (like Back to the Future) is on the good side of WP:SYNTH. If there's no further discussion I'm going to assume consensus and implement the changes. BrightRoundCircle (talk) 10:36, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
Huh? This RfC wasn't called to discuss a split between the types of loops and few of us were commenting on it. But such splitting might be helpful to the general reader, so you'll get no objection from me. Indeed, I would take it even further, by having separate sections for the "Yuletide loops" and the "second chance" films (e.g., Turn Back the Clock). Regarding the consensus for SYNTH, you most certainly do not have that. I've been remiss in not responding to your post of July 9 -- I'll do so later today. NewYorkActuary (talk) 13:40, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
There are no references in the article that use the terms "Yuletide loop" or "second chance". BrightRoundCircle (talk) 14:17, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Name of article

Can we at least rename this to List of time travel science fiction, with which it was boldly merged ? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 11:01, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

This list is a subset of that list. First, it only includes films. Second, see discussion above. BrightRoundCircle (talk) 11:16, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Run, Lola Run

That movie isn't a time travel film. No one outside of Wikipedia with two brain cells to rub together thinks so. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 02:17, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

The information was referenced to Kyle Smith of the New York Post, and multiple other sources agree, for example this scholarly source. The information was referenced, and probably should not have been removed with the reason "no one thinks so". BrightRoundCircle (talk) 09:41, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
Except there is no apparent time loop in the film's narrative, it only adopts a structure that uses the same approach that some time loop films/works take to show the same events but with slightly different results (eg Groundhog Day and Edge of Tomorrow); there's nothing in the film that indicates Lola is experiencing a time loop or any type of time travel at all, but simply a storytelling structure of showing three different ways events could have played out. This might be yet another terminology issue , similar to past issues between what a time loop can be defined as, here where there appears to be a thing called a "time loop" narrative device that has nothing to do with time travel but instead to show a replay of mostly the same events with small changes. --MASEM (t) 13:44, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
The sources say that there is an apparent puzzle-solving or learning process. This appears to match the meaning of time loop exactly. And since the physical idea of time loops (of the puzzle-solving kind) is logically contradictory, they can refer only to the narrative device. BrightRoundCircle (talk) 06:43, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
What makes this movie a time loop, but not Sliding Doors, which also has a story that shows different results based on some detail that is different in the versions of what happens based on timing (but not a time loop device)? --Sbwinter2 (talk) 17:20, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
Also, what about movies like Me, Myself and I and The Family Man (which are more like Run Lola Run and Sliding Doors, but the device is part of the plot) where the device is a force alternative time line where the alternative does have an affect on the growth of the protagonist when they return to their primary time line? --Sbwinter2 (talk) 17:32, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
In the above discussion the issue was whether sources referring to the films as films with time loops should essentially be disregarded. Are there sources that refer to the movies you're discussing as such? DonIago (talk) 21:17, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Significance

Since this is a list-style article the entries don't need to be significant. Consensus above seems to be that they only need a citation (that's not a listicle) that discusses the entry as a film featuring a time loop. BrightRoundCircle (talk) 13:55, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

That seems reasonable to me. Not sure if this is in regards to my recent edit, and I'm not assuming it was...but if it was, in that case the source provided was Rotten Tomatoes, which I don't believe would qualify as an appropriate source for establishing list appropriateness. DonIago (talk) 14:19, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Someone added the Swedish film Naken to the list. Noticing this, I did a few searches and found that it's probably notable, so I created a Wikipedia article on it. It was difficult to source, though, since I don't speak or read Swedish – I had to rely on Google Translate. However, I did find that Netflix is remaking the film, as reported by Deadline.com. This English-language source doesn't use the magic phrase "time loop", but it does say the day repeats itself and compares the film to Groundhog Day. I was curious what people thought about re-adding Naken to the list based on this source. Maybe we could find someone who speaks enough Swedish that they could find a better source, but I'm not sure where to such a person. WikiProject Sweden seems kind of dead. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:19, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

I'd be okay with it. I honestly don't tend to look at sources too closely most of the time; it's when they're not provided at all, or when they don't seem to hit the mark at face value (Amazon/Rotten Tomatoes/IMDb/etc.) that I take notice. DonIago (talk) 19:09, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Primer and the like

If Primer is included, which involves a conscious choice to go back in time and change something, then why not The Butterfly Effect and other movies like that?

Recursion

You gotta love wiki. This page has driven me crazy for years (before it was a list of films, it was a list of all media including books, music videos, it was great), as the list builds up and becomes really comprehensive and wonderful, even when it has many works that don't fit and haven't yet been removed. Then once in a while someone comes along and erases the whole thing and it starts over again.

So, the history of this page itself is a (hopefully non-causal) looping sort of story, without the literal time travel (yet). Fnord. --John_Abbe (talk) 12:57, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Another

Miss Peregrine's Home for Peculiar Children needs including. 92.10.211.71 (talk) 13:09, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

So add it? Just be sure you include a reliable source when you do. DonIago (talk) 13:26, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: http://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/primer-2004. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.)

For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, providing it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. NewYorkActuary (talk) 14:03, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on List of films featuring time loops. 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) 09:30, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Triangle

I have seen this movie at least 3 times now and trust me this is a timeloop movie,

Same characters get killed over and over The start of the movie is repeated at the end of the film The Premise of the film is that the main Character is stuck in a Loop which she cannot escape. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.173.16.185 (talk) 11:30, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Has a reliable source discussed the film in such a context? DonIago (talk) 21:22, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
The attached source and indeed the target article itself - Triangle (2009 British film) - supports that this is a time-loop film.

Having "several loops that don't get broken" doesn't exclude it from the article, so I've removed the tag. Chaheel Riens (talk) 11:00, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Dead of Night

Why is "Dead of Night" (1945) not included in the list of time loop movies? At the end of the movie the Architect Walter Craig (Mervyn Johns) is repeating exactly his actions from the beginning of the film. There is nothing to indicate he is having a nightmare premonition, (ESP warning), of his fate and he will undoubtedly go through the same actions over and over again. Dead of Night is probably one of the first time loop films and should be added to the list. Here is a reference link http://fictionadvocate.com/2018/01/17/movie-drinking-game-2-the-groundhog-effect/ 72.224.123.170 (talk) 03:17, 18 March 2018 (UTC) Bennett Turk 72.224.123.170 (talk) 03:17, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

You might be right about the film, but you are citing us to a blog. Is it authoritative in the field of science fiction? Is the author of that post an authoritative writer in that field? NewYorkActuary (talk) 13:52, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
Here is a link to a very long list of time travel movies from 1896 to 2018. It includes explanations such as nightmares, fantasy, timelines, and magic. It does include Dead of Night as a time loop film.

http://krabat.menneske.dk/kkblog/all-time-travel-movies The people who made the list certainly knew what the subject matter they are writing about.72.224.123.170 (talk) 23:37, 24 March 2018 (UTC) Bennett Turk

But that's just another blog. Is there any reason to believe that the blogger is authoritative in the field? NewYorkActuary (talk) 00:06, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
The list includes almost Every time travel movie made since 1896. There are hundreds of films listed. Dead of Night was good enough to be included in their list and it's obvious they recognize a time loop film when they see one. 72.224.123.170 (talk) 18:54, 25 March 2018 (UTC)Bennett Turk
Just because someone compiles a list of films that belong to a certain genre doesn't make them an authority (much less a recognized one) on the subject. Anyone can publish a blog. DonIago (talk) 04:08, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
Here's a third list of time loop movies that includes Dead of Night: https://filmschoolrejects.com/movies-to-watch-happy-death-day/ 204.80.61.100 (talk) 20:12, 29 March 2018 (UTC) Bennett Turk


Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_films_featuring_time_loops/Archive_1&oldid=1136939839"