Talk:Black holes in fiction/Archive 1

Creating this page
There must be an enormous number of reference. I added one early case, Zelazny. There are probably more and they might appear under the name 'Frozen Star'.

I'm sure I also recall an SF short story that features something we would now call a Black Hole, probably taken from the author's reading of science. An expedition find one and can't understand it at first. I think one man gets left behind.

I've no idea which work of fiction first use the term. Someone else will need to add that.

--GwydionM 17:54, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Black Holes in Games?
There should be a Black Holes in Games section of the article. --69.115.78.102 (talk) 11:04, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Star Control III, Master of Orion II come to mind. Anybody has examples where they have more game effect than just an obstruction?Vicky Molokh (talk) 05:16, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Music
Should there be section of this article devoted to music that refers to black holes? I can think of only two right now, Cygnus X-1 by Rush, and Supermassive Black Holes by Muse but there must be others as well. Ferocioustick (talk) 22:34, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Inappropriate Golden Age material
All of the written fiction that is not considered "early", is under the "Golden Age" section.

The Golden Age is supposed to have ended after 1959 approximately. Surely material from the 80s and 90s does not qualify.

I am going to create a "Contemporary" section for very modern stuff, but can we do something for the period between 1960 and 2000? I may do it myself if nobody has any comment, but I am not one of the regular maintainers of this page, so am hesitant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tacticus (talk • contribs) 23:26, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

John Titor
Though presented as non-fiction, the story of the time traveler in 2001, John Titor, seems relevant here. On his forum posts, John explains that his "time machine" used microscopic black holes revolving around each other, into which electrons were injected to produce the field around the machine that allowed them to travel to our "time". 99.120.218.186 (talk) 20:11, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

"CD-shaped"?
The picture near the bottom uses the term "CD shaped" to illustrate something disk-shaped. Guh? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.15.151.163 (talk) 15:25, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 one external links on Black holes in fiction. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070125010137/http://library.thinkquest.org:80/C0110369/Scifi.htm to http://library.thinkquest.org/C0110369/Scifi.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061206115433/http://blackholes.stardate.org:80/basics/basic.php?id=1 to http://blackholes.stardate.org/basics/basic.php?id=1

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 19:15, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Off Topic
I suspect that the footnotes may be off-topic. They address the physical accuracy of the specific works tagged (or a collection of works, see 4) using unsourced OR. Any sourced details of common inaccuracies should be described in the text in a section titled “Physical accuracy”. LaundryPizza03 (talk) 14:08, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Michael Crichton's sphere
Although it was not a major part, talks about a spaceship passing through a Black Hole. Should it be included?Sammartinlai (talk) 09:16, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Excessive detail
Someone stuck the following label on this article:

"This article may contain an excessive amount of intricate detail that may only interest a specific audience. Please help relocate any relevant information, and remove excessive detail that may be against Wikipedia inclusion policy. (February 2013)"

I found this article fascinating and I urge the editors to remove this label. This is a great article and it completely provided the research I needed!

Danpetitpas (talk) 15:53, 30 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Seconded. The detail is appropriate to the purpose of the article.  In addition, its detail will only interest a specific audience, yes--anyone interested in the topic enough to find this article.  Is that not the case for any genre-specific article?  I find the label to be inappropriate, for what my opinion is worth.  Tacticus (talk) 21:12, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Agreed! Made the account just to be able to chip in, and hopefully we can make the wiki a better place. I believe the issue is of course they are using robots to identify problems in articles (a reasonable assumption that an algorithm is used). Naturally the topics of nonexistant, hypothetical, or unrealistic variations on actual physics is only going to interest people who A: Like Science Fiction that is related to outer space, and B: People looking for information about this topic in excessive detail.

The point is, if detail is removed from the article to comply with this lable, it would become worthless as it wouldn't answer most of the questions I had when I came here. And probably this is true for several others.

It is worth noting that most Science fiction articles have a label of some kind. (Except strangely star wars, even though it is also strictly "in-universe" as well. LunarAvenger (talk) 22:18, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Excessive detail
I think I have some idea to remove the excessive detail: Summarize the relevant material and remove the fluff. – Laundry Pizza 03  ( d c&#x0304; ) 01:24, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

What part do you consider to be fluff? Various examples of black holes in fiction seems to be relevant so I can't see how we can remove anything from the following sections: Literature, Film, Television, Games, Comics, or Music.

If anything more detail for each instance would be appreciated by me. LunarAvenger (talk) 22:25, 30 October 2019 (UTC)