Talk:The Three-Body Problem (novel)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 4 October 2021 and 9 December 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Gdaymate011.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 04:15, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Divided
I mean, this article should be divided into 3 article, as the triology. --WWbread （Open Your Mouth?） 06:26, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Publication Info
Is this available in English? Leekohlbradley (talk) 12:18, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Seems to be published by Tor Books. --14.203.78.186 (talk) 20:52, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Errata
"The series is finished in November, 2011", should be "2010". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.100.139.119 (talk) 17:22, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Clarification needed
The article intro needs to be clearer - is this a novel trilogy? Also, if it is, should be added to the categories and NovelsWikiProject|sf-task-force=yes (enclosed in  brackets) to this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robina Fox (talk • contribs) 13:26, 2011 September 9 (UTC)


 * It's the first novel of a trilogy called Earth's past Trilogy(unofficial in English).'BeBoy' ♥Have something to say?Honey  01:00, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
 * In general,it can refer to the whole "trilogy" too.'BeBoy' ♥Have something to say?Honey  02:02, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

After the last book in the trilogy has been published, it has been officially renamed the Three-Body Trilogy, not just referred as such by Chinese readers. Link:  (in Chinese) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.186.173.193 (talk) 08:08, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

The book itself does not directly mention Mao Zedong, but only mentions "Political Bureau"
In the previous version, the synposis stated that "Red Coast" is "under direct mandate from Chairman Mao Zedong". But Mao Zedong is not mentioned at all in the book itself. The book only directly mentioned the term "Political Bureau". This mentioning may vaguely implies the involvement of Mao Zedong; but as a recounting of a imaginary fiction, it would be better to stick to the original text, in my opinion. Greeneese (talk) 08:52, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Character list?
Could we get a list of characters in the first novel? I'm reading the English translation as an audiobook, and I'm having a hard time keeping track of the names of people. --zandperl (talk) 19:29, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Clarification on Trilogy
This page's "novels" section includes the other two novels in the trilogy, but this can be confusing, as this novel's name is also the commonly known name for the whole series/trilogy, therefore confusing readers into thinking that this is the page for the whole series/trilogy. Should there be a separate page created just for the series/trilogy, or should this page turn into the page for the series, with an extended section on the first novel? --Zamaster4536 (talk) 15:13, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Good point; I've cleaned things up a bit. This article is clearly currently about the first book, as the lead covers only the first book, the infobox covers the first book, and the plot section accurately summarizes the first book. I left the section about the trilogy because right now there's no other place for it, but made it clear that the book that this article is about is the first part of the trilogy. I also removed some duplicate material from that section and moved some publication details specifically about the first novel into the lead. Now that The Dark Forest is published in English it will probably get its own page soon. BTW, I don't know if the name of the trilogy has been definitively established in English. Does anyone know for sure? Regards, Orange Suede Sofa  (talk) 20:08, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I saw your changes, and definitely believe that these changes will clear things up a lot. Regarding the name for the trilogy, so far I do not believe it has an official name. The trilogy is most commonly referred to as the Three-Body Trilogy in China. On Amazon, it is also currently advertised, in the US, as the Three-Body trilogy, seen from the description on Amazon. It is definitely not the official name, but if you are not using it for the title of a new page, Three-Body trilogy should be sufficient for temporary use in order to make things clearer. Technically, the official name for the trilogy is 地球往事, translating roughly into Earth's Past. Zamaster4536 (talk) 06:42, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Wrong Bit of the Plotline
Ye didn't talk to her mother and the Red Guards before she sent the reply to the Trisolarans.She taiked to them AFTER she did.May I change it?--T23333 (talk) 10:57, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
 * You may be bold and change it. Regards, Orange Suede Sofa  (talk) 21:16, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

The first section of the Plot section isn't about plot at all, but is a summary of everything you know about the Trisolarians by the end of the book. It seems better to make the plot section describe things in the order the reader learns them, and have a separate section for a synthesis of the details of the Trisolarian system. Ashmoo (talk) 11:17, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

The presentation of the Trisolarians, in fact their very existence and name, are intensely (pardon me for the usage) spoileriffic; for this reader, at least, much of the attraction of the book is the mysterious nature of the immersive game Three Body, and knowing what it's about in advance would not have been a favour. Gerald Fnord (talk) 14:19, 1 May 2016 (UTC)


 * We don't avoid spoilers, see WP:SPOILER.  Sandstein   14:51, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Terminology
209.18.52.52 is attempting to dispute the use of terminology under Plot because it does not exactly match Kenneth Liu's translation of the novel into English. Can he, or anyone else, cite a policy of Wikipedia which states that, with regard to articles concerning non-English novels, if an English translation exists, that the article must use the exact same terminology as that of the English translation? Is this article meant to cover the novel itself (which is in Chinese) or is it obliged to closely conform to the English translation? Until you can get the opinion of a qualified person, do not press your case further. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 106.121.61.205 (talk) 11:01, 2017 September 28 (UTC)


 * Trisolaran et al. are the terms used in the English translation. Use of other terms like 'Trisoma' without explanation are extremely confusing to readers. Mindstalk (talk) 01:52, 1 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Sorry. I need to agree with the guy above (the IP guy, not Mindstalk, sorry). Discrepant English terminology for non-English works happens everywhere. It is common with classic novels such as Crime and Punishment and Sienckiewicz's Quo Vadis, and animes where more than one official translation exists, such as Detective Conan and Digimon. It is not our idealistic duty to prevent it. Does Kenneth Liu take liberties with his translation? Yes. In fact, underscoring the fact that his translations are quirky is that Mindstalk used the term "Trisolarians" but Kenneth Liu actually says "Trisolarans". Should this Wikipedia article focus on directly describing the original edition by Liu Cixin. Yes, that is its foremost responsibility. The IP guy can be helpful by adding parentheses with the original Chinese phrases next to Trisoma and other names. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 106.121.70.198 (talk) 09:09, 2 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Agree with 106.121.70.198. My reasons are:

1. There is no rule barring the use of non-English sources from English Wikipedia. 2. There is no rule that English sources must be preferred over non-English sources. 3. Both the Chinese novel and the English translation are considered sources. 4. Since the article is about the Chinese novel, it should take precedence. 111.198.20.176 (talk) 19:01, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Mindstalk and oppose "Trisoma" over "Trisolaris". I've read reviews of the book from multiple sources, and all use Trisolaris. I'm not at all sure why a few IP contributors support Trisoma and would like to see the various IP editors provide a reference to at least one reliable secondary source that uses that term. power~enwiki ( π, ν ) 00:07, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Article Title Change
Since "the three body problem" is a classic problem in physics (and is the physics problem for which the book is named), I suggest that the title of this article should be changed to The Three-Body Problem (novel). Skepticalgiraffe (talk) 17:21, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 29 September 2017

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: moved  Dr Strauss   talk   13:41, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

The Three-Body Problem → The Three-Body Problem (novel) – Current name, "The Three-Body Problem" is the name of a classic problem in physics. The move would make it clear that this page refers to the novel, not the physics problem. This naming is consistent with naming of other pages. Skepticalgiraffe (talk) 18:29, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Support the three body problem is often capitalized in sources, not having (novel) here is user-unfriendly, and in any case when The Three-Body Problem (film) comes out we're going to have to add (novel) anyway. In ictu oculi (talk) 20:12, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Weak Support more because of the existence of the upcoming film than for confusion with the math/physics problem. power~enwiki ( π, ν ) 18:25, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Support; the problem in physics is likely the primary topic by historical importance. bd2412  T 03:16, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose Per WP:DIFFCAPS, the capitalization and definite article is enough. Smurrayinchester 11:46, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Support. Very much improves reader experience by making all the articles easier to find for those searching for them. Andrewa (talk) 22:58, 8 October 2017 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

"4-Body Problem"
Yes, one can reasonably conjecture that here are 4-body problems whose solutions can't be found just by tackling each of the four 3-body problems that result from ignoring one body at a time. Still, no: the 4 bodies comprised by 3 stars and a planet would not make "4-Body Problem" a better title for this trilogy. Stars are very massive, and require special (possibly subject-to-chaotically-sensitive patterns) methods, to the degree that all three are of comparable mass. Planets are much less massive, and to the degree that a 3-star system's behavior is known, the behavior of the 4-body system where the planet is present will be well described by the approximation that "the stars' orbits are insignificantly disturbed by the addition of the planet to the system, and the planet's motion will be given by the slowly changing superposition of their respective inverse-square fields". But the notion that every 4-body system is far from soluble by methods suitable to 3-body systems is IMO just plain nonsense. By the way, the novel's text posits the fracture of the planet by what amount to tidal effects -- see the novel Roche World et seq. by IIRC Robert Forward -- but again, even that would be a big step short of guaranteeing need ing for more-than-3-body solution methods. --Jerzy•t 03:57 & 4:04, 31 January 2018 (UTC) & 18:54, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Sorry, make that Robert Forward's Rocheworld series. --Jerzy•t 04:31 et. al. times 31  January 2018 (UTC) &18:54, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Insane-Clown grammar et al.

 * 1) Sung/sang is one of many crazy bits of non-wisdom our Proto-Indo-European ancestors saddled English with, and i honor the brave colleague who didn't quite get the distinction right!
 * 2) The same edit by me also addressed a different (& probably more interesting) matter that now escapes my aging brain; i hope to track it down and clarify, or apologize for, my response as editor to it, and add something here that at the time seemed worthy (for the sake of clarity, or of amusement) of mention here. "Watch this space", if u care to. --Jerzy•t 21:54, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Hard SF?
It's not hard science fiction. But I know there is a powerful Hard SF cult here on Wikipedia so I will not waste my time. Thanks for understanding. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.208.12.136 (talk) 03:30, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree. If you compare it to stories by, say, Isaac Asimov and Arthur C. Clarke you will see the difference. They were making serious predictions about the future based on actual scientific knowledge.  Don't get me wrong, 3-Body is great but it's way more fiction than science.  Much closer to Cordwainer Smith and Orsen Scott Card than to actual hard science fiction.  My opinion of course.  I would vote for not making this judgment in the article at all, certainly not in the first sentence.PopSci (talk) 12:44, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I also don't feel like doing battle with WP's HSF cult. :-) PopSci (talk) 12:46, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I think there is a bit of a difference between what hard science fiction means in China, and what it means in the West (in China it is more inclusive and doesn't need to be as accurate). But surprisingly many sources call the TBP "hard science fiction" in the West (so we probably have to do so as well), even though there are some major sins in the book from a logic/accuracy point of view. I really enjoyed the entire trilogy, but nearly put the book down in disgust at the point where humans and Trisolarans make first contact by radio and immediately speak the same language. Something like that does not happen in hard science fiction. —Kusma (t·c) 06:30, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
 * The Three-Body Problem series is definitely based on current scientific knowledge. If you read scientific papers, you would find out that Liu's series is quite like a summary that takes all of it that is expected to come within the next decades and centuries and much of it has a solid scientific base. --Christian140 (talk) 17:22, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

I've never tangled with this "HSF cult" before, so I'll WP:BOLD once. :) Sending a proton to space and unfolding it into two dimensions so you can etch a superintelligent supercomputer into it, and then sending the refolded superintelligent proton to Earth so it can prank particle accelerators (which I guess the aliens are familiar with, somehow?) for the next 500 years, does not count as "hard SF" in my book. I'd call it practically "magical realism" or "allegory," although I admit that most of the really crazy stuff (dehydrating human bodies and rolling them up for storage?) takes place inside an in-universe computer game, which shouldn't be disqualifying. Anyway, imma remove the word "hard" from two places, pending some citation needed goodness. --Quuxplusone (talk) 17:50, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Update to add: in book two, The Dark Forest, at least one of the human Wallfacers purports to believe in the literal truth of the "dehydrating Trisolaran bodies and rolling them up for storage" business, to the extent that he attempts to develop asteroid-mining tech in order to supply the Trisolarans with water for their "rehydration." So the (in-universe) meme of "dehydrated bodies" is in fact not confined to the computer game. --Quuxplusone (talk) 23:29, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Move the fan-made music to the ROEP page
Since the fan music is for the whole trilogy, wouldn't it make more sense for it to be in the Rememberace of Earth's Past page? - 181.231.145.38 (talk) 05:21, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Red Coast versus Red Shore
In the official translation of The Three Body Problem by Kenneth Liu, the name of Ye Wenjie's project 红岸 is translated as Red Coast. However, in the official translation of the second novel of the series, The Dark Forest by Joel Martinsen, it is translated as Red Shore. Just wanted to let you know.

--223.38.24.253 (talk) 02:30, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Series
The movie is dead but a series has been announced: http://chinafilminsider.com/headlines-from-china-liu-cixins-science-fiction-novel-the-three-body-problem-will-be-adapted-into-a-live-action-tv-series/ --Christian140 (talk) 17:23, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Move "Inspiration" section to author's page
Shouldn't the entire section titled "Inspiration" be migrated to Liu Cixin's page? It is background about how he was inspired to start writing science fiction. It's not background about the inspiration for this particular book. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mj1856 (talk • contribs) 17:46, 7 March 2022 (UTC)


 * I tend to agree. It is really off topic for this article and belongs in his bio instead. - Ahunt (talk) 18:03, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Add Radio Drama to List of Adaptations
There exists a Chinese Radio Drama of Three Body Problem. It's different from an audiobook in that it's purely dialogue, with sound effects and music. I'm getting most of my information from http://www.china.org.cn/arts/2022-01/21/content_78002874.htm so I would cite this if we included this radio drama to the Wikipedia page. The radio drama itself lives on https://www.ximalaya.com/album/30816438. 206.87.131.179 (talk) 01:34, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

Intro should not be a spoiler
I mean - "The series portrays a future where, in the first book, Earth is awaiting an invasion from the closest star system, which, in this universe, consists of three solar-type stars orbiting each other in an unstable three-body system. Within the system, its single Earth-like planet is being unhappily passed among them and suffers from extremes of heat and cold, as well as the repeated destruction of its intelligent civilizations." has nothing to do in a wikipedia article, and particularly NOT in the intro. I'll remove the whole thing. MarmotteiNoZ 14:37, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Might I recommend you review Wikipedia's policy on spoilers at WP:SPOILER? I have reverted your edit given the advice there. Bondegezou (talk) 09:51, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
 * OK thanks did not know this rule. I still think that spoiling a good novel, so explicitly and so early in the article is really doing a disfavor to anyone who has not read the book yet :/
 * MarmotteiNoZ 04:01, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
 * There were many long arguments behind that rule! I have trimmed the intro text as it seemed unnecessarily detailed and to over-emphasise part of the book. I agree that the intro doesn't need to have a detailed summary. See what you think. Bondegezou (talk) 09:25, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Writing Workshop
— Assignment last updated by Chicagooo (talk) 18:32, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

What does this mean?

 * Liu tried to answer the existential dilemma of "where should mankind go from here" through various efforts.

What does that mean? It should be clearer. – AndyFielding (talk) 07:54, 10 January 2024 (UTC)


 * I would phrase it as something like Liu tried to answer an existential dilemma: the question of "where should mankind go from here?". But unless that's a direct quote, I wouldn't write that sentence in an encyclopedia article at all. Remsense  留  08:12, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Chinese Names
Having just read an excerpt, I guess my question is moot, but I'm curious, if characters are all addressed by their last names such as in the Wiki, how are they differentiated when they talk about two characters with the same surname?

On one hand, I feel like the Wiki should follow the original source material, the book, but on the other hand, I feel like the characters should be mentioned by their given names, not their surnames. BenMJuan (talk) 22:15, 7 March 2024 (UTC)


 * To answer your question about the book: as is common in Chinese, almost every direct mention (i.e. not a pronoun) of a character uses their full name.
 * To answer your question about Wikipedia: reflecting the book in this way is unnecessary, as this is an English-language article, and reading someone's full name each time is unnatural and distracting. The English translation is an English translation, so it works with names the way we expect, disambiguating when necessary, and it's not a problem. Formal writing like in an encyclopedia generally doesn't name people by their given names in English. The particular convention of one language is suited to it, and vice versa. If it's rare usually, it would never happen in a biography about Chinese people, try calling Mao simply "Zedong" a few times in your head, it simply doesn't sound correct.  Remsense  诉  22:27, 7 March 2024 (UTC)