Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Space folding


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Moot. This is now a disambiguation page and no longer an article. If this change does not stick, the article can be renominated for deletion.  Sandstein  17:25, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Space folding

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

I've prodded this recently created article (2020 vintage) with " This is basically a poorly referenced fork of Hyperspace which has recently been rewritten. I propose a WP:SOFTDELETE and redirecting this there. While I could be bold and redirect this myself, I dislike stealthy deletions by redirecting; hence the PROD. If the PROD reviewer agrees with me, please just redirect this as proposed. If not, we can discuss this at AfD.". It was deprodded by User:Artw with "Removed prod - is clearly not a fork of Hyperspace. Other grounds may remain but should probably be dealt with at AfD.". I'll also ping User:Mark McWire who has been editing the article. Speaking as the editor who recently wrote GA space travel in science fiction, cleaned up/rewrote hyperspace, and with Mark and User:Daranios also cleaned up Warp drive (not finished yet), I have to say repeat that "space folding" should be just a redirect, preferably to "hyperspace", where this topic is discussed (or maybe to "warp drive", where it is also mentioned). The current "space folding" article is just a WP:SYNTH list of random examples of works that used this term, the old WP:FANCRUFTY bad style that we are now slowly removing from articles, transforming such listicles into the encyclopedic style overviews, as seen in RS like the ones seen at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Science Fiction. In my review of the sources I've noticed that the concept of space folding is mentioned occasionally in passing, but only as an explanation of more popular concepts of hyperspace or warp drive. The concept is not indexed in the Historical Dictionary of Science Fiction nor does it even appear at all in the The Encyclopedia of Science Fiction, and other sources mention it in passing (if at all). Given the low quality of referencing currently in the article (ex. this Washington Post article that does not even mention the concept, and most other sources cited also fail this - probably because they were merged from semi-relevant articles like wormholes in fiction, based on edit history and talk page notices I see... although I don't understand why this was merged here at all) I think a redirect without merging is the most SOFTDELETish way of dealing with this I can imagine. PS. If it wasn't clear, the topic also fails WP:GNG. PPS. I should also mention that the topic of "space folding" seems to exist in sciences (math/physics/chemistry?), but the article here has no mention of this. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 10:26, 2 December 2021 (UTC) PPS. I double-checked other reference works: Visual Encyclopedia of Science Fiction - not in the index; Encyclopedia Of Science Fiction - not mentioned anywhere in the body; The Greenwood Encyclopedia of Science Fiction and Fantasy - ditto; The Mammoth Encyclopedia of Science Fiction - still nothing; Science Fact and Science Fiction: An Encyclopedia - guess what, nothing. The new Science Fiction Literature through History: An Encyclopedia seems to use the word fold when describing the concept of a warp drive, that's about the most relevant usage I could find.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 08:57, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here  10:26, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here  10:26, 2 December 2021 (UTC)


 * I would put the term together with wormholes in fiction, if we decide to delete the entire article. The existence of hyperspace is not necessary for space folding and there are examples, such as Event Horizon, where hyperspace does not exist in the story, but space folding as an fictional concept. In contrast, almost all fictitious wormholes work via space folding and real Wormholes descripted as connection in space via space-time folding. The example of Event Horizon should be adopted in any new location, as the principle of space folding is clearly explained and shown in the film. --Mark McWire (talk) 10:45, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Why wormholes and not warp drive? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 08:58, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Because in for example Star Trek, space folding is a separate concept. While warp drive is an everyday technology, at least in representation in the franchise, space folding is something very rare. A technology that is difficult to achieve and that is superior to warp drive. Physically, both are based on different approaches. If you were to mix the two articles, you would have to explain why space folding is part of the lemma "warp drive". And at the same time, all sources for the Star Trek franchise say that warp drive and space folding are two different things. It would be an internal contradiction. There are some intersections between warp drive, space folding, wormholes and hyperspace. But there remain four basic concepts that are based on different physical and hypothetical approaches. In the case of wormholes, there is at least the folding of space-time. We can argue that space folding is only a synonym for space-time folding. An abbreviated or simplified version of this term, so to speak. If anyone could prove this interpretation with a source, it would even be worth considering redirecting the lemma to the general theory of relativity. --Mark McWire (talk) 09:38, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Also, these sources link space folding to wormholes:, , , . Daranios (talk) 11:55, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
 * We could mention something in wormholes in fiction article, sure. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 10:11, 5 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep and expand or merge to wormholes in fiction and disambiguate. First, I agree with Mark McWire. The sources about A Wrinkle in Time and the space.com article link the concept to wormholes, as Stephen Hawking seems to have done, if this site is to be believed; the Grazier article also distinguishes space folding from hyperspace, so we should not merge there. The idea I have in my mind from Dune does not fit to Deep Space 9 style wormholes, so merging to wormholes in fiction is not a perfect fit; it's a shame that p. 205 of the Grazier article is not visible, that might change or reinforce the case for merge. So based on what I've seen of secondary sources this alone does not need a separate article, a merge would be fine for me. If more sources (again, what's there on p.205?) would be found, I am happy to change my opinion.
 * I also came upon the concept in science (and science-fiction) which the nominator already mentioned: Here, and more clearly here, p. 236, space folding refers to space curvature due to gravity, which if, as a sci-fi concept, artificially induced, could significantly shorten space travel times, but not make them instantaneous. So if we take that into account, we could keep this as a stand-alone article discussing both concepts and their differences (and possibly more from maths, etc.). Or make this a disambiguation page and adapt what we have into wormholes in fiction, and refer for the other part to, I guess, General relativity. Daranios (talk) 11:55, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
 * IF someone writes about the real-science concepts, arguably some small 'in fiction' section could exist. But right now we have only the 'in ficition' content, and badly written/referenced at that. WP:TNT case, I am afraid - but if someone is motivated to fix this, go ahead. However, in the current form, a redirect (I am fine with 'wormholes in ficiton' instead of 'hyperspace' as the target) is the best outcome for the read, who should not be served this messy, OR-ish and GNG-failing topic. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 08:47, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
 * If something is called a wrinkle in space or folded space, when the descriptions match, hardly seem original research to me. We have two books (and a very short mention in a magazine article) talking about the concept in A Wrinkle in Time. We have a book about the concept in Dune. That does not seem to fit WP:TNT to me. I've now seen that p. 203 of the Dune source directly links the scientific concept of space folding with the sci-fi concept of instantaneous travel via folded space. And AfD is not clean-up, so I think the fact that we could write a reasonable article fullfilling WP:GNG is enough to neither delete nor redirect without merging this article. Daranios (talk) 11:55, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
 * As far descriptions matching, thi is an argument for redirecting this to warp drive, which is all about warping/folding space. And considering the current article has not a byte about real science that may be related to this, yes, TNT very much applies. There is nothing valuable or salvageable in the our poorly referenced plot summary that is nothing but a poor listicle of 'this term is used in works A, B and C'. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 17:31, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
 * But the sources still link our kind of space folding here to wormholes, not warp drive. And we do cover fictional concepts, as well as fictional treatments of real concepts, with "Are there secondary sources about it?" being our main criterion. So I don't see what we have as worthless.
 * Otherwise this topic is getting more and more interesting every time I look: I actually think Science Fiction Literature through History: An Encyclopedia gets it wrong when comparing our "fold space like a paper" to Star Trek's warp drive/the Alcubierre drive, if other sources about the warp drive are to be believed. It seems to me we are dealing with a number of separate ideas, all linked by "the shape of space is changed" (and therefore sometimes all referred to as folded space/space folding), but distinct:
 * 1) General relativity gives us the scientific concept that space can be curved by gravity.
 * 2) Then on the one end of the spectrum of sci-fi concepts we have the warp drive, which creates a comparatively small bubble of space, which is driven through the rest of space by a density gradient of space.
 * 3) Next we have the compression of space as described in That's Weird!, where a real distance remains. And which would impact the whole route, as compared to the localized warp bubble.
 * 4) A more extreme version of that would be wormholes in the style of DS9 and, if I remember correctly, Hawking's Illustrated A Brief History of Time where a corridor of short but still tangible distance branches out from normal space.
 * 5) And lastly the most extreme version, like the tesseract in A Wrinkle in Time or the (somewhat mystifying) technology of Dune, where the distance between two widely separate points in space is reduced to zero. Which is what the article currently talks about. (I think I remember that Foundation also had such instantaneous travel, but with a very brief explanation of the technology which may or may not fit here.)
 * Plenty to write about, but I am still not completely sure if it were best to cover that all under Space folding with links to more detailed articles where they exist, or make it a pure disambig page and fitting the various concepts sometimes called space folding into other articles. Daranios (talk) 21:23, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
 * The first problem which some folks keep ignoring here is that the majority of reliable sources using this term in academic literature seem to be from the chemistry/physics related to stuff like Folding (chemistry). Which has totally zero in common with the usage in sf literature. The latter - second problem - is inconsistent but more or less a synonym for the concepts of space warp, i.e. warp drive. Which is also related to wormhole travel, and that is not too far from hyperspace. It's all variations on the same 'technobabblish but imaginable way to travel at FTL speeds'. While there seem to be sources that support having separate articles about hyperspace, warp drive and wormholes in fiction, there is still next to zero about space folding, which is a poorly defined synonym for the above. Since space folding and space warping are more or less the same, I still strongly say "redirect". At best, this can be mentioned as a rare, alternate name. If it was something significant, it would be mentioned in one or more of sf encyclopedias, which I've reviewed and which not only don't have a dedicated entry on it, but don't even use the term in passing! Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 09:45, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I fail to see how these variations are not conceptually different. "the majority of reliable sources using this term in academic literature seem to be from the chemistry/physics": So there are more sources using the term than those that we have discussed. That does not seem to me an argument for deletion, but rather that WP:GNG is not the major problem. But yeah, I see, it's the same term applied to different concepts. So it's one more argument for making this a (somewhat extended, as it probably needs sources to make it clear) disambiguation page. That's a solution I would be fine with, as I've described. Daranios (talk) 20:34, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment - The fusion of space folding with hyperspace would be No original research according to the guidelines of Wikipedia. There is no direct connection. Both are simply speculative scientific concepts that are used in science fiction as drive concepts for faster-than-light-movement. --Mark McWire (talk) 12:06, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
 * There are basically four major concepts in science fiction for flying faster than the speed of light:


 * A) You change to a fictitious hyperspace / subspace / underspace, in which other physical laws apply, where the speed of light does not represent a natural limit of movement.
 * B) You changes the space-time in such a way that the distance between the starting point and the target point becomes smaller, so that the space ship does not have to fly faster than the light. That is the basic principle of folding the space. You can in extreme cases fold the space so that the start and finish are in the same position at the same time and you cover the distance instantaneously. This is the basic principle of most of the so-called jump drives.
 * C) You connect two points of space-time through a tunnel and take a shortcut. That's the basic for most fictional wormholes or hyperspace/subspace/transwarp tunnels/corridors/conduits or slipstream drives. This is the only concept that can be merged with hyperspace, since there are actually parallels here.
 * D) You build a bubble around the spaceship that is separated from normal space-time, in a kind of own little universe and move this bubble through space. Since the limit of the speed of light only applies to energy and matter, a spaceship can move faster in this way. This is the basic principle that describes the warp drive and similar concepts.
 * All of these concepts have their right to exist in Wikipedia. --Mark McWire (talk)
 * IMHO D) is just a mix of A and B. Star Trek's warp drive seems to involve creating a hyperspace-bubble and having it interact with our reality in a weird way, kind of like greasing the wheels to make them roll faster. But traditionally space warp, space fold are related. And for some writers hyperspace just means something that allows warping/folding, fo others it's the pace inside the wormholes, etc. It's all variations of technobabble. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 09:56, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Let's just look at it from a real scientific point of view. Wormholes and warp bubbles are two different possible solutions to the field equations from general relativity. Both concepts exist independently of each other. Space folding is another independent solution, but sometimes referred to wormholes. Hyperspace does not exist in current physics. It is a hypothetical concept that is discussed in real science, but which has no use to solute any theoretical problem. It's a world outside of our universe. That science fiction mixes up these concepts is another problem. The warp drive from Star Trek is not a pure warp bubble concept, as it results from the general theory of relativity. As you said, it's a mixture of subspace (hyperspace) and space warp. When it comes to space folding, things get complicated. It is a concept that exists in real science, namely as a prerequisite for using wormholes. Because without folded space, a wormhole is useless, since the flight through the wormhole would be just as far as the flight through normal space. Only when a wormhole connects two distant points in a folded space-time can it create a shorter path. In science fiction, especially in Star Trek, space folding is treated as a separate entity. Mostly in connection with instant travel methods. While the flight through a wormhole takes finite time, the flight through space folding is timeless. --Mark McWire (talk) 10:59, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
 * It would be no problem for me to accept a redirect to Warp drive. Then in the article warp drive it needs its own subsection for space folding and there it is explained that it is a similar concept to space warp, but that it is used differently in the SF. Then we can cite the examples from Star Trek, in which space folding is presented as a physical concept superior to the warp drive that enables instant journeys that are not possible with the warp drive. For example coaxial warp drive and spatial trajector from Series Voyager. --Mark McWire (talk) 11:06, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Overall I agree, which is why I think redirecting (and possibly adding a section ''to be mostly written from scratch as I do stand by my view that next to nothing in the current plot summary article has value) to either warp drive or wormholes is superior to hyperspace. Indeed, hyperspace is 100% fiction, whereas warp drive and even more so, wormholes, are grounded in some real sciences. My point is that any discussion of space folding has to go beyond listing a few examples of fictional works that used this term. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 10:15, 5 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep Article age has nothing to do with it. It could be improved.Super (talk) 13:37, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
 * With what sources? I did an extensive lit review and concluded there are no in-depth secondary sources on this topic. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 08:43, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
 * For the non-fictional part, how about with the already mentioned Philosophical Essays p. 46 (+p. 37, footnote 24) and That's Weird! p. 236, and for marrying with the sci-fi concept, The Science of Dune p. 203 (and 199)? (And did I mention I am wondering what's on p. 205 of that source? ;-) Daranios (talk) 15:34, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
 * The first source talks about this concept is science, which is not covered in our article at all. We do, however, have an article about Minkowski space, a related scientific concept that is mentioned by the source; it seems that the author of that book is using the term "space folding" to explain Minkowski space and related concepts. The second study seems the same but less focused on the term, which seems to be used just once in passing. The last source seems more of the same. Space folding, in this case, is a simple grammatical construction, just like space warp/space warping. In the context of space travel, it can be mentioned as a synonym to space warp, or maybe wormholes. We don't need an article that just lists 'works that use the term space folding instead of space warping' when both refer to the same concept. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 09:52, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
 * comment Not a fork. Would agree that there needs to be more broad 3rd party coverage of the concept as a whole to supplement specific examples. Artw (talk) 15:38, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment I agree with Mark McWire's taxonomy of fictional space travel, but have no particular opinion on how those ought to be best represented in Wikipedia. I appreciate the collaborative spirit here, and suggest if fictional AfDs keep going this way we might want to revisit the WP:PEREN topic of AfDeletion -> AfDiscussion. Jclemens (talk) 21:55, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Fusion with Space travel in fiction - I suggest to move the actual content to this main article and redirect space folding like slipstream (science fiction) to this main article. I suggest also merge wormholes in fiction with space travel in fiction. --Mark McWire (talk) 11:14, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I once made a push and converted the article into a disambiguation and moved the former content to Space travel in fiction. There it can then be refined according to the sources. --Mark McWire (talk) 09:44, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
 * We should move the discussion to Talk:Space travel in science fiction‎ and close this topic. If all people are fine with this suggestion. --Mark McWire (talk) 11:38, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Closing ?
Can we closing this nomination, since the article now massivly edited and revamped into a disambiguation? --Mark McWire (talk) 11:18, 10 December 2021 (UTC) Ping Artw, Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus, Jclemens, Daranios, Super


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.