Talk:The Time Machine

This  level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Novels: Sci-fi / 19th century High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Novels, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to novels, novellas, novelettes and short stories on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the general Project discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions.NovelsWikipedia:WikiProject NovelsTemplate:WikiProject Novelsnovel High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by Science fiction task force (assessed as Top-importance). This article is supported by 19th century task force. Science Fiction High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Science Fiction, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science fiction on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Science FictionWikipedia:WikiProject Science FictionTemplate:WikiProject Science Fictionscience fiction High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

The "See also" section currently contains a link to Soft science fiction. I recall that several years ago, the link pointed to Hard science fiction until someone changed it.

I understand why The Time Machine does not meet the modern definition of hard science fiction, but it isn't clear to me that it is definitely soft either - any attempt to draw this distinction would be fraught with original research. Would there be any objections if I simply remove the link? --SoledadKabocha (talk) 18:52, 21 August 2020 (UTC)Reply

I would object to the removal. According to WP:SEEALSO, the "See also" section is "a bulleted list of internal links to related Wikipedia articles." So, the subject of the article doesn't necessarily have to fit into the category. Also, according to the Soft science fiction article, science fiction that "is not scientifically accurate or plausible; the opposite of hard science fiction" is soft science fiction.—Anita5192 (talk) 21:10, 21 August 2020 (UTC)Reply

Apologies for not first rereading the articles in question well enough to internalize that Wikipedia consensus defines the hard/soft distinction as a true dichotomy with no middle ground. However, I still think there is a question of relevance here.

I think we agree that The Time Machine currently qualifies as soft science fiction. However, it may have been intended by Wells to be relatively hard for the scientific knowledge of the time. Therefore, I don't think either soft or hard is clearly relevant to this article, and I would not have added either link had the See also section not already contained one. I could make a case for adding both, but I feel that that would confuse readers. --SoledadKabocha (talk) 20:02, 22 August 2020 (UTC)Reply

I think Soft science fiction is more relevant.—Anita5192 (talk) 20:14, 22 August 2020 (UTC)Reply

I still don't see a clear justification for objecting to removal here, but I will drop the issue. --SoledadKabocha (talk) 20:20, 22 August 2020 (UTC)Reply

To further justify my taking no further action: The article Soft science fiction contains a list of works which includes TTM, while Hard science fiction contains a list of works which does not. --SoledadKabocha (talk) 05:01, 26 August 2020 (UTC)Reply

Isn't that usually just called fanfiction? — DanielLC 20:06, 7 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

Not necessarily, and you could have looked up fan fiction, sequel, and prequel yourself instead of posting here.—Anita5192 (talk) 20:17, 7 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

"Fan fiction or fanfiction (also abbreviated to fan fic, fanfic, fic or ff) is fictional writing written by fans, commonly of an existing work of fiction. The author uses copyrighted characters, settings, or other intellectual properties from the original creator(s) as a basis for their writing." So, why exactly isn't this fanfiction? — Preceding unsigned comment added by DanielLC (talk • contribs) 05:12, 8 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date.—Anita5192 (talk) 16:36, 8 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

The name Eloi is the Hebrew plural for Elohim, or lesser gods, in the Old Testament. No. Elohim is the name translated "God"; the "lesser gods" are called in Hebrew elim. Manfariel (talk) 23:56, 26 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

Can I update this section? While this is what the cited source says, the cited author is talking out of his ass. I can come up with a dozen sources on Hebrew showing this is complete nonsense. Elohim does not mean “lesser god” Heymisterscott (talk) 03:04, 11 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

If you cite reliable sources, you can update it.—Anita5192 (talk) 03:14, 11 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

I've updated the section with a minor edit. It could be possible, of course, that Wells pulled the names Eloi and Morlock out of his ass, like many good authors do for "made-up" words. It is not necessary that they derive from anything. Far too much scholarly attention is paid to the derivation and origin of author-invented words in literature, and the salient fact that they could be sui generis is rarely mentioned. Hell, I got into this debate over the origins of Shakespeare's Caliban in a paper, and despite all learned assessments, nobody but old Will knows where he got Caliban from, and he ain't telling. Neither is Wells with these names. Peter Greenwell (talk) 06:31, 17 March 2025 (UTC)Reply

Elohim is actually a transliteration of אלוהים, and the above-ground creatures are called Eloi regardless of the Hebrew words. Tickbeat (talk) 19:28, 10 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

not dubious. hobbits are known as lesser gods too. 199.7.158.55 (talk) 04:30, 18 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

"the only sequel to Mr. Pal's classic film"

Is it ok to call something a "classic" as a factual statement in an encyclopedia? Isn't it more of a subjective thing rather than saying "it is widely regarded as a classic"? Is it against NPOV? I'm asking out of curiosity. Dornwald (talk) 02:57, 26 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

The version my old school library had contained the 'deleted text' and I THINK the Schoolastic version I got had it as well. This would be back in the early to mid 70s. If I ever find the book can then better pin down when and possibly who published it. Omega2064 (talk) 23:07, 26 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

This article is in terrible shape, and quite possibly half of the material is either erroneous or missing the most important elements. There's no mention of the influence of Thomas Henry Huxley, class conflict, or the nature of progress. The story is most certainly not "post-apocalyptic" and I have no idea why it even says that. Viriditas (talk) 00:41, 18 October 2025 (UTC)Reply