Talk:Size change in fiction

general

I'm not entirely sure of the title of this article, but if its aim is to talk about shrinking in science fiction, then material concerning other kinds of fiction, and fiction in which no shrinking occurs, have no place in it. Nor do I see how 'shapeshifting' is related, to be honest. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 14:25, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I see. Now I regret to create such article. I should create "resize" or "sizeshifting".

And new instances just keep puping up.AirBa 14:30, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Can I make a proposal? I think the article should discuss whether or not the idea of resizing is scientifically plausible. Resizing is actually possible. Take the fact that most of the atom is empty space, for example. If one were to reduce the amount of empty space in the atom, the object would grow considerably smaller. Also, there is a lot of empty space in between atoms. Squeeze the atoms together and the object will grow a lot smaller. For example, you could squeeze a person's atoms together and cause him to shrink to about 2" tall or less. Or, you could spread the atoms out further and cause the person or object or animal to grow considerably in size. There is no discussion of the kind in this article; it doesn't even talk about the fact that the laser in Honey, I Shrunk The Kids worked by squeezing the atoms together. Scorpionman 18:05, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Not really. The electrons are held at a certain distance from the nucleus by their electrical charge. You would have to sustain pressure on the atom, causing the elctrons to drop into lower orbitals. Since the innermost orbitals can only host decreasing numbers of electrons (as like poles repel, and the amount of space decreases the closer you get to the nucleus), the electrons would get knocked loose from the atom altogether, creating a free radical. As far as compressing multiple atoms together, the result would be a severe drop in temperature, killing any living organism. Comic book physics is not real life physics. Wandering Star 03:54, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

But what if it isn't a living organism? Like, perhaps, a chair or couch? Scorpionman 04:07, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Why would you want to? It's be cheaper and easier just to make a miniature copy of an inanimate object. Also, it would depend on the object itself-the material it's made out of might react differently to the temperature drop or the massive increase in density. Think of compressed gas-if you've ever been to a science lab, you've probably seen cylinders of gasses, which, if you put your hand to the surface, feel cool or even cold to the touch-and that's with some heavy duty insulation. Even very light gasses, like helium or hydrogen, which at room temperature are considerably lighter than air, will feel very heavy when you try to lift one of those cylinders. The density increases, the surface area and temperature drops, and the properties of the gas, including it's fluid dynamics, all change. This continues as you approach absolute zero, the point at which all atomic motion ceases.

Why would you want to? Because it would be so cool, of course. I mean, if you think about it, why would you want to travel to the future? Or travel into outer space? There's not really any practical use for doing it (except satellites I suppose). Hmmm, maybe that's why it usually only happens in science fiction.Editfromwithout (talk) 16:04, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

For an object that's solid at room temperature, I imagine similar effects would occur. Wandering Star (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 21:06, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Viability as an encyclopedia article

I make the same proposal as Scorpionman above. As a dictionary definition, "resizing" is a good theme. But as an encyclopedia article, it's a little redundant and obvious. The article simply lists all the books and movies where people and things change size. This shouldn't need an explanation. I propose to delete the article, or else rewrite it.Editfromwithout (talk) 16:09, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Please reorganize

This article needs to be organized some more so that it isn't a mishmash of essay and list. Also make sure it is compatible with and linkable to other Wikipedia articles such as shrink ray. AngusWOOF (talk) 03:49, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Should giants in fiction be divided into giants and giantesses?

I think the giant categories are not gender neutrally named; and in fact most works of fiction have giantesses not giants. CensoredScribe (talk) 23:56, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

See WP:ANI#CensoredScribe's categories. And CensoredScribe, stop WP:FORUMSHOPPING.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 23:59, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Early examples.... "In Nintendo's Mario and Super Smash Bros. franchises" - really?

To who is some Nintendo game "early"? That was really part of the start of history of this idea in fiction? what about the reamayana? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.108.224.170 (talk) 22:34, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Overhaul needed

I did copyedit and some reorganization, but this article is still a mess. I feel the relevant bullet-point examples should to be re-written into prose with secondary-source explanation of why they are notable – the symbolism and how it serves thematically, the development of special effects, or cultural relevance – and the other examples should be removed. Reidgreg (talk) 15:25, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 1 June 2018

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 as requested per the discussion below; deletion, splitting, or merging is outside the scope of this close and discussion on those possibilities should continue as necessary. Dekimasuよ! 20:49, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

---

Resizing (fiction) → Size change in fiction – To correspond to the category of the same name, Category:Size change in fiction. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 04:10, 1 June 2018 (UTC)--Relisting. ~ Winged Blades^Godric 13:59, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

• Move to miniaturization (fiction) as prep to split - This is an odd little article that might be trying to accomplish too much, and its not surprising that the article name options are not very good. The article as originally written was about "shrinking or miniaturization in science fiction", and I'd suggest "miniaturization (fiction)" would be better in order to split this article to give it focus. The Greenwood Encyclopedia of Science Fiction and Fantasy has great entries on "Enlargement" and "Miniaturization" (article editors take note of the great bibliographies). I also see strong overlap with shrink ray, a merge might be considered later. -- Netoholic @ 06:49, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
• Move as proposed. Much clearer title, and I see no reason for a split.--Cúchullain ^t/c 15:36, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
• Delete. There is currently no evidence given in the "article" that this exists as an encylopedically notable concept. The text seems to be a WP:OR/WP:SYNTH-ish list with only one item carrying a citation. A move to miniaturization in fiction (per WP:NATURAL) might solve that, but there needs to be some cited content beyond a WP:DICDEF. A merge into miniaturization is also a possibility but there are WP:WEIGHT issues with that. —  AjaxSmack  17:28, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Well, there is evidence, in that I gave above another encyclopedia which does include this topic. -- Netoholic @ 08:14, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
• Support per WP:NPOVTITLE. The proposed name is good enough as a neutral, descriptive title. "Resizing" is something that someone does to something else (e.g. resizing a dress to account for weight loss); to the extent it's ever within the scope of this article, it's a small subset. "Miniaturization", in typical usage, refers to successive waves of technology making components smaller, and isn't in-scope. Broader use of the term is within the scope, but again is a subset. This isn't the venue to challenging the existence of the article; try WP:AFD.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  17:37, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
• Support move as proposed per nom. Paintspot Infez (talk) 23:01, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
• Support as a very good use of WP:NATURALDISAMBIGUATION. Rreagan007 (talk) 16:30, 13 June 2018 (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.

Stubified

I've stubified the article on the basis of WP:Indiscriminate. I have no problem with this being undone, I just can't think of anything else to do with it. Desertarun (talk) 14:54, 12 November 2020 (UTC)