Memory Alpha:Pages for deletion/Subspace transition rebound

This is a page to discuss the suggestion to delete "". In all cases, please make sure to read and understand the deletion policy before editing this page.
 * If you are suggesting a page for deletion, add your initial rationale to the section "Deletion rationale".
 * If you want to discuss this suggestion, add comments to the section "Discussion".
 * If a consensus has been reached, an administrator will explain the final decision in the section "Admin resolution".

Deletion rationale
I'm bringing this up for deletion to get other people involved in this ongoing matter, especially admins to deal with User:Mark McWire who simply recreates content and whole articles either explicitely against what has been discussed before - or at least without continuing those discussions before changing stuff.

This article has been connected to Subspace reflection for a long time, before being changed into a redirect to Nuclear vibration last week. According to Talk:Subspace reflection, this term has been used once in the episode, without further explanation, in the context of nuclear vibration. That article is the best redirect target for something we don't know enough for an own article about. In addition to that, it isn't even clear whether this term really is the title of a phenomenon - or whether the term should be just "subspace transition", and "rebound" is used as a verb in the dialogue.

Further information and reasoning can be found on the talk page linked above. Last but not least, the article is in need of a thorough rewrite if it doesn't get removed again. -- Cid Highwind 10:44, November 28, 2011 (UTC)

Discussion
Restore it to the way it was before this matter started(the redirect), though I wouldn't stand in the way of outright deletion, either. If we don't know anything about it at all, and it might not even be the name of a phenomenon, it should not have its own article.

The user in question has stated that they have written the corresponding articles on the German MA, and I guess they feel that means they can write the articles here. That would be fine, except that how the episode was done in German might be a little different than in English. As McWire has admitted to using a translation program to make his edits here I think that might further distort any messages, as the translation is not quite right.

McWire has also stated his refusal to learn about why the Melbourne page is the way it is and has threatened to bring up his points in perpetuity until he gets his way. As such I'm not inclined to support his edits if he is unwilling to learn how things operate here.--31dot 12:00, November 28, 2011 (UTC)


 * It's also worth noting that Mark tends to edit in parallel: interwiki links to this new article were added to MA/de directly after creating the article here, and in the past, changes to one MA have been used to justify changes to the other. This is not generally a problem, of course - but if the content of two wikis are "synchronized" that way, it must be done by getting consensus from both communities, not by ignoring one of them.
 * Regarding the suggestion to "restore" the redirect, I would actually prefer that myself, sorry if that wasn't clear enough in my initial post. I just think that even that is best discussed as a deletion suggestion, because the current content of the page should not be moved to another location. -- Cid Highwind 12:45, November 28, 2011 (UTC)

I thought as much. :) --31dot 12:45, November 28, 2011 (UTC)
 * I think this term should be an own article, because theres no direct Relation to inverter or Elway. Its a Phrase, which throw Data in discussion, before Wesley mentioned the Elway Theorem or folding space. Its like one of many other technobabble terms, which mentioned without further Explantation. But much of them has own articles. This is the reason for my edit. --Mark McWire 21:02, November 28, 2011 (UTC)


 * But that's the point - there isn't much to say about exactly this phrase that hasn't already been stated on nuclear vibration, or Elway Theorem, or subspace reflection (or possibly inverter and Ansata). The term/information density of this episode is so very high that there is a huge information overlap between some of the terms - and in this case, we can't even be sure that this is a proper term at all! Redirecting to the most-related other term we have lets us stay "accessible" (information can be found) without becoming too redundant (same information on several articles) or even non-canon (assumptions instead of facts). -- Cid Highwind 21:28, November 28, 2011 (UTC)


 * Here's the transcript:

DATA:   A subspace field coil with an isolated power source. Curious. LAFORGE: Hey, guys. Come here. Look at this. The Rutian team picked up a faint nuclear vibration during the terrorist movements. WESLEY: Nuclear vibration? DATA:   That could possibly indicate subspace transition rebound during transport. WESLEY: Wait a minute, wait a minute. May I? Computer, call up the files on. What was his name? We spent two hours on him in astral physics last year. Folded-space transport. LAFORGE: Adaptive transport. WESLEY: Yes. DATA:   Are you referring to the Elway Theorem? WESLEY: Yes. Computer, call up the files on the Elway Theorem. What if        they're using inter-dimensional travel? DATA:   But the Elway Theorem proved to be entirely inaccurate. All research was abandoned by the mid-twenty third century. WESLEY: But Data, look, the nuclear vibrations are the same, and Elway used a         model similar to this. LAFORGE: It would certainly be untraceable by any standard method of        detection. DATA:   But it was proven to be fatal. To use this technology would be an        irrational act. PICARD: We may be dealing with irrational people, Data. Is there a way to        trace this? LAFORGE: With an adaptive subspace echogram, maybe?
 * From this, it seems a nuclear vibration could be either a indication of "subspace transition rebound" (note the lack of an "a" in the wording) or "folded-space transport/adaptive transport/inter-dimensional travel. An "adaptive subspace echogram" would possibly detect the latter. All of the is talking about an Inverter if I remember correctly. None of the latter suggests what "subspace transition rebound" was, though the lack of an "a" in there suggests that there isn't a subspace transition rebound but rather a rebound during subspace transition. I think we need an article on the latter, since we don't know the connection to any of the latter terms, and a nuclear vibration isn't a "subspace transition" or even a "subspace transition rebound" for that matter. - 21:52, November 28, 2011 (UTC)


 * It's true that subspace transition would be a slightly preferable title - but still, we literally have one sentence of information about it, and it's mostly in relation to nuclear vibration. This would be the content of a "subspace transition" article:
 * A subspace transition is something that can rebound during transport - and if it does, there will be some sort of nuclear vibration.
 * Of course, we would also need to note that on the "nuclear vibration" article, which would then contain a sentence like this:
 * Nuclear vibration can occur if a subspace transition is rebound during transport.
 * Basically, we'd end up with the same information in two different spots - and since there's more to say about the vibration, but nothing more to say about the transition, I still think that a redirect is the more sensible solution here. Having two separate articles would mean that readers would click on the link in my second example, and get no new information at all. -- Cid Highwind 22:18, November 28, 2011 (UTC)


 * Further reasoning for a separate article would be this:

WORF:  Intruder alert, deck twelve. WESLEY: Another subspace reflection. Dimensional shift, sir.
 * It seems that dimensional shift is pretty much the same as "folded-space transport/adaptive transport/inter-dimensional travel" while subspace reflection is unexplained. A rebound of a subspace transition could be a subspace reflection, so I don't think we should be redirecting the former term to an effect of it (possibly) when the latter term might be the same thing. Any subspace transition page should note the possibility in a bg note, which has nothing to do with a nuclear vibration that we know of making a note on that page somewhat irrelevant, and we can simplify/avoid the type of linking already on subspace reflection. Since most of these terms are only loosely linked, I think duplicating information among several pages might be a "necessary evil" here. - 22:36, November 28, 2011 (UTC)


 * As mentioned above, the term previously was connected to subspace reflection, first by containing the information itself, later by being a redirect to the other article. Reasons for changing the redirect target can be found here and in the discussion preceding the "Redux". If you want to suggest changing the redirect target back, please check the reasons given there, first. In any case, I don't quite see how creating a third article is better than redirecting to either one of these articles. -- Cid Highwind 22:43, November 28, 2011 (UTC)


 * Also, for what it's worth, there currently is a background note on subspace reflection, stating that there might be a connection to "subspace transition", but that we can't be sure. It also notes that more information can be found on nuclear vibration - all the info is already there, in two instead of three articles. That background note has been removed twice today by Mark McWire, with the claim that the two are definitely different. -- Cid Highwind 22:56, November 28, 2011 (UTC)


 * You seem to have misunderstood what I wrote. I'm not suggesting that we redirect either subspace transition or Subspace transition rebound to anything (though the latter would need to redirect to the former if it's a page). I'm saying we need a separate page for this because we simply don't know what it is. I suggested that combining this information on a page about a possible effect of it may increase accessibility to the info, but reduces the readers ability to make sense of it once there. I also stated I know about the note on subspace reflection, that's what I was talking about when I mentioned the "linking already [there]". That note is worded rather poorly since the article we're pointing to is, as already stated, just an effect of the other and potentially completely unrelated to a subspace reflection. We shouldn't place accessibility above understandability, so "duplicating information among several pages might be a "necessary evil" here." - 23:44, November 28, 2011 (UTC)


 * You're right, I didn't get all that from your first post (so much for poor wording, eh? :)) - but now that I do, i still don't agree with it. You identified duplication as a "necessary evil", but there's also the other "evil" of having a background note on those pages - and only one of these "evils" is really necessary, so we might as well choose the lesser one.
 * I believe that an honest note, somehow stating "Yes, we know that X is not necessarily the same as Y, but we're not making you click on a link just to find that we don't know shit about X." is the lesser evil in this case. I'm open to suggestions about which articles are supposed to be our X's and Y's here and about the exact phrasing of that note, but I'm not convinced that having one more article here is the better solution - there's still the problem of not even having an exact title, after all. -- Cid Highwind 10:24, November 29, 2011 (UTC)


 * I dont think, that reflection and rebound are identical. The rebound was a theoretical concept from Data at a time, where nobody have an idea about space folding. The reflection was an objective Observation with internal sensors, while Ansata using their transporter. It was a real measured phenomenon like the nuclear vibrations. Thats is the reason for changing my opinion about this terms. In past I was wrong in my interpretion of facts, because in my mind Data mentioned the Term after Wesleys statement to Elway. In Transcript he mentioned it before. --Mark McWire 15:43, November 29, 2011 (UTC)


 * Note: This discussion has now been inactive for more than a month. Can someone please resolve it, or try to get some more input if the best outcome is still unclear - as the initiator of this deletion, I won't. -- Cid Highwind 16:44, January 8, 2012 (UTC)

Admin resolution
I'm going to follow my initial suggestion and restore the page to a redirect. Further discussion can take place at the redirect's talk page, and if necessary this discussion can be re-opened. --31dot 21:00, January 8, 2012 (UTC)