Talk:Nuclear vibration

Recent edit
This edit is in line with other recent edits to a group of articles concerned with this inter-dimensional transport thingamajig (see Talk:Subspace reflection for the most detailed list of potentially affected articles) - and, to be honest, I don't know what it is trying to achieve. First of all, the german article that the edit summary claims is used as a source was just changed by the same editor. Second, it looks like an attempt to name-drop as many links to related articles as possible - even if those are sub-concepts of other concepts that are already linked, and as such should rather be explained/linked on those other pages. Third and at the very least, the prose wasn't worse before - and definitely better in some case, like the unnecessary definition of a "vibration" as an "oscillation". I will copy-edit the article again now - and hope that, if the result doesn't satisfy everyone, an attempt is made to discuss potential changes here, first. -- Cid Highwind 14:43, November 22, 2011 (UTC)
 * I would like to seriously discourage cross-wiki editing like this. No one should use their own edits on one language to backup further edits on another within the same day. I'm also a bit confused as to why there is suddenly cross-wiki editing anyway, the last time we tried that with the USS Melbourne nothing was done on either wiki, and I seem to remember the Germans telling us to stay out of their business. - 17:41, November 22, 2011 (UTC)
 * First: I dont speak for German MA, but only for myself. I've revised the German article, because older one wasn't accurat. I translated this text and modified some sentence. The reason was the missing of sentence about the fact, that the rutians observed the effect and even not the Enterprise-Crew. Wesley & Co. speculated only about this observation. The older version of this article missing this fact. Thats the reason for latest edit. The actual text might be ok, but i miss a clear sentence about rutian observation again. (McWire from IPhone)--80.239.243.163 20:22, November 22, 2011 (UTC)

That's what I meant by "name-dropping": of course there needs to be some context for everything we describe in an article - but that doesn't mean that every single one of more than half a dozen article absolutely needs to link to every other article and retell the whole story. Here, we link to the episode all that is from, the planet it happened on, how the terrorists involved call themselves and that the phenomenon was detected on the planet. That already borders on Too Much Information which might better be located elsewhere. Of course, we could add the fact that the vibration was detected by Rutians - but then again, we could also remove some other irrelevant information. In the end, this article should be mostly about nuclear vibration and not about the heroic story how the Enterprise crew won against them terrorists. :) -- Cid Highwind 20:36, November 22, 2011 (UTC)
 * This is a memorable point, where German and English MA are different. In German I am used to write much Information as possible. In this special case i think that is an important Info, because the nuclear vibrations are easy to messure. Rutians dont have the scientific development of the starfleet, but are able to scan this. Of course is this an interpretation and not a clear fact. But without this allution this article isnt complete. Nuclear vibrations are not a special phenomenon of inverter or subspace physics. Without Wesleys comment Data & Co. dont think automatically about dimensional shifting or folded space. This should be mentioned in whatever way. --80.239.243.163 21:15, November 22, 2011 (UTC)

Am I talking to a wall here? I've already tried for a compromise solution, adding more links than I think are sensible - and in the middle of an open discussion about all that, you just stumble in and add the stuff that's under discussion - even referencing this talk page as a reason for the change? You can't be serious... Also, please log in and stay logged in, so that all those edits don't just seem to come from random IP users. -- Cid Highwind 10:29, November 23, 2011 (UTC)
 * First: Sorry, Login on OperaMini failed sometimes. Second: I done a minor change by adding a canonical info from linked Episode. I dont agree with your opinion. In my eyes is this edit regular and legitimated. Nothing in this discussion speaks again. There are only two words added, which cant overload the article. I am feel absolutly right in what I done. --80.239.242.210 19:46, November 23, 2011 (UTC)

The problem is not "two words" - the problem is "two words of only circumstantial interest to this article on top of another two dozen words of exactly the same circumstantial interest to the article. The problem is that the current version already was meant to be a compromise - which you apparently don't want to respect, because you're still changing the article in whatever way you think is "absolutely right". I think I'm "absolutely right", too, when I say that even the current version has too much information that shouldn't be located here, but elsewhere. We could throw out one and a half sentence of this article without losing any information that is directly connected to nuclear vibrations. -- Cid Highwind 21:08, November 23, 2011 (UTC)
 * Its a compromise without my approval. Thats the problem. Nobody ask me about the actual version. In my eyes you push your opinion throught. Thats the only reason for missing respect, not the discussion about the article or something else. I think article is ok, but it should be mentioned who has observed this vibrations in reality and who only dealing with this Observation in theory. The Canon tells us both facts, without any interpretation or speculation. Thats my opinion. --80.239.242.210 22:25, November 23, 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't want to call it a simple "opinion" if I'm asking for content to be somewhat relevant to the article topic, and not just another one of half a dozen similar retellings of the same chain of events depicted in a random episode. But, however you want to call it, we obviously don't agree - and we should thus get other people involved. Sulfur reverted your addition as "not needed" and "not backed up by this talk page", and Archduk3 at least asks for content decisions to be made here, and not just ported from another wiki. I would like to count that as me not being totally alone with my opinion.

While we're at it, I also don't agree with the addition of a random university presentation as a "weblink". I don't know of any other article where we're doing something similar. -- Cid Highwind 23:25, November 23, 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure I fully understand all the issues here, but I'm not seeing the need for the edits Mark is making. I also agree with Archduk's comment above that we should minimize the cross-language wiki editing.  What works there won't necessarily work here, and that's leaving aside any translation and context issues.  I'm going to protect this page until this issue is resolved.--31dot 00:17, November 24, 2011 (UTC)
 * I'dont find a related wikipedia-article, that explain the real world counterpart of this content, so I linked a PDF, which explain the nuclear vibration of real physics. I think this should be done for all contents with real world relationships. (Mark McWire) --79.215.34.232 14:28, November 24, 2011 (UTC)

Atom vibrations is the #2 item of my Google search for "nuclear vibration" (#1 if I add "+wikipedia"). There's also Atom vibration, a redirect to a separate article about molecular vibrations, though - so we should let Wikipedia clean up their mess, first. ;) That said, I think we should be somewhat cautious when trying to match Trek physics to realworld counterparts, and not claim that both always are the same just because they have a similar name. -- Cid Highwind 15:41, November 24, 2011 (UTC)
 * yes, but nuclear vibration is a established term for the distance oszillation between nucleons. My PDF link shows pictures of this process. Thats the reason for the link. Everybody can imagine the related real process with this PDF. --80.239.242.210 22:05, November 24, 2011 (UTC)