This is a page to discuss the suggestion to delete "Subspace transition rebound".
- 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".
In all cases, please make sure to read and understand the deletion policy before editing this page.
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)