Memory Alpha

Memory Alpha:Pages for deletion/Space time tunnel

36,855pages on
this wiki

< Memory Alpha:Pages for deletion

This is a page to discuss the suggestion to delete "Space time tunnel".

  • 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.

Article talk page Edit

Was the term "space time tunnel" actually used, or was it simply "a tunnel through space time"? If the latter is the case, this shouldn't be a separate article from black hole, space time and so forth. - Archduk3 08:48, December 6, 2010 (UTC)

The second is true. Where it does not matter if I have a term as a compound noun or description. It makes no difference whether for example I write "subspace distortion" or "distortion in subspace". Do we now operate in English grammar nitpicking? --Mark McWire 09:52, December 6, 2010 (UTC)

In a word, yes. Generally, nouns get articles while descriptions describe the nouns that are articles. If this wasn't a noun, then it should be part of the descriptions of the nouns we already have for this, instead of creating a fan made noun based on the description. - Archduk3 10:25, December 6, 2010 (UTC)

I am not familiar with the nuances of the English language, but in the German language of or in descriptions and compound nouns are used interchangeably. If somewhere "in subspace distortion" or "interference in subspace", etc. has been, I have written in the MA/de also "Subspace interference" or "Subspace distortion. The background is that descriptions do not fit into lemmas, so I build it into compound terms. This does not change the concept of meaning, but only the expression. This objection is petty. We're here an encyclopedia and not a dictionary.--Mark McWire 10:39, December 6, 2010 (UTC)
And that is untrue - even in german, there's a difference between "Subrauminterferenz" and "eine Interferenz im Subraum". The latter is descriptive and may or may not also be a proper term for some phenomenon in subspace. Stating that it definitely is would be an assumption. -- Cid Highwind 11:11, December 6, 2010 (UTC)
Your example is of course well designed, because you have an "eine" placed before it. Only by that word changes the meaning, because your implied by the fact that there may be several interference in subspace. If you had "die" set above, it would mean that you specifically mean the phenomenon. This does not disprove my statement, but proves that to influence "ein" (a) and "die" (the) the meaning of a noun. ;-) --Mark McWire 11:26, December 6, 2010 (UTC)
Of course it was "designed" that way - look at the two options Archduk3 gave you at the beginning of the discussion, and check which one you stated was actually said on the show... That aside, even "die Interferenz im Subraum" (or "der Tunnel durch die Raum-Zeit") wouldn't necessarily make the utterance proper terminology instead of just a descriptive phrase, so that point is somewhat moot.
BTW, there's some overlap between this discussion and this one. -- Cid Highwind 11:32, December 6, 2010 (UTC)
What other name do you suggest for the content of this item? --Mark McWire 12:50, December 6, 2010 (UTC)
I would vote for not having the article. "Spacetime tunnel" seems to be a fan-made name, since it was never used in dialogue. Since we all know what a "tunnel" is, and we have an article on spacetime, we could simply add a description to the black hole article. -Angry Future Romulan 14:49, December 6, 2010 (UTC)
I'll second that.--31dot 14:51, December 6, 2010 (UTC)
I give up. I have integrated the essential points of this article in the existing text in black hole. 'm concerned, you can delete the article now. --Mark McWire 15:01, December 6, 2010 (UTC)
I like this article, i vote for having it. We have plenty of made up names like Quantum singularity lifeform or Dark matter lifeform which are only slightly related to what they were (of which Blair is fond of writing extremely long link substitutes) ;D. But still this is a unique phenomenon that is a side effect of some red matter blackholes and cause the unique strange lightning storm apertures to form in the past at strange time dilation intervals. Of which Nero makes calculations of where and when they will appear etc. plenty of info that can be added here, that deserves its own article. IMHO --Pseudohuman 00:53, December 7, 2010 (UTC)

The difference between an article like Dark matter lifeform and this is we already have a proper name for this in canon, so we aren't forced to make one up. We also don't know if this is a side effect of red matter black holes, since the Jellyfish was under attack by the Narada before they were sucked in. It could be that, or there could be yet another reality where Vulcan was bombarded by chucks of Vulcan and another where there's some wreakage of the Narada floating around outside of Sol, we just don't know either way. That said, we should just merge this with black hole and maybe add a condensed version of this to space, not delete it. - Archduk3 09:00, December 7, 2010 (UTC)

I could make a comparison to transwarp and its side-effect hyper-evolution (a made up term, as far as i know). We also have plenty of separate articles about the components or attributes of a phenomenon. It doesn't matter what the implications are, or dont know, we have two canonical on-screen events of strange anomalies forming in the alt-reality not identified as black holes but strange lightning storms that are called by alt-spock as tunnels through space-time. --Pseudohuman 11:55, December 7, 2010 (UTC)
But they are identified as black holes. The "lightning storm in space" line was simply a descriptive phrase used to describe the phenomenon, and the "tunnel through spacetime" line was simply a phrase used to describe the method whereby a black hole transported Nero and Spock through time. -Angry Future Romulan 15:10, December 7, 2010 (UTC)
Just like transwarp beaming is a method used to transport people with a transporter. Or kill setting is a method used to kill people with a phaser... etc. Plenty of those articles here in MA too. --Pseudohuman 18:23, December 7, 2010 (UTC)

You seem to be forgetting that "space time tunnel" wasn't actually said. Kill setting, transwarp beaming, etc were. On the grammar front, "space time tunnel" wasn't used as a noun here, it's just two nouns used to theoretically explain an event as a "tunnel through space time. It's the same with "lightning storm in space". Those were used as descriptions, not names. The only noun actually used to name the phenomena was black hole, and that's where this info should be. - Archduk3 08:13, December 10, 2010 (UTC)

I illustrated above that it has not been MA practice to name articles only by using canon nouns but also by using descriptions. So not forgetting. I think we agree that the "time travel phenomenon" is a separate attribute of the black holes. Just like gravity, gravity well, event horizon and singularity, my point is only that it should be okay for it to have its own article based on that. I dont really care if it is named space time tunnel or tunnel through space time, both are perfectly fine to me. --Pseudohuman 19:10, December 10, 2010 (UTC)
But I think the point is, a spacetime tunnel is not a component of a black hole, as are event horizons and singularities, but rather simply a way that it can be used. The black hole acted as a means by which a vessel traveled through time, but the spacetime tunnel itself was still the black hole. It was simply another way of describing it in the context of what they had learned about Nero's origins. -Angry Future Romulan 19:23, December 10, 2010 (UTC)
Precicely, and this article is about that particular effect of the black hole.
We should also remember that the exit points were never called "black holes" by anyone in the film, instead they were called, on multiple occasions, as "anomalies, that were sending out impossible sensor readings, and appeared to be like a lightning storm in space" If they were just black holes, i would think they would have simply stated "a black hole just appeared on sensors" --Pseudohuman 18:22, December 11, 2010 (UTC)

I think the term Temporal rift is much more appropriate. This is the term used in TNG's "Yesterday's Enterprise" when the USS Enterprise (NCC-1701-C) appeared to have travelled forward in time and Kathryn Janeway used a chrono deflector to open and travel through a rift in VOY: "Endgame" --T'vana of the house of Kor 20:43, March 17, 2011 (UTC)

Deletion rationale Edit

See (above discussion). - Archduk3 00:31, June 30, 2011 (UTC)

Discussion Edit

  • Delete, as I indicated on that page.--31dot 09:24, July 22, 2011 (UTC)

Admin resolution Edit

Deleted after +7 days.--31dot 19:30, August 8, 2011 (UTC)

Advertisement | Your ad here

Around Wikia's network

Random Wiki