Would anybody mind terribly if I simply changed this article to a redirect to time travel? The only reference here is "The Visitor", and I just rewatched the episode...nowhere is the phrase "temporal displacement" even used. And every other time it is used, to the best of my recollection, it is simply a synonym for "time travel." Same goes for the temporal shift article. -Angry Future Romulan 21:02, September 29, 2010 (UTC)

As explained on this page, the two concepts are not synonymous. One is the act of moving from one timeframe to another, the other seems to rather be a sort of location where two timeframes are connected (and thus may lead to time travel). So, yes, I would mind. If you think that this term and concept hasn't been used at all in Trek (I don't have an opinion about this at the moment), this page should be deleted, not redirected. -- Cid Highwind 21:24, September 29, 2010 (UTC)

Well, as I noted above, the phrase was never actually used in "The Visitor," therefore the definition you are using for your rationale is fanon. Never was Sisko referred to as being "held in temporal displacement." The phrase is often used in Star Trek, but only as another term for "moving through time" (again, as I said above). -Angry Future Romulan 21:26, September 29, 2010 (UTC)

As I said, if you believe that the term is "fanon", your solution shouldn't be to simply redirect the "fanon" term to a "canon" article. We have the {{incite}} template to request references, and if that hasn't helped after a while, {{delete page}}. -- Cid Highwind 21:41, September 29, 2010 (UTC)

Whelp, I'm an idiot. I completely forgot that we don't have a time travel page. It just redirects to temporal mechanics. With that said, I'd like to change my question...would anybody mind terribly if I changed the redirect to a rudimentary page about time travel, which can be added on to and expanded in the future? Let's face it, time travel and temporal mechanics aren't the same thing. Temporal mechanics is the study of time travel, or a set of rules as to how it works. Thought? -Angry Future Romulan 22:16, September 29, 2010 (UTC)

If your goal is now a split of the temporal mechanics page, why does that have to come at the expense of this article? There may be good reasons for redirecting time travel there, or there may be none, but I don't see how this article is relevant in that regard. -- Cid Highwind 22:34, September 29, 2010 (UTC)

It's not. I was just trying to keep the conversation in one place. I'll start a new one on the temporal mechanics page, though. =Angry Future Romulan 22:39, September 29, 2010 (UTC)