Talk:Elementary, Dear Data (episode)

From Memory Alpha, the free Star Trek reference.

Contents 1 Episode talk page 1.1 Maintenance links 2 Merge 3 Watson's first name 4 Trademark versus copyright confusion? 5 Holodeck object inconsistency 6 Sentience 7 Removed nitpick

[edit] Merge

While the contents of this article are factually accurate from a real world perspective (I am a small Holmes fan myself), this story was never named in canon. This belongs as a background note on either the episode article, or the holoprogram article. Since I could not find the holoprogram article, I move that this be merged with the episode article. --OuroborosCobra ^talk 16:04, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually, we could probably just go ahead and delete this (well, nominate first, of course), but I'm okay with a merge, too. --From Andoria with Love 17:41, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm the guy who threw together the "A Scandal in Bohemia" entry. In the entry for "snuff box" there was a link with this title but when I clicked it it took me to a page saying that no article exists for that topic so I went ahead and created it. I thought that if something was linked to a non-article that this was an invitation to create an entry? Thanks. -- 208.125.87.129

That all depends on who created the link. In most cases yes, if on one hand it is a regular user familiar with policies and so forth, but on the other, no, not if it is a casual or first time user that hasn't enveloped themselves in the intricacies of this site. --Alan del Beccio 22:20, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I noticed an entry for the short story "The Valley of Fear" (another Holmes story pertinent to “Elementary My Dear Data”) so when I saw the dead link for "A Scandal in Bohemia" it didn't occur to me that it would be inappropriate to provide some content.

In this case, the difference is that "The Valley of Fear" was specifically named in the episode (making the name canon), while "A Scandal in Bohemia" was not. Hope that helps. As Alan said, in most cases, a red link is an invitation to create an article, unless said link was created by someone unfamiliar with our policies. --OuroborosCobra ^talk 23:57, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Understood.

P.S. This is IP address guy from above.

[edit] Watson's first name

I just added this snippet to the "Background information" section:

When starting the initial Holmes program, Data gives the full name "Dr. John Watson" for La Forge's character. The stories of the Holmes canon have identified Dr. Watson's first name as both "John" and "James".

The main reason I felt it should be mentioned at all was that I feel it probably would have been more prudent of the writers to leave the name at "Dr. Watson", and avoid the question altogether, but I really didn't think there was any way to address that aspect of the topic in an encyclopedic manner. On the other hand, I do know that this wiki is a little more "casual" than Wikipedia, so I wanted to mention it here and hope that someone can figure out a way to phrase it that fits. I also wonder if putting the word "variously" or something similar into the bit of trivia might clarify that some stories gave the name "John" and other stories gave the name "James", so it doesn't sound like there's any individual story which gives both names. - Ugliness Man 05:42, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Trademark versus copyright confusion?

Conan Doyle's estate most certainly did not hold "copyright" on the character of Moriarty; that copyright expired in 1980 (fifty years after the death of Conan Doyle) in Britain, and in 1969 (75 years after the publication of _Memoirs of Sherlock Holmes_) in the US. It would be very interesting if they had litigated over the copyright to the character; it would have been a textbook case of a frivolous lawsuit. (Unfortunately in 1996 the UK passed a law extending copyrights retroactively *and* reinstating expired copyrights, but that wouldn't have applied at the time.)

However, what they most likely do hold is the *trademark* on the character name, since trademarks don't expire, and I wouldn't be in the least surprised if they'd complained over that. Someone with some information on this event, if it really happened, should research this. 69.202.75.39 04:54, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Holodeck object inconsistency

How'd they get Moriarty's drawing off the holodeck? – 208.83.20.39 07:43, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

The same way Wesley got the water off the holodeck in the TNG pilot, when he fell into the lake, and Picard commented something to the effect that he was getting the carpet wet. Simple molecular structures are simple replicated. Only complex organisms are holographic. I'm not saying this makes sense (especially in regards to how the holodeck can then make a thirty foot square room seem immense), but thats the explanation. --Hossrex 07:47, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

The holodeck also seems to pick and choose. They can throw a book at the exit and it disappears as soon as it reaches it. My guess is stuff on the holodeck for the most part is entirely holographic (and forcefield for tactile feel), except for matter that an AI determines needs to be physical and replicated, such as food, and items it determines are intentionally being taken off the holodeck. As they were carrying the drawing, it would be seen by the AI to be intentionally being removed, and thus replicated. This is all conjecture, of course, with no basis in canon beyond my whimsical imagination. --OuroborosCobra ^talk 07:56, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

That doesn't really work. Wesley's snowball was not intentionally thrown out of the Holodeck, whereas Picard intentionally tossed the book out of the holodeck. Yet Picard's book disappeared while Wesley's snowball did not. I think Hossrex has it right – simple things are replicated, while more complex things are holograms. Since snow is just frozen water, it can be easily replicated; but the book consisted of paper, cardboard, ink, glue, etc. So the AI just saw the book as more complex and just made it a hologram. This is all speculation, of course. --From Andoria with Love 23:40, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I know this probably goes without saying, but the writers were probably just inconsistent. I like Cobra's explanation better, even if Hossrex's would seem to have more backing. Neither explanation is infallible, however. Many instances of stuff disappearing and not disappearing isn't the only problem. What about food and beverages consumed on the holodeck? Do they get excreted later back in your quarters? Hmmm... --Icesyckel 03:27, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Its possible, that the piece of paper Moriarty use to make the drawing was brought into the holodeck by Dr. Pulaski. It's not the best theory, but it is sound.

[edit] Sentience

When does Moriarty become sentient? Supposedly when Geordi's instructions to the computer go awry. However the episode clearly shows him noticing Geordi, Data, the arch etc before Geordi gives this instruction. Although it's arguable he does this before he becomes sentient, i was under the impression holodeck characters are not designed to see the holodeck user(s) as being anything out of the ordinary. So why include a shot showing him looking all puzzled at seeing them before the computer reprograms him? Can holodeck characters normally see the holodeck door and/or arch? Personal opinion? Continuity error - there's a stupid amount of inconsistency regarding the mechanics of the holodeck throughout TNG and this looks like another error that crept in. Shame.

[edit] Removed nitpick

The following nitpick was removed from the article. I have thus archived it here. --From Andoria with Love 00:11, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

When Moriarty shows Data the picture of the Enterprise, Data becomes flustered and walks out of the Holodeck. On the way to see the Captain, Geordi asks Data what was on the paper, and Data shows him the paper. At this time, however, they were outside the holodeck, and the paper should not have been able to exist. (Although it is possible that the paper and pen used were created by the replicator portion of the Holodeck simulation, and no tht e holoprojectors.)