Ad blocker interference detected!
Wikia is a free-to-use site that makes money from advertising. We have a modified experience for viewers using ad blockers
Wikia is not accessible if you’ve made further modifications. Remove the custom ad blocker rule(s) and the page will load as expected.
I remember Kes as having a temporary holo recording / program in the Voyager episode "Fury." It was was activated and it talked to a future version of Kes who came back in time to destroy the USS Voyager. Not sure if that qualifies.--Jlandeen 11:36, December 20, 2009 (UTC)
- That was a holographic recording, not a holographic recreation, so my guess would be probably not(at least given how the article defines it currently).--31dot 14:07, December 20, 2009 (UTC)
- Agreed, that's essentially the same as a regular old recorded message on a viewscreen, which wouldn't be worth noting. -Mdettweiler 17:41, December 20, 2009 (UTC)
Arrangement of information useful? Edit
I'm not trying to dispute the usefulness of the information itself - but is this really the best way to display that information? For example, there's an image of Worf up for deletion right now (because a near-duplicate from the same episode exists), with a "Keep" vote based on the fact that the two images show two different holographic duplicates of Worf.
I counted five images of Worf on this page, where there is no visible difference to the "real" Worf character. Riker is a close second with four images. So, why do we need different images, if the character looks just as he always looks? Just because this list is maintained as a set of image galleries?
Wouldn't it be better to just list where a specific character was recreated holographically, for example on the article about that character, than to have a huge gallery of images not being nearly as informative? -- Cid Highwind 19:56, December 20, 2009 (UTC)
- It was debated, at length, on Forum:Additional characters what constituted a "additional appearance" (along with the term/name). It was decided, and apparently already the standard, that a physically different character was an additional one, so each and every hologram is a different character, hence they have their own images, since each one is a different character. That being said, this list uses images (since I originally compiled it from the actors pages and the "[character] (hologram)" pages. So in response to your comment on the image deletion page, yes, we are overthinking this, IMO at least.- Archduk3:talk 20:42, December 20, 2009 (UTC)
- Also, when the merge discussion on the aforementioned pages is settled, I was going to start writing more detailed explanations. - Archduk3:talk 20:45, December 20, 2009 (UTC)
That doesn't really answer the question I was asking, though. Is this article, with the information it contains arranged in the way it is, really useful to anyone?
If I want to know "which holographic duplicates exist?", then this information is currently hidden behind informal section names such as "Picard's program", and scattered across the whole article. If the question is "how often was Worf holographically recreated?", then this information can currently only be found by scanning through the whole article to hopefully find matching images.
Independent of any "debated naming scheme", wouldn't it be much better if I could just have a look at the page of the character, and found a section "Holographic duplicates" that lists these? Or, if it needs to be this separate article, then at least one sorted by character, and not by, basically, episode? (BTW, if it's a list article, it should be moved to Holographic duplicates). -- Cid Highwind 23:01, December 20, 2009 (UTC)
- The article is arranged this way since it's suppose to be more than just a list article, as in describing why there were duplicates instead of just listing them (as it does now). I was also trying to avoid this: [Character X] was recreated for [reason Y] in [year]. Putting the information in a sortable table might work, as I agree that being able to see the info by character would be nice (I'll be playing around with this idea). As for interlinking to the characters pages, that needs to be done, but since the individual hologram articles are linked at the top of each one, I figured when those are removed would be the best time to do that (since this page is the compromise between the info on the character page and separate articles). As for useful, this plot device is used about once every two seasons, so I think it is a good idea to mention this somewhere, especially since they are listed on the actor's pages and placing the info on the character's pages themselves would be contrariety to the fact that they are not the character. Mainly this page just needs work. - Archduk3:talk 00:51, December 21, 2009 (UTC)
- With the change to a sortable table, I think the point you made about finding out how many times a character had been holographically duplicated has been addressed, though the tables default layout is essentially still by episode. As for name, yes it should be moved back to holographic duplicates, since it is now more list that article, though I would wait until after the discussion on Forum:X (hologram) pages is finished. - Archduk3 09:53, January 11, 2010 (UTC)
- I have forged ahead and created a revised temp of this split up by Centuries and Year ranges: Holographic duplicate/temp. This is probably the best way to go about this. Yes, we still need to go through and add all holographic duplicates (not just Starfleet/UFP personnel) into it. Plus, a lot of the information is either misspelled, incorrect, badly worded or repetitive and I will be making those changes (slowly) on the temp page.--Obey the Fist!! 13:19, March 26, 2010 (UTC)
- Episode references if I remember correctly. Most of it was the repeating of "Dr. Lewis Zimmerman created the EMH Mark I based on his own likeness...blah blah blah." I understand adding it once but not every time The Doctor is mentioned as a different hologram.--Obey the Fist!! 12:44, March 29, 2010 (UTC)
- After working on cleaning up "Tinker Tenor Doctor Spy" I realized that none of The Doctor's shown daydreams were added here, and possibly not on Seven's, Torres, or any other crewmember who was shown on the holodeck while Kim, Janeway, Seven, and Torres watched.--Obey the Fist!! 13:15, March 30, 2010 (UTC)
- They were not, as the only info that was added to the individual pages that isn't here is from "Human Error". - Archduk3 13:55, March 30, 2010 (UTC)
Temp to Main Edit
I'm writing this to formally ask that we adopt my modifications on arrangement to this article found at: Holographic duplicate/temp as the main article (basically a merge). The information is more logically laid out by year spans and is therefore easier to edit as you only have to edit each section, instead of the whole article (which is too big for some browsers, like mine).--Obey the Fist!! 14:06, March 30, 2010 (UTC)
- While I don't have a problem with breaking up the table, as it is quite big, I don't think breaking it down by year is the best answer either. I'll merge it since its better than the current layout, but breaking it down by person may be a better option, as Cid said above. - Archduk3 15:22, March 30, 2010 (UTC)
I went with "by year" breakdown becuase the DATES seem to be the most prominent information on the table. But I have always had a problem with the dates becuase they are counter-intuitive and it is not explicity stated that the standalone dates are given for when the hologram program takes place. HOWEVER, this is not the case with Barclay's fantasy of The Three Musketers being broken out from the 24th century. I didn't move where they were located originally, going by the current framework, they should be first under a 17th Century header. With all of this said, I might have to agree that Cid is correct in breaking it up by person. Arch, do you want me to create another temp page for a view of how it would look broken up by character? This doesn't clear up the fact that the date column is confusing but it would be good to see how the name breakout would look.--Obey the Fist!! 17:01, March 30, 2010 (UTC)
- I'm actually playing with this right now. I'm about to add the "Human Error" holograms, so maybe I'll switch the page afterwards. I'm not sure we would need to create another temp page for that, as the current format is already the third one tried. - Archduk3 17:16, March 30, 2010 (UTC)
- Actually, if you have some ideas on how to improve the table, you can play with the template here. I've already updated it to what I think would work best if the page was broken up by person, but more input never hurt. - Archduk3 19:14, March 30, 2010 (UTC)
- Do we really need a name slot if it's already going to be divided by name? - Archduk3 19:57, March 30, 2010 (UTC)
LOL, I forgot about that....oh my.--Obey the Fist!! 20:12, March 30, 2010 (UTC)
Arch, the page looks 10000 times better. Great idea by Cid to separate it out by name, and thanks to you for creating the table.--Obey the Fist!! 12:39, March 31, 2010 (UTC)
If I'm not mistaken this episode has The Doctor and Seven running a holo-simulation of her interactions with crewmembers in the mess hall. Do we have screenshots?--Obey the Fist!! 12:43, March 31, 2010 (UTC)
Photons Be Free: Interactive? Edit
All of the holograms from Photons Be Free are currently denoted as non-interactive. This was definitely shown to not be the case in the episode, since people playing the program interacted with holographic characters normally within their role as the EMH. Before changing this myself, though, I figured I'd check to see if there was a definite reasoning behind this, or if it was just a blooper that got copied over to all the Photons Be Free holograms. -Mdettweiler 22:31, April 1, 2010 (UTC)
I added T'Pau, but then I got to thinking about EMH program 4C. Most of those characters (except for da Vinci!) were long-dead and couldn't have been holo-scanned or whatever at any point to get an accurate duplicate. Would they be better off as "holographic representations" of historic figures or should we treat them as duplicates even if there is no logical source and their images likely deviate strongly. I'm rusty and I'm probably over-thinking it. Off the top of my head, Einstein, Newton, and Hawking (which is *really* accurate) would apply as well.--Tim Thomason 04:34, July 4, 2010 (UTC)
- I think it would be safe to list them with the duplicates. You could add a reference tag to them saying that it seems unlikely that they are exact copies, for the reasons you stated, but I seem to remember an episode where Data was able to get the computer to remove someone from a photograph to see who was behind them (I really wish I could remember which episode this was), so who knows what could be done with some old photos. Not that there were photos when Flint was da Vinci, but who knows what could be done with a painting? - Archduk3 08:14, July 12, 2010 (UTC)
- Yes! It was bugging me that it didn't seem to be linked with photograph. Thanks. - Archduk3 09:15, July 12, 2010 (UTC)
I admit I'm not 100% up to date with how we deal with this, but shouldn't Reginald Barclay (hologram) and Morn (hologram) be merged with this page? And given that Photons Be Free is here, possibly also Kira (hologram). -- Capricorn 21:01, February 9, 2011 (UTC)
- Oddly, Barclay had essentially been merged already, just the actual histories had never been merged. Weird. I'll get to Morn and Kira later. -- sulfur 21:10, February 9, 2011 (UTC)
- I had thought that those examples were different than the one-offs that were merged in that round of merging, which is why these three were left. They weren't exact duplicates of their characters.--31dot 21:15, February 9, 2011 (UTC)
- The Barclay one had mostly the same text on both instances. That's why I figured that it had just been missed. I haven't even looked at the other two. -- sulfur 21:20, February 9, 2011 (UTC)
- Do you recall where the discussion of that merging is?--31dot 21:22, February 9, 2011 (UTC)
- Forum:X (hologram) pages. -- sulfur 21:23, February 9, 2011 (UTC)
- Those three weren't merged here because none of them were, they were merged into the character pages. This page just lists them all with details. That said, Barclay and Kira were not agreed upon in the merge discussion, and there was talk of splitting Seska's hologram off her page even. - Archduk3 21:47, February 9, 2011 (UTC)
- Ah, that's what I was a little confused about. We had only merged the one-off, largely functionary duplicates with the person they were based on- not those which were different from their characters and have some information to go with them, if I recall.--31dot 21:50, February 9, 2011 (UTC)
- Pretty much. While Morn wasn't covered, since I didn't know about it, the same reasoning behind keeping the Kira hologram would apply there. Reg's article should be restored either way, since that was never even discussed, and it has now been merged to the wrong article. - Archduk3 21:58, February 9, 2011 (UTC)
- Of course, the Barclay hologram's text was duplicated here. That should not be the case at all with an de-merge. -- sulfur 22:13, February 9, 2011 (UTC)
- It's now de-merged again, but the two links in the Barclay section should not go to the same page as they do. One is for the program, the other the hologram, yet they both go to the same place... Also, slimmed down the text so that it wasn't a duplicate of the other article. -- sulfur 22:21, February 9, 2011 (UTC)
- Removing that potion of the text actually removes the info describing the image used here, as well as the status of the program. If the brief description here (the why and status) duplicates an article, that's more of a statement on that article, not this one. As for the holographic program link being the same thing, we don't have page for unnamed holographic programs yet (mainly because that's almost all of them). - Archduk3 22:28, February 9, 2011 (UTC)