There was no reference to the term "control computer", rather Spock asked: "I presume you are the planet's master computer?" Reply: "Correct." Seems more logical to use this, than a name or implication that wasn't even used in the dialog. --Alan del Beccio 01:15, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
The naming of this page is inconsistent with Bynar master computer. Neither page has any claim above the other to the namespace "Master Computer". However, rather then renaming this page I think there's an even better action: In neither episode is the master computer mentioned in any other way then that planets might have master computers, and these two instances qualify as examples. (TNG:"they have become so interconnected with the master computer on their planet", and TAS: "I presume you are the planet's master computer")
So, what I'm suggesting is this: merge Bynar master computer into this page, and then make the page in an article about the general type of object, of which we have two examples to report. -- Capricorn (talk) 15:28, March 9, 2017 (UTC)
- I was thinking of this when I created the Bynar master computer page. I find it difficult to think of these two things as instances of "master computer" since they each have a different scope. The Bynar computer is much more than simply a recreation device, whereas the SLP master computer here is really just a mind scanner + holoemitter (like the neural scanners of Barash's mother that Barash used) that developed an AI over time. Plus, for a "master computer" article, you would have to include Custodian, Landru, Vaal. I would suggest considering them examples of "computer systems" like in Computer#Advanced computers. In fact, it makes sense to move the content in both articles to a subsection there called "unnamed advanced computers". Thebilldude (talk) 23:58, March 9, 2017 (UTC)
I don't think we ought to include things like Vaal, that's much too speculatory. What we know is that Starfleet officers have a concept of there being this thing called a planet's Master computer, and we have two examples of computers that qualified for the title. What we think doesn't even matter much, what matters is the assesement of those characters, they're the one who know what they're talking about when they're using certain terms. -- Capricorn (talk) 17:59, March 12, 2017 (UTC)
- Agreed that's the right attitude, but there's a limit to that. These appear to be cases where the characters are not using precise language and we should not take them literally, so I disagree that we know Starfleet has a defined concept of a "master computer." Note that Picard uses the term descriptively in the first case, without a formal definition from someone who would know. Furthermore, Riker, and the Bynar-programmed Minuet, call it the "main computer" so the language is not consistent. In the second case, the SLP computer accepted Spock's description but at other times in the episode it accepts multiple names for objects and concepts (like the Enterprise and murder), so it isn't clear that that is the formal term.
- However, this doesn't mean we can't group them together as "advanced computer systems" or "advanced computers" and title the pages accordingly. My preferred option is having an "unnamed computer system" section, either as a stand-alone article or within the computer article like above. Thebilldude (talk) 23:33, March 12, 2017 (UTC)
Are you suggesting the two pages ought to be merged into Computer? That seems excessive when we have so conveniently have a term for them. And there's definatly some kind concept of a "master computer", even if it's maybe only informal, because otherwise no one would use the term and expect others to know what they were talking about. -- Capricorn (talk) 16:06, March 16, 2017 (UTC)
- Yes, but my point is that, when the only defining quality is some kind of master / slave or master / subsystem relationship, AND that a character happened to use "master computer" to describe it, it doesn't make for a particularly useful article on Memory Alpha. The reader would be confused when comparing the article to other computer articles -- like Custodian, etc. -- and many others to which a character (or yourselves and I) could have easily used the term to describe them.
- Note again that the characters were only guessing at the description, and the Bynar-programmed Minuet (who would know) did not use the term. The Bynar computer was intertwined with the Bynar themselves, but the SLP computer didn't work that way. The SLP computer had an AI in it, but there was no mention of that in "11001001" for the Bynar computer. I don't see any commonalities that don't apply to other computer systems. In fact, what differentiates the Bynar computer from the Borg, in these respects? The Echo Papa 607? Any of the Enterprise main computers? These have AIs and control vast amounts of subsystems, but no one described them as "master computers."
- My preferred option is a single article / section as you suggest, Capricorn, I just would rather title it "advanced computers" or "Advanced computer systems" rather than try to define "master computer" -- it would encompass a more relevant grouping and be a more useful article. If you don't want to use the computer article, a separate article is just fine. Thebilldude (talk) 18:24, March 18, 2017 (UTC)
Ok, I'm gonna write a lot of stuff, but the last paragraph is the key one, don't write a lengthy answer but ignore that - if anything do the reverse. Firstly, I'm not even sure where you get this master/slave defining quality from. I don't think any real clear defining qualities were given at all. Also I fully expect there to be some differences between the Caretaker's and Bynar computer. But all that doesn't matter, we don't need detailed commonalities, and we don't need to be experts on how a certain type of technology works before we're allowed to have an article on it. If we don't know how a master computer is defined most exactly, then we'll just have to do with what little information we have.
Also, where are you getting that the term master computer in the Bynar ep was only a guess? There's nothing to suggest that. Yes, there's inconsistent terminology, but that's hardly unusual, and that hasn't ever stopped us unless things we're absolutely irreconcilable. I think you have a weirdly inconsistent position in this is that you don't feel there's enough data to merge these two things described by the same term together, but at the same time want to group a whole lot of stuff together based on the inherently vague idea of them being "advanced".
Look, if you want this advanced computer article, then please start a split suggestion at Computer#Advanced computers. The core of that discussion has very little to do with this. I assume you don't want o merge Vaal, Echo Papa 607, etc all into one Advanced computer article, so why does that proposed article have anything to do with resolving the terminology issue here. Also, on top of everyone else, I want to remind you that the way the two articles are currently named is inconsistent - that at the very least need to be resolved. -- Capricorn (talk) 20:53, March 18, 2017 (UTC)
- Um, I'm sorry if I came off antagonistic, I didn't intend that. I take your point about the Computer article -- if that can exist independently of this, I'll drop it here. For the master computer article, I'm assuming it needs a meaningful definition independent of the examples -- that's why I was talking about commonalities. I understand now you're saying the article can just be a few words and then the examples. If that's the case, I just don't find it a useful article and would prefer to rename both articles as "Bynar computer" and "Shore Leave Planet computer" to resolve the inconsistency, since neither one was formally named. But if I'm in the minority, that's fine. Thebilldude (talk) 19:46, March 19, 2017 (UTC)
Oh no sorry, I don't think you came of too antagonistic, so the fact that you think so must mean that I did. Sorry, that wasn't my intention. I guess I got a bit frustrated, because this seems like a simple case to me, and what you're proposing seems either not directly relevant, or not really in line with established practice. But you're not in the minority. Only two people have commented, so we're running in circles a bit here, and I fear we might have a deadlock. Regarding the worry that the master computer article would not be all that interesting without detailed explanation, that might be so, but that's not really a reason to not have an article, the info still needs to be represented somewhere. And the split of the info over two articles would seem to lead to articles that you'd then consider at least as bad, or worse. -- Capricorn (talk) 05:34, March 23, 2017 (UTC)