Talk:Holodeck

message: Why does this contain a spoiler warning?  There are no spoilers here.  RickK 07:04, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd actually imagine that materials that are in proximity to or directly touched/assimilated by participants – like food – are actually replicated (as they are through replicator food stations) and not merely projected.  Similarly, note what happened early in the TNG episode "Angel One", when Wesley and chap got into a snow fight and Picard and Worf were hit with a snowball outside of the holodeck ... and got sick because of it.  I bet it would hurt more if the safety protocols were deactivated, though. ;)  E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 01:53, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly- Far away things (like that mountain range over there, or those trees 100 feet away) are basically 'painted on the wall', so to speak, using holographs. Closer things that you might minimally interact with (walls, trees, etc) are holographs with a force field to make them feel real. And things you interact with a lot (food, water, that stick you just snapped in two, that beach sand you just kicked, etc) is replicated. Why have the computer calculate exactly how water will splash, or the trajectory of each grain of sand? Just replicate real water and real sand!! THis explains most of the 'problems'- the snow was real snow, etc.12.110.196.19 02:38, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In one of the earliest episodes of Next Generation, Riker says that the holodeck functions, in part, like the food replicators. That supports the idea that food is food and snow snow. Merry medievalist (talk) 09:08, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled 1

message: How exactly would different elevations work on a holodeck? What would happen if a holodeck recreated a cliff and if one jumped off of it? How would the holodeck recreate the feeling of falling? Finally, upon reaching the bottom, would the person sustain any injury? 68.161.214.178 (talk) 22:38, 7 February 2006
:the holodeck can control gravity within its confines. as to what would happen...probably something like when Neo falls in the matrix and bounces off the street. Carterhawk 08:06 4 April 2006
::Though I can't cite any specific examples, even with safety protocols, people do get injured.  Miles O'Brien is one that comes to mind. PrometheusX303 13:12, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: B'Elanna Torres is another example - she went skydiving, actively feeling the fall. She disengaged the safety protocols, and almost injured herself. However, Tom Paris was not affected by the 'gravity', even though Torres was still falling - Weebiloobil 14:07, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled 2

message: I always found holodecks facinating and one of the conundrums i had was how did people not bump into the holodeck walls in large simulated environments. I thought that the use of the virtual treadmill solved it but then i realized there was another issue: what would happen when on an open plain with two people, they start out standing next to each other, then one of them starts to walk backward from the other(always keeping their eyes on that person), since a real person on a holodeck is not generated by the computer after a certain period one of the people would hit the holodeck wall because the appropriate distance would need to be maintained visually and  it could not be overcome by the holodeck itself - is there any official star trek science that would explain how this would be avoided? 24.239.133.170 02:07, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nothing official I know about, but perhaps if the holodeck could simply create some suspended lens that would make objects seen through it appear to be farther away...?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.121.4.97 (talk) 21:58, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Simple - Star Trek is not real.  You're just supposed to accept that the holodeck creates an imaginary reality and works perfectly, except when the plot needs it not to. 66.32.12.48 01:09, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not only does the holodeck use virtual treadmills, it also uses cleverly-placed optics, to make the person seem further away.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Weebiloobil (talk • contribs) 08:49, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The holodeck is a lame plot device, thought up by writers to lazy to create a believable background story. Episodes featuring it are invariably ludicrous. And why even bother having the safety protocols at all? They always disable them which inevitably leads to disaster.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.125.235.118 (talk) 14:48, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: virtual treadmill issues

message: The section about holosuites is a complete mess! It doesn't even make sense.
More or less, holosuite is just another term for holodeck.
Marcus1060 06:33, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I changed this section. This nothing anywhere that says, or even suggests, there is a difference between a holosuite and a holodeck. Just like saying Computer, or PC. Marcus1060 23:57, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Holosuites

message: The X-Men's Danger Room in his second form with Shi'ar technology (the form that can be seen in the movie) seems to be virtually identical to the holodecks. I'm not sure wich one came first, but I think the Danger Room could be listed as either being inspired or being an inspiration for the holodecks in Star Trek.85.59.66.95 07:23, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Marvel.com  says it predated not only the holodeck but the Star Trek franchise itself: (growl. I hate websites you can't copy text from) First appearance: (Unidentified) X-Men #1 (1964), (as Danger Room) X-Men #2, (1964). Personally, as often as the stupid thing broke, the first thing I'd do as captain is weld the door shut. --StarChaser Tyger (talk) 06:17, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Holodecks/Danger Room similitudes 

message: There was an older Star Trek novel where Dr. McCoy was trapped inside a holodeck which had been programmed to simulate an ever-changing garden maze, slowly driving him insane (or severely depressed), whereupon he began to appreciate the pyschological effects of such technology.
Unfortunate thing about ST:TNG is that they never explored the concept far enough. The possibilities for sex, torture, brainwashing, extreme training, practical jokes, crime, betrayal, etc. are endless and due to the inherent drama, highly entertaining. Lt. Barclay's addiction was pretty much their high point. Voyager's showcasing of a society permanently living in a holoverse is also notable, especially since the people were not allowed to leave and were slowly losing their marbles (which raises an interesting point about a suspended, slow-acting sensory deprivation effect, or perhaps more of an accumulative reality-detachment effect similar to what happens to those playing Second Life or MMORG games too much).  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.68.70.186 (talk) 19:40, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pyschological Issues 

message: Well, cor blimey, it's an article about a fictional TV show. Should there be a disclaimer after every sentence stating that it merely references to a fictional universe? I've removed the { { fiction } }-tag 82.204.49.30 03:40, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, but we might have to go that far if literalist idiots complain. ShutterBugTrekker 23:32, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  May fail to make a clear distinction between fact and fiction?! 

message: I've removed the following from the lead, since I can't verify it at the moment, it seems a bit "trivia-ish", and it needs rewriting (and wikifying) by someone familiar with the relevant series (was this in TNG? -- I don't remember): "100 years before the events of Enterprise, Jean-Luc Picard was in Earth's past and had a human from that time period named Lily along with him on board the Enterprise. When they were running from the Borg on his starship they hid in the holodeck, therefore introducing the technology before Trip got to see it." - dcljr (talk) 02:22, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Removed content

message: Shouldn't this be removed? It's a long and boring list of holodeck "in popular culture"! I would keep 1 or 2 oldest appearance of the concept (Bradbury and Clifford Simak? Maybe X-Men?) and the quotation from Ivan Sutherland, both mingled with the text, not in a separated section. Or, at least, I'd delete everything after the X-Men reference.   189.81.254.170 (talk) 01:15, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Strongly Agree  Not only is it tedious and not only does it actually obstruct the reader's understanding (like most of these kinds of lists), but it is almost perfectly unsourced and is a violation of Wikipedia guidelines on using pop culture to create such meaningless bullet-point compendia.  The list as it is tells us very little about the Star Trek Holodeck, and contributes minimally to our understanding of the concept - which is already detailed at exhaustive length earlier in the article.  I would keep a few of the sourced entries to give a little bit of context, but the rest should clearly be removed, or incorporated into the main body of text where possible and appropriate (again, in accordance with explicit Wikipedia guidelines) Cpaaoi (talk) 23:54, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, the article is way too long and written in an extremely confusing way! Cpaaoi (talk) 00:01, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I see this article is rated as 'C class', indicating that it contains a lot of irrelevant material.  I'm going to get on and sort this out: I think the Holodeck deserves a better page than this Cpaaoi (talk) 00:58, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Similar technology in other works