Talk: Karen Horney

Appearance[]

Where exactly was this seen in the episode, and for how long? An image would help. Was the book actually seen or was it just said/shown that this person wrote it? If so the book shouldn't get an article. 31dot (talk) 23:25, February 24, 2015 (UTC)

Groan. I included this information in the background note. It's when Data is researching the Dixon Hill Series. See here [1]. I have written articles for books mentioned in the paragraph. Are we now going to list these books as items for deletion? They are readable in the HD version - this isn't the same as the country articles. As for an image, I don't have screencap technology. If I understand you, when I see x wrote y, then I can write about x, not y. However, for example, there is "Incredible Tales". I have seen where both x and y have articles. I don't see a difference between the two. I see a precedent with the "IT". Lakenheath72 (talk) 23:56, February 24, 2015 (UTC)

It might have helped if you started the bg note by explaining "what" pages you were talking about. Also, in what context were these pages viewed? Wasn't this text suppose to be part of "...all stories involving [Dixon Hill]."? Wouldn't that make this a fictional person rather than a Human? - Archduk3 05:15, February 25, 2015 (UTC)

Data is researching the Dixon Hill series on the computer. Ex-Astris-Scientia has detailed information on the pages seen during the research. [2] The authors include a mixture of real and fictional elements in their works. I did work on some of these pages as Throwback in 2012. Before I started working on Humans, people were already identifying fictional characters who were holograms as Humans, ex. Vic Fontaine. Though they are fictional, they are still Human for they are written and acted that way, unless they are something else. As for the real elements in the Dixon Hill series, I treat them as I would a real world element in Star Trek - which is to stay close to what is written or seen and include a link to the real thing if I can. I don't know the word for it, but I see it as Russian Doll situation. Lakenheath72 (talk) 06:20, February 25, 2015 (UTC)

The species categories are "is" categories, as in James T. Kirk is Human, where Vic Fontaine is not. It seems the Holograms category needs to be broken down so the sub-categories can be in both Holograms and the whatever species they are patterned after. Hologram doesn't equal fictional character either, even though a lot of Holograms we see are of fictional characters. That leads to the whole "is Data a person" question.

The question of context I'm trying to get at is: "How was this page suppose to tie in with the character of Dixon Hill?" Is this page 37 of a Dixon Hill novel in-universe? Were the novels mentioned on the page suppose to be "real" in the Star Trek universe or just the world of Dixon Hill? If you knew nothing of the real world, what would you think this page is? - Archduk3 07:00, February 25, 2015 (UTC)

I don't think I can answer that question. My training in being a "normal" person with an autistic condition is that I need to live in the "real" world. (Reality is a philosophical concept, so this is a concept I am having trouble with. I do understand that reality is subjective, which means that if there is miscommunication, one of the reasons for that might be a misunderstanding of someone else's reality.) Using facts, I would say the pages are from two obscure mystery novels written in the first half of the century. The person or people in charge of the graphics, for whatever reason, chose text that couldn't be read at the time, and was convincing enough that the audience believed that Data was actually seeing pages from a Dixon Hill novel or novels. (Just like they used numbers in lieu of words on displays that weren't readable then.) Lakenheath72 (talk) 07:45, February 25, 2015 (UTC)

Groaning aside; based on The Neurotic Personality of Our Time (which I'm still not convinced merits a page) it seems that this person was mentioned in a Dixon Hill book and is not a real Human. 31dot (talk) 09:07, February 25, 2015 (UTC)

I would rather put aside the question of what merits a page, since that's already being decided elsewhere, and deal with the problems on the page itself for now. As far as I see it, these pages don't actually establish context; this page in particular doesn't mention at all where and when we saw page 37 of Dangerous Ground outside of the episode citation, let alone who was reading that page and why. All of that needs to be added in-universe, but first we need to decided if Dangerous Ground is "suppose" to be a Dixon Hill novel or not. Is there any reason that it couldn't be, because I'm inclined to think that it is. - Archduk3 01:24, February 26, 2015 (UTC)

When I created the pages based on what Data is reading in the episode, I didn't pause long enough to think should I do this. The pages were meant, in their time, to be seen as pages from a Dixon Hill novel or novels. They weren't meant to be analysed and written about as has happen. I think we should honor the intent of those who selected and put the pages in, and imagine that they are pages from that series of mystery novels, and not write more articles. I think the pages already written should be considered for deletion, if their only source is this episode. Lakenheath72 (talk) 19:15, March 1, 2015 (UTC)

I don't think the fact that these articles should be deleted follows from the above discussion (yet). So, please don't unilaterally put a whole lot of articles up for deletion like you did once before in another discussion, wait until this discussion reaches a conclusion. -- Capricorn (talk) 06:13, March 3, 2015 (UTC)