For general discussion, please visit Memory Alpha's Discussions feature, or join the chat on Discord.
FA status[]
Nomination (11 May - 23 May 2006, Success)[]
This is a self-nomination as I was the primary author of the article. I believe that it meets the criteria for being a featured article in that it is well-written, comprehensive as to its subject matter, accurate, and stable. It also has the distinction of being a subject not dealt with in any other Star Trek site I am aware of, so it is unique to Memory Alpha. I placed the article up for Peer Review, but after a week without suggestions I thought I'd just go for it. Thoughts? Aholland 18:17, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
- Support. This article is really well done, and I am a strong supporter of broadening our range of featured articles. Well done. Jaz talk 20:53, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
- Comment. What does this mean (under the final patent): I suppose that Spock's body could be a "similar article" to a pen and pencil set, but it is a very odd designation, regardless. I think i missed the humor there; either way it's not quite the right POV. ;) --Vedek Dukat Talk | Duty Roster 21:19, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
- It was intended as humor, but I can understand your point. I'll see what I can do to keep the point while adjusting the POV. Aholland 01:57, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
- Support. Really cool article and nicely done with the layout and information. My only nitpick with this is the relatively few links to the article. It seems that the only articles this is relevant for are the ones that directly link to it, which are in turn back linked from this article. It would be great if we could find a way to expand the linking to get this one more exposure. Good work. Logan 5 03:03, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
- Support. I didn't mean to be a spoilsport when I watered down Aholland's humor during my prior copyedits - it's really quite well done and (this is rare) something I doubt anyone has covered before - but I wanted to make sure it conformed to MA guidelines (and in the case I pointed out above, it went over my head as I've not seen the film in question - I get it now that you've reworded it though). Anyway, great example of how MA is a premiere source for Trek related info, right alongside Ex Astris Scientia. --Vedek Dukat Talk | Duty Roster 06:58, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Review (04 May - 18 May 2015, Upheld)[]
This one is due to its age ready for a reappraisal. That being said, it is to this date one of the finest MA-articles I've ever laid eyes upon, as old as it is. Very few revisions have been made since the earliest days of MA , but few were required. In my view, the sublime organization and scope of the article are still beyond par, and it still deserves to be upheld as a FA...--Sennim (talk) 22:42, May 4, 2015 (UTC)
- Support: An interesting article. It appears complete and providing there are no further patents to be added, I am happy to support it's continued status as an FA. --| TrekFan Open a channel 22:59, May 4, 2015 (UTC)
And you know what, virtually none of it was mine, but from an earlier contributor...When I came upon this article, I was mightily impressed by the way that ancient archivist organized the article. (btw, as far as I could ascertain, Paramount ceased going for patents after TNG-S1, or in other words 1987)--Sennim (talk) 23:13, May 4, 2015 (UTC)
Rewording[]
Although I recognize that my prose is hardly deathless, some changes introduced should be revised.
- Changing "Clearly a lazy examiner worked this one as that same reference was used in the 1968 patent also referenced)" to "(An oversight occurred, as the same reference was used in both this patent and the 1968 one)" is incorrect. It is not an "oversight" as that implies a mistake and no mistake took place. It was not an error, it was being lazy by failing to cite any prior art between 1964 and the examination date of the communictor patent (there were a lot of Dick Tracy things between the two dates.)
- Deltion of "There is also a timeliness issue, but since the X-wing got one at D254080 . . . .)" removes the other reason why a patent could be rejected: lack of timly filing after first use. I revised it slightly to make that distinction clearer. Aholland 19:04, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
- Memory Alpha is obviously written by fans for fans and therefore is not Wikipedia, but we do try to keep a mostly neutral tone, hence the first change. The removal wasn't really because it was confusing and didn't give enough context. Although it's possible I was just overwhelmed by the sheer wealth of info already on this new page and didn't read it carefully enough. ;) --Vedek Dukat Talk | Duty Roster 20:12, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
- Point taken. I revised it to remove the accusation of his being lazy, but still noted the reference re-use (as I think it is a little interesting - but perhaps that's just me!) Aholland 21:46, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
Peer review[]
I am looking for any suggestions to change or improve the article such that it can be recommended up as a featured article. – The preceding unsigned comment was added by Aholland (talk • contribs). May 5th, 2006
Page move[]
Based on the point of view of this article, I think it would be wise to move design patents to Star Trek design patents because the article title has the ability to conflict with the "in universe" reference to patents. --Alan del Beccio 05:57, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
- I second the motion. --OuroborosCobra talk 06:04, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
Not enough links[]
I make relatively few edits here, and since this is a featured article I'm going to bring it up on the talk page first. There aren't nearly enough wikilinks in this aritlce. This is the kind of article where you might skim over it until you find something that especially interests you, and so each section should be treated as independent from the others. For example, if the section on the USS Enterprise-D (patent D307923) mentions the Reliant, Reliant should be linked there, regardless of whether it was previously linked to. The reader should never have to search for a link. (In making this comment, I also intended to link directly to the section I used in my example, but the article isn't set up for that, either. Maybe tags like <span id="D307923"></span> would be handy.) — LCARS 18:12, 16 July 2008 (UTC)