Talk:Exocomp

FA nomination (23 June - 29 June 2005, Success)

 * Exocomp: All of the necessary information seems to be there. It could use a polish, but i'm certain it being on the featured table will help that happen. Jaf 21:12, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Support.--Scimitar 21:52, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Support. --AmdrBoltz 06:20, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Support --User:Tobyk777 25 June 2005

FA removal (19 Aug - 27 Aug 2011, Success)
Fair enough this was nominated in 2005 (and thus, we can't "grandfather"), but there is a lot missing from it in terms of quality and background notes. I have added all the points I can get from the Star Trek: The Next Generation Companion (only 1 point was mentioned before) and also an apocrypha note, but I'm sure there can be more information to add there. Additionally, three of the bg notes need citing and [personally] the whole write up could be better. I am prepared to work on this article to bring it up to scratch, but I believe it should be removed as an FA now and re-nominated once it's undergone improvement. --| TrekFan Open a channel 17:10, August 19, 2011 (UTC)


 * Support since it seems to need work.--31dot 21:44, August 19, 2011 (UTC)
 * Support - also, Template:ArticleOfTheWeek/10 needs to be replaced with other content in case of removal. -- Cid Highwind 23:30, August 19, 2011 (UTC)
 * Support - I agree that it looks like it could do with some work, such as the addition of citations. --Defiant 05:48, August 20, 2011 (UTC)

Cleanup
I've cleaned up the wording and formatting of the article, fixed some typos, and removed a number of redundant links.. has no summary at all, but this article covers pretty much all of the events in the episode, so I've filled out the episode with most of the information from this article.. Maybe the article should be trimmed down to cover the facts about exocomps and not sound so much like an episode summary? Skold 14:12, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Living creatures
Shouldn't we add androids and exocomps to the Species category? The episode makes it pretty clear that they are sentient lifeforms 187.38.215.80 17:06, February 17, 2011 (UTC)

Porygon
Is the similarities to the Pokemon a coincidence? http://www.serebii.net/pokedex-dp/137.shtml Or am I just the only one that sees this?
 * Pretty sure that's a coincidence. -Angry Future Romulan 22:10, March 11, 2011 (UTC)
 * It's definately a coincidence since Pokemon was created in 1996 and this episode aired in 1992. Although I see the resemblence, to me that particular look is typical of a small robot. --| TrekFan Open a channel 23:06, March 11, 2011 (UTC)
 * Alright, I was just curious if there was any information. And I was thinking that the Pokemon was modeled after the Exocomps, not the other way around.  If I ever meet the creator of Pokemon I will ask him.

Category
I do not think the recently added Species category is appropriate for this page. Species is a term used specifically to classify biological lifeforms, not just things that are alive(the reason given for reverting my removal). Perhaps a new category would be useful here, but I don't think it should be that one. We don't categorize other artificial lifeforms like Soong-type android as a species, or hologram, or even Emergency Medical Holographic program.--31dot 09:23, July 1, 2011 (UTC)
 * It might be easier to create an "artificial lifeforms" category, that would cover androids, holograms, exocomps, and the nanites from "Evolution". - 21:56, July 5, 2011 (UTC)
 * I would support creation of such a category. --| TrekFan Open a channel 22:22, August 20, 2011 (UTC)

Incite
I removed the following notes which are lacking citation for a while:


 * Parts of the exocomp studio model came from the AMT/Ertl D7 class model kit.


 * The exocomp prop was modified for re-use in Star Trek: Enterprise's, ten years later.


 * The same modified exocomp prop can be seen in the launch bay in Star Trek: Enterprise's.

Tom 17:02, May 20, 2012 (UTC)